They shine is a very good (and correct) answer. I have been apprehensive about watching Stardust, Neil's second movie (the first is Mirrormask for those who have forgotten). After all, I read the book. Stardust was not a favourite story of mine, I like his American Gods, Sandman and short stories more, but I was not going to pass up a chance to see a Neil movie. I feel a little bad, but I liked the movie better.
The prologue brought a lot of fun for me. Dunstan was, of course, very amusing. His 'It's a field.' bit seemed very Gaiman-esque. I love how it starts with a letter, too. But mostly it had Sir Ian (McKellen) as narrator. Some my know or remember, but I am a great fan of that man. He is wonderful. To hear his voice again in a movie is great.
The movie went on and I positively loved it when Yvaine fell. I love how her falling pulled the characters together. The King and his sons (Primus, Tertius, Septimus and Secundus) was wonderful and funny. I was rather fond of them in the book and they were great in the movie (my favourite being Septimus). I love their costumes, the number pertaining to their name being sewn into it. The brothers must kill each other for someone to succeed to the throne, leading to the accidental poisoning of others, such as the bishop. However I loved the scene when Septimus is asking a soothsayer questions (the soothsayer casts runes). I am rather fond of smart yet wittily amusing 'evil' characters.
Something I was very afraid for when I looked at the stills, was the costuming. In the stills, everything looks plain or cliche. During the movie, the costumes were great. Lamia's (the main witch) being the most intriguing. I would say I hate it, but it worked very well. I quite liked all of the costumes, even the one Tristan wears closer to the end. That one looked quite terrible in the stills, but it worked very well in the movie.
Along with the stills, the poster and trailer was not very helpful to the promoting of the movie. None of them were very good. I don't like the poster's colours (dark blue and orange). The trailer does not promote the feel as well but is better than the stills or poster. If you looked at them and thought 'not seeing this movie, rip-off of fantasy' then go see the movie. Much better than the promotions.
As with adaptions go, things need to change. The strangest I thought was of Tristran. In the movie, the main character's name is Tristan. In the book, it is Tristran. Apparently it is for the R impaired. The ending was a major change, and if you've read the book, it makes a lot of sense. They leave a few things out, like the Tori Amos tree or the leprechaun, but that I don't mind so much.
What did NOT change was the feel of the book. They got the feel very much spot on. The characters were the same, the feel was the same. Like Lord of the Rings, it is one of the more successful movie adaptions.
My dad, who knew nothing of the book and had no opinion of the movie before hand (he only saw it because of us), immensely enjoyed it. He prefers movies that are not over-ridiculous fantasy-wise. He said, and I agree, that once it started playing, you could get into it very easily. It began playing and that was it, you were listening. I believe that to be one of the greatest compliments, especially for Neil. One of the most important things for storytellers to do is to make their story easily listened to. If someone starts listening, reading or watching, and they cannot tear away, then that is marvellous. He said that even my step-mum would probably like it, and she is not a fantasy type at all.
I agree with my dad in that this is not what you would call fantasy so much as fanciful. You accept that some where in England there is a small town named Wall and that at some point, a boy crossed the wall into a land that was not England but Stormhold, a country filled with magic. Unlike a lot of fantasy, which tends to take place (with the exception of Lord of the Rings) on an Earth-like planet with dragons, fae and magic, Stardust takes place on Earth, sort of. Neil is not trying to convince but just stating that this could have happened.
See this movie. It is fun and amusing. Smart and witty. Enchanting and fanciful.
Other reviews:
VFXWorld on CGI
Stephen Bissette
Metacritic Collection
NPR - Audio
Thompson with Princess Bride
Pre-Thoughts on It
SFGate
Mike Caprio's Blog
BadMouth's Take
Denver Post's Article
Movie Cafe's View on Its Flaws
Daily Texan's Article
Tulsa World's
SFGate's 2nd
If you get a chance to, go check Rottentomatoes.com. I'm not able to connect right now. They tend to have a lot of nice reviews and I like their rating system. At the moment, I think, it's supposed to be at 73% (out of 100).
FINALLY:
Stardust's Official Site
One of the Better Posters I've Seen
...
Currently Reading: Twinkies, Deconstructed by Steve Ettlinger and Showcase Presents: House of Mystery (comic)
Currently Watching: various episodes and seasons of House MD
Currently Listening: the soundtrack previews on Stardust's site
Friday 17 August 2007
Tuesday 14 August 2007
The Alchemyst {The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel}
It took a while to decide what I should review. After all, the latest and last Harry Potter came out. Despite that, I chose The Alchemyst {The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel} by Michael Scott. (Michael Scott's website and the book's website, both a little hard to read until it loads completely. Amazon's page.)
I entered my local, small book retailer in town and spotted a new young adult's book displayed titled The Alchemyst. What really caught my eye was the Nicholas Flamel bit. As a reader of Harry Potter (not truly a big FAN fan, but I read it when it first comes out) it caught my eye. My first though was 'Oh, it's a rip-off! Must read.' (Some may ask why but you must remember that I read a fair share of BAD books as well as good.) A rip-off is something that was a must-read, especially a strange angle to use Nicholas Flamel. I read the back and found it was about hetero-twins, about a girl and boy rather than two girls or two boys, who had some prophecy written about them (possibly at least but we all know how these things go) and end up caught up in this magical fiasco with an immortal and his wife against others immortals (and probably THEIR wives). The bookseller said it was pretty good and I travelled off home to set it on my pile of books.
A little while later, I read it. Finished it. What surprised me was that it was NOT a Harry Potter rip-off. What also surprised me was that it was apart of a series and now I'm stuck in yet another one (this keeps happening). I like how it starts off in a flurry yet some how slightly calm beginning. AS for two teens, Sophie and John Newman, thrown into the middle of something strange and very weird, they are believable. They follow Nicholas' advice yet at the same time, they don't entirely trust him or anybody else that comes around. It is a new, scary world and they're going to stick with the only ones they know best, themselves. I'm just a few years older than them and what small crumbs of life I've had, I'd say that would be a typical way for the two to act. People act differently, but these two are realistic. Scott does not throw ALL information about these two at you right away. We get their reaction to a magical fight, not a lengthy boring introduction of their past. As the book moves along, we get the information.
This book is not all about characterisation. It has plot, fast moving plot too, as it should be. The two enter into the start of a magical, mythological and alchemical war which does not allow for slow pace. Some authors have to sacrifice characterisation for plot or vice versa. Scott actually uses a good medium for this. He enters in little tidbits about the characters' past every so often during the downing point in the storyline (whenever the characters rest, etc). Scott does use a bit of the 'describe the character rather than let the reader imagine', which is very common in young adult and childrens' books. I didn't mind how he did it, being a lot more skillful than normal. He has a lot of books out with this being his newest for young adults.
While Nicholas Flamel's name is on the cover, my favourite character would have to be Dr John Dee. The reason being is that Scott seems most in tune with him. A look at the author's note and he states that Dr John Dee was created (or formed rather, as he IS a real person) and he wanted to write a story about him, but being a naturally villainous character, he ended up being an antagonist.
Michael Scott is well versed in mythology and the like. It's part of his specialty. Meaning that as someone who likes mythology and folklore, I find it fun and amusing to see references to things I know and, if I don't know them, a new thing to learn or study. When coming across a joke about a god or a hint of who one might be (and trying to guess), it adds to the fun. Scott, being the Irish 'King of Fantasy' uses a lot more Celtic gods then other authors I've found. Being a slightly confusing mythology, it's great.
Overall, if you want to read a young adult and not get something a bit raw (from a budding author), I would suggest this. While not what I would call a new and inspiring book, it is very enjoyable. That may just be due to it being a new series, of course. (It was the same thought I had when I started Harry Potter ever so long ago.) Despite my slightly irritated surprise that it was apart of a series, I was also happy. While something that I'm going to have to continue (I like completing series, even if it DOES mean something like the Inheritance Series by Christopher Paoilini), I will do so bemusedly.
I entered my local, small book retailer in town and spotted a new young adult's book displayed titled The Alchemyst. What really caught my eye was the Nicholas Flamel bit. As a reader of Harry Potter (not truly a big FAN fan, but I read it when it first comes out) it caught my eye. My first though was 'Oh, it's a rip-off! Must read.' (Some may ask why but you must remember that I read a fair share of BAD books as well as good.) A rip-off is something that was a must-read, especially a strange angle to use Nicholas Flamel. I read the back and found it was about hetero-twins, about a girl and boy rather than two girls or two boys, who had some prophecy written about them (possibly at least but we all know how these things go) and end up caught up in this magical fiasco with an immortal and his wife against others immortals (and probably THEIR wives). The bookseller said it was pretty good and I travelled off home to set it on my pile of books.
A little while later, I read it. Finished it. What surprised me was that it was NOT a Harry Potter rip-off. What also surprised me was that it was apart of a series and now I'm stuck in yet another one (this keeps happening). I like how it starts off in a flurry yet some how slightly calm beginning. AS for two teens, Sophie and John Newman, thrown into the middle of something strange and very weird, they are believable. They follow Nicholas' advice yet at the same time, they don't entirely trust him or anybody else that comes around. It is a new, scary world and they're going to stick with the only ones they know best, themselves. I'm just a few years older than them and what small crumbs of life I've had, I'd say that would be a typical way for the two to act. People act differently, but these two are realistic. Scott does not throw ALL information about these two at you right away. We get their reaction to a magical fight, not a lengthy boring introduction of their past. As the book moves along, we get the information.
This book is not all about characterisation. It has plot, fast moving plot too, as it should be. The two enter into the start of a magical, mythological and alchemical war which does not allow for slow pace. Some authors have to sacrifice characterisation for plot or vice versa. Scott actually uses a good medium for this. He enters in little tidbits about the characters' past every so often during the downing point in the storyline (whenever the characters rest, etc). Scott does use a bit of the 'describe the character rather than let the reader imagine', which is very common in young adult and childrens' books. I didn't mind how he did it, being a lot more skillful than normal. He has a lot of books out with this being his newest for young adults.
While Nicholas Flamel's name is on the cover, my favourite character would have to be Dr John Dee. The reason being is that Scott seems most in tune with him. A look at the author's note and he states that Dr John Dee was created (or formed rather, as he IS a real person) and he wanted to write a story about him, but being a naturally villainous character, he ended up being an antagonist.
Michael Scott is well versed in mythology and the like. It's part of his specialty. Meaning that as someone who likes mythology and folklore, I find it fun and amusing to see references to things I know and, if I don't know them, a new thing to learn or study. When coming across a joke about a god or a hint of who one might be (and trying to guess), it adds to the fun. Scott, being the Irish 'King of Fantasy' uses a lot more Celtic gods then other authors I've found. Being a slightly confusing mythology, it's great.
Overall, if you want to read a young adult and not get something a bit raw (from a budding author), I would suggest this. While not what I would call a new and inspiring book, it is very enjoyable. That may just be due to it being a new series, of course. (It was the same thought I had when I started Harry Potter ever so long ago.) Despite my slightly irritated surprise that it was apart of a series, I was also happy. While something that I'm going to have to continue (I like completing series, even if it DOES mean something like the Inheritance Series by Christopher Paoilini), I will do so bemusedly.
Currently Reading: Twinkies, Deconstructed by Steve Ettlinger
Currently Watching: Citizen Kane directed by Orson Welles
Currently Listening: Annabel Lee (Spoken) by The Cruxshadows and I Want It All by Queen
(Note: It is NOT taking me this long to watch Citizen Kane, it is that I like this movie. I was watching it last time because I was in the middle of a film class and NOW we received it in the mail through Netflix. If you want to watch a good movie, it would be something to watch. However keep in mind that the first time you'll watch SHOULD NOT BE YOUR LAST. It is something that gets better the more you watch it.)
Unhiatus
I am OFF hiatus now and GASP, I bring things.
I deeply apologise however I will not be reviewing what I said oh so long ago I would do. However I may or may not review a few books I have read in my absence and, when I see it this Thursday, Stardust. I have, so far, refrained from reading reviews of this movie. According to Neil, it is number 4 in the box office in America and number 1 in Russia. According to Time's miniature one-paragraph reviews, it is not so great as Princess Bride. (Frankly I've always thought of Princess Bride like Monty Python's Holy Grail, fun to watch a few and far times but overly hyped. I love the swordsmanship in the scene on the cliff, but I never found the story about his father highly hilarious. Something every one has overlooked is that Monty Python has had much better movies AND a very good show on the telly, which is what I grew up on and missed the completely.) I did not really like the review for Time, which I read mostly because I forgot my no reviews rule. I have never liked the tiny reviews from Time. I'm more of a New Yorker fan in the review department.
I deeply apologise however I will not be reviewing what I said oh so long ago I would do. However I may or may not review a few books I have read in my absence and, when I see it this Thursday, Stardust. I have, so far, refrained from reading reviews of this movie. According to Neil, it is number 4 in the box office in America and number 1 in Russia. According to Time's miniature one-paragraph reviews, it is not so great as Princess Bride. (Frankly I've always thought of Princess Bride like Monty Python's Holy Grail, fun to watch a few and far times but overly hyped. I love the swordsmanship in the scene on the cliff, but I never found the story about his father highly hilarious. Something every one has overlooked is that Monty Python has had much better movies AND a very good show on the telly, which is what I grew up on and missed the completely.) I did not really like the review for Time, which I read mostly because I forgot my no reviews rule. I have never liked the tiny reviews from Time. I'm more of a New Yorker fan in the review department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)