Stardust - What Do Stars Do?

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

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.