PDA

View Full Version : MOVIE REVIEW: STARDUST


MattBrady
07-17-2007, 09:56 AM
<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/movies/Stardust.jpg" border="0" align="right"><i>by Steve Fritz</i>

<b>WARNING: HERE THERE BE SPOILERS</B>

It’s a sight that that could make one’s eyes sore.

The scene has Robert DeNiro in front of a mirror, putting on his best frilly skirt and frock, strapping on his boots and even painting a mole on his cheek. He then turns on an ancient Victrola and clumsily dances the Can Can.

Under any other performer, this is the kind of scene that should strike one blind. Yet DeNiro manages to pull off the scene with such panache you can’t help but admire the actor for managing to pull it off. While we’re at it, kudos should be given to director Matthew Vaughn and cinematographer Ben Davis for their staging and obvious hard work on this scene.

It should go without saying that, fans of fantasy and comic books alike have nothing but the highest praise for the graphic novel <b>Stardust</b> and its creators, Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess. Expect them to have the same kudos for Paramount producing this movie of the same name.

Based on a script by Gaiman and Vaughn, the film is an overall faithful interpretation of the DC graphic novel. DeNiro steals the movie as the charismatic Captain Shakespeare. Michelle Pfeiffer proves she can get really ugly as the witch Lamia. Claire Danes as the fallen star Yvaine and Charlie Cox as the heroic Tristan also hold their own. From there, the cast is an anglophile’s wet dream including the likes of Ricky Gervais, Rupert Everett, Peter O’Toole and Sienna Miller. The film goes into mass release on August 10.

Is there some reconstructing of the story? Yes. It kicks off with a description of the city of Wall and why the town earned its well-deserved name. We are soon introduced to young Dustin Thorne (Ben Barnes) who crosses over the town’s main feature and has a short adventure that will have major repercussions nine months later when he’s presented with a son, Tristan. Years later, Tristan has grown to a rather sharp looking young man totally head over heels for the gorgeous but icy Victoria (Miller), who’s engaged to a man who’s not only far richer than Tristan, but can beat the snot out of him, too.

Still, Victoria makes a deal with Tristan. When the two spy a falling star land on the other side of Wall’s wall, she promises she will marry him if he brings the celestial object to her before her wedding. As fans of the GN knows, what’s on the other side is a world chock full of magic and all manner of magical beings. There are those over there who also have their eyes on the fallen star.

The world’s ruler, The King of Stormhold (O’Toole), is on his death bed. At one time or another he did have seven sons and one daughter. Unlike life on the human side of the wall, being born first doesn’t guarantee immediate ascension. The last son literally left standing will sit on the throne, and I do mean literally. At present, there is only three boys left (the one girl is missing). So the King adds another wrinkle to make things more complicated. The child that brings back the fallen star preempts all the blue bloodshed (and these royals DO have truly blue blood).

That isn’t all. This world also sports three incredibly powerful witches, who are on their last legs. The fallen star could rejuvenate them, piling literally centuries on their lives, if they eat its heart. As each one doesn’t have enough strength even collectively, they elect one, Lamia (Pfeiffer), and give her the last of what they have to give her the strength to find the star.

As for the star itself? Eating its heart is not as metaphorical as it sounds. On landing we and Tristan discover it’s now Claire Danes.

In all, this incredible and fanciful quest is not just a coming of age story, but a whimsical moral tale of being very careful about what you wish for. You’ll never know what you are getting into.

Speaking of not knowing what you will be getting into, the real surprise here is Vaughn. Best known as a producer of many of British gangster films (he made his bones on <I>Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels</I>), his only previous directorial theatrical release was the underappreciated <I>L4yer Cake </I>. The closest we get to anything truly gangster here is DeNiro, who’s closeted air captain bears a much closer resemblance to his contribution to <I>Brazil</I>’s Harry Tuttle than <I>Taxi Driver</I>’s Travis Bickle.

Vaughn’s touch is surprisingly light, probably owing a touch or two from <I>The Princess Bride</I>’s Rob Reiner. Yes, there are times when he can bear down and bring out the truly dark side of Gaiman and Vess’ world, but overall there’s emphasis is on an adult fairy tale, one that there will be a happy ending, replete with plot twists and real peril. The fact is Vaughn manages to catch the elements of glamour and whimsy always running throughout the original story in a quiet, subtle fashion that always manages to keep the viewer entertained. Even more surprising is he keeps the tone light enough that <I>Stardust</I> ends up a truly remarkable family film. The aforementioned Can Can scene in lesser hands could have been a truly ugly thing. The way Vaughn handles it kids will get a tremendous laugh out of DeNiro just being out and out silly while adults can enjoy the subtle subterfuge that’s really going on in the scene.

Another major surprise is Pfeiffer as the malevolent Lamia. You have to be blind not to see the former sex kitten is maturing magnificently (she will be 50 next year). What’s even more impressive is while her good looks have held up exceedingly well, she’s also not afraid of putting on a ton of makeup and playing a vicious crone with a gigantic obsidian blade who knows how to use it. The inevitable final confrontation between her and Cox shows that the five year gap she took between projects, her last live action acting role was the film <I>Magnolia</I>, has truly recharged her batteries. Her Lamia has to be her strongest performance since she appeared in <I>A Midsummer’s Night Dream</I>.

But at its core, what appears to be the most interesting thing of all is just how well Gaiman’s work is now translating into film. You can’t really count the first two films he contributed to, <I>Princess Mononoke</I> and <I>Mirror Mask</I>, because the former was a translation job of a Miyazaki film while the latter was in the hands of longtime partner Dave McKean. In other words, the first really wasn’t Gaiman’s work (although still a magnificent movie) while the other was in as good a set of hands one could have a story of his in.

What’s interesting is <I>Stardust</I> marks the start of a trifecta of Gaiman films that will see mass release between now and April next year. The latter two are his and Robert Zemeckis’ adaptation of the classic poem <I>Beowulf</I>, which Paramount releases this November. The third, <I>Coraline</I>, is being directed by the incredible stop motion director Henry Selick.

Quite frankly, if Vaughn’s handling of <I>Stardust</I> is any indicator, Gaiman’s adamancy about creative control over his movies is truly well founded. The man has an uncanny understanding of how to translate his stories outside of the printed page and onto the big screen. One would have to be truly hard pressed to find a single poor performance throughout this entire film. Further, when all is said and done, even though there are some changes from the original, the film still feels true to the original work.

After all, as said before, the idea of DeNiro in drag shuffling to the Can Can could have been one truly horrendous sight if handled even slightly off base. As it stands, Gaiman and Vaughn manage to take this scene and other things that should have fallen flat on their face and made it into probably one of the truly best films of the summer, if not the year in general.

<i>Stardust opens in theaters on August 10th</i>.

weaselwelch
07-17-2007, 10:10 AM
Man I can not wait to see this. I have read Stardust a dozen of times. And it amazes me each and every time. I have been pushing to sell the novel at work to as many as I can. If I see some one looking in the Sci Fi/Fantasy section I will point it out.

Glad you liked it Steve.

delltechdude
07-17-2007, 10:41 AM
Loved the comic, enjoyed the novelization, cannot wait to take my wife to see this.

Been a while since I've seen a good non superhero comic book movie, this one should prove that there is still life in the non cape comic book movie adaptations.

Lwnasidh
07-17-2007, 10:45 AM
Great review, and I can't wait for this film. Not only do I love Gaiman's work, but I love Pfeiffer and DeNiro both, and Vaughn has a lot of potnetial as a director.

Fritz seems a little too focused on DeNiro on drag, though...

Zeitgeist
07-17-2007, 11:33 AM
I didnt know this was a comic first, must admit i found the novel disappointing, it was completely generic childrens fantasy

Wellness
07-17-2007, 11:38 AM
I remember reading the book and enjoying it years ago, so this was a graphic novel before it was a book or was it made into GN after the novel was released?

BanMan
07-17-2007, 11:44 AM
Just in time for my birthday.

Mundungus
07-17-2007, 11:52 AM
I know where I'll be August 10th.

Spy_Smasher
07-17-2007, 12:09 PM
I remember reading the book and enjoying it years ago, so this was a graphic novel before it was a book or was it made into GN after the novel was released?It was a four-issue, upscale-binding/glossy miniseries first, iirc. I didn't bother to read the novelization.

McEddard
07-17-2007, 12:15 PM
The novelization is exactly the same, it just doesn't have Vess' drawings in it. It was like the Dream Hunters: prose with illustrations.

Charlie Hustle
07-17-2007, 12:29 PM
this one should prove that there is still life in the non cape comic book movie adaptations.

Yeah, it's not like 300 did that.

HouseStark
07-17-2007, 12:34 PM
The novel was a little slow. Charming, but slow. The trailers for the movie look great though. I'll see it.

the2scoops
07-17-2007, 12:35 PM
Edit: Pfeiffer's last role was in "White Oleander", not "Magnolia". Wrong flower...

patient37
07-17-2007, 12:47 PM
I know we'd all love to have this be another credit to the notion that we're not all just about superheroes, but its not. Road to Perdition was. History of Violence was. 300 was. This is not. This is not a "comic book adaptation". It might qualify as a "graphic novel" (a term I loathe, even when applied to comics) in the BROADEST sense of the word. This is a "Book" with a lot of "Pictures".

prolix
07-17-2007, 12:56 PM
Unlike most of you guys, I listened to Stardust being read by Neil and have never seen the graphic novel or the book - but I have one ordered.
Even if you've read the graphic novel (love Charles Vess), even if you see the movie, I recommend hearing it read by the writer.
It's awesome.

Blackbeard
07-17-2007, 01:00 PM
Man... I cannot wait to see this!

Thanks for making the wait even tougher, Steve. ;)

prolix
07-17-2007, 01:02 PM
. This is not a "comic book adaptation".

Doesn't matter to me. I am not relating it to comics in any way (although the author does write a comic or two).
I like Stardust, and Neil in general, because it's good. Many people who like comics, like fantasy...or science fiction...or horror.
It is likely reviewed here because Neil writes comics but who cares whether the broader world, or even other fans, feels the need to step outside of superheroes? I read what I like. I watch what I like.

Nat Gertler
07-17-2007, 01:04 PM
Just to clarify: Stardust was never a comic book, nor a graphic novel.

It was first released as an illustrated novel, serialized in four parts - the prose carried the story fully, the pictures augmented it nicely, but it didn't use panels, word balloons, or other comic tropes. The serialized version was collected into a single volume. Other editions came out with the same text, but without the illustrations.

Get one with the illustrations (http://aaugh.com/to.htm?1401211909). They're purty.

Amoebas
07-17-2007, 01:08 PM
I know we'd all love to have this be another credit to the notion that we're not all just about superheroes, but its not. Road to Perdition was. History of Violence was. 300 was. This is not. This is not a "comic book adaptation". It might qualify as a "graphic novel" (a term I loathe, even when applied to comics) in the BROADEST sense of the word. This is a "Book" with a lot of "Pictures".Agreed. The book is as literate as Dante's Inferno with Gustov Dore's art or the Mary Shelly's Frankenstein with pictures by Wrightson.

It's a book and in no way a "comic" book.

CitC
07-17-2007, 01:12 PM
I read the prose novel a couple of years before I even knew that there was an illustrated format. It is my least favourite of his novels, but I'm not really a Fantasy fan. I liked it well enough though and since I don't read Fantasy all of the elements were fresh for me.

My question is: Are the "Spoilers" going to effect anything if I have already read the book?

jmyoung
07-17-2007, 01:56 PM
Steve or Matt,

Please note that Jane Goldman adapted Neil's work, and not Neil or Matthew. Obviously as the source and the director they had input, I am sure, but Jane wrote the adaptation.

Snikkas
07-17-2007, 03:11 PM
Edit: Pfeiffer's last role was in "White Oleander", not "Magnolia". Wrong flower...

She wasn't even in "Magnolia" for the matter. The lead female in that was played by Julianne Moore

Kolimar
07-17-2007, 03:19 PM
Sounds like another winner. I can't wait to see it. Thanks, Steve. :)

Kolimar
07-17-2007, 07:51 PM
I know we'd all love to have this be another credit to the notion that we're not all just about superheroes, but its not. Road to Perdition was. History of Violence was. 300 was. This is not. This is not a "comic book adaptation". It might qualify as a "graphic novel" (a term I loathe, even when applied to comics) in the BROADEST sense of the word. This is a "Book" with a lot of "Pictures".

I'll add it to The Complete List of DC Comics Movies (http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61596) all the same. At least for now. After all, it was published by DC. ;) :)

sfritz
07-17-2007, 09:16 PM
Great review, and I can't wait for this film. Not only do I love Gaiman's work, but I love Pfeiffer and DeNiro both, and Vaughn has a lot of potnetial as a director.

Fritz seems a little too focused on DeNiro on drag, though...

Three answers, take your choice.

1) even though most people have read the various published versions of Stardust, I didn't want to give TOO much away.

2) After seeing the Can Can scene, just try to get it out of your head. I dare you. :D

3) That's what I get for working on Stardust and Kyo Kara Maoh at the same time.

-s

sfritz
07-17-2007, 09:23 PM
Just to clarify: Stardust was never a comic book, nor a graphic novel.

It was first released as an illustrated novel, serialized in four parts - the prose carried the story fully, the pictures augmented it nicely, but it didn't use panels, word balloons, or other comic tropes. The serialized version was collected into a single volume. Other editions came out with the same text, but without the illustrations.

Get one with the illustrations (http://aaugh.com/to.htm?1401211909). They're purty.

Nat - You say po-TAY-to....I'll say Po-TAH-to....or better yet, I'll say "light novel."

The prose is right purty, too. -s ;)