September 19, 2007

Stardust

First, let me say that I really enjoyed this movie. Cleaver plot, well-defined characters and wonderful actors really brought this movie to life. Definitely one of the best fantasy movies I have seen in years. There is some predictability for anyone who is familiar with the fantasy genre; you know how the witch will die, who the hero ends up with and how the story will end. In many ways Stardust is a fairytale, but the film is so well done that you don't mind the bit of predictability.
Many have compared this movie to The Princess Bride but, while they are both in the fantasy epic genre, I believe this is a mistake. The Princess Bride is the ultimate parody and requires a certain level of intelligence from its audience to recognize it's brilliance. Stardust is a different type of film. It is not a parody, but rather a sometimes comedic fantasy adventure. Sure there are amusing moments on par with anything found in TPB, but it is not the same type of comedy.
Danes plays a disdainful Yvaine well, while Pfieffer and De Niro each play their characters to the hilt. However, it may be relative newcomer Charlie Cox who truly carried the show. Cox's character grows from a humble, bumbling shop boy to a confidant, intelligent man. The transformation is almost as magical as the story itself.
Bottom Line: This is a must for any fantasy lovers.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

1 comment:

Naps-a-lot Bear said...

Princess Bride-genius+cool effects+peanut gallery of dead princes=Princess Bride version 2.007

Lunanshee is right; in many ways, TPB is more clever than Stardust. I think that the subtle-ness of the parody is one of the beauties of our good old classic, in addition to almost zero reliance on special effects. I would also expand on that thought to say that the creators of TPB did so much more with less. Don't get me wrong, I rejoice over the ability of special effects, particularly computer-generated ones, to bring fantasy books to life in a manner befitting the grandeur of the written word, but I still can't help but appreciate doing things "the old fashioned way". Look at what happened to the two Star Wars Trilogies; at some point, it becomes more of "look what we can do" rather than "look what journey we can take you on".
But I digress...

Stardust is a really good movie, with an ending that perfectly matches and even compliments the preceding events. I am very glad to see Stardust standing its ground next to Die Hard 4, Bourne 3, Spidey 3, and any of the Pirates films; we need more happily-ever-after fantasies. Hey, if we are looking for escape, I would rather call a stone a stone and go for mine in a forthright manner, minimal body count optimal. (Not that the deaths in the movie weren't funny in their own right, particularly the shade of 'blood' they used). I even enjoyed the Dead Prince Peanut Gallery, although I thought they distracted from the story more than they added to it.

To sum up my feelings on the movie, I think it was great, but neither epic nor perfect. We should have more movies who do so well balancing an ensemble of actors who are such 'characters' (my favorite was Ricky Gervais, followed closely by Robert De Niro whimsically poking holes in his 'tough guy' image). Sienna Miller embodied in her character exactly what I think of her as a person, but Henry Cavill was entirely wasted. What really iced the cake was Ian McKellan's narration. I thought it added the right amount of fairytale mood, while not being annoying or intrusive.

That said, what I really wonder about the movie is whether or not the younger generations will be spellbound by Stardust the way Lunanshee and I were my The Princess Bride. Will the newer movie have more cultural relevance for them? Will they look back at the lower-budgeted and lower-star-powered TPB with condescension at its lack of special effects? I can just hear some kid saying "A guy in a rat suit? Couldn't they have just used some animatronics or even a blue screen?" Perhaps I am starting to display the inflexibility of 'the old'--I certainly sound like I am saying that just because I grew up with things that way, that is the way they should be. I don't really feel this is currently the case, though. From playwriting, I know that it is better to -show- your audience something than to -tell- them about it. With all of the abounding computer-generated effects, I can't help but feel that I am "being told" what I am watching, rather than "being shown" the narrative.

My answer, of course, is I hope not. I still remember the rapture that reflected back to me on my younger cousin's face the first time I showed TPB to her and her brother. Even he liked it, which is a real compliment from a pre-teen boy. It made me feel like I was the best Xmas-present-giver ever to have them appreciate a film that I deem "a classic." In a really hyperbolic kind of way, I think that if 'kids these days' prefer Stardust to The Princess Bride, that would only confirm my suspicions that there is indeed a handbasket and that it is speeding along rather rapidly.

I will have to talk more about this theory of 'fewer effects are more' in relation to the BBC versions of the Chronicles of Narnia movies. For now, I will end by saying that I will take a man in a rat suit over what a computer can do any day.

September 21, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)