"Stardust" Talkback (spoilers)

[Vyse]

One of Neil Gaiman's works has gotten the Hollywood treatment. No, it's not "The Sandman," it's "Stardust," a fantasy movie based on his second novella of the same name. The movie comes out today, so here's the talkback thread. This summer, a star falls. The chase begins:

"You're a star?!" - Tristan

Release Date: August 10, 2007 (US/Canada); Oct. 19, 2007 (UK) more release dates
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Claire Danes, Charlie Fox, Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sienna Miller, Peter O' Toole, Ricky Gervais, Sir Ian McKellen (narrator)

Plot: A young man named Tristan (Charlie Cox) tries to win the heart of Victoria (Sienna Miller), the beautiful but cold object of his desire, by going on a quest to retrieve a fallen star. His journey takes him to a mysterious and forbidden land beyond the walls of his village. On his odyssey, Tristran finds the star, which has transformed into a striking girl named Yvaine (Claire Danes). However, Tristran is not the only one seeking the star. Lord Stormhold's (Peter O'Toole) three living sons not to mention the ghosts of their four dead brothers all need the star as they vie for the throne. Tristran must also overcome the evil witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer), who needs the star to make her young again. As Tristran battles to survive these threats, encountering a pirate named Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro) and a shady trader named Ferdy the Fence (Ricky Gervais) along the way, his quest changes. He must now win the heart of the star for himself as he discovers the meaning of true love

Official site (US); IMDB Profile

Please vote and comment.

[IDistractedYou]

My partner and I went and saw this last night. I had read the novella a few years back and was thrilled by this movie. There does seem to be some confusion as to what kind of movie it is as supposedly there are several trailers for it. Is it a comedy? A romance? A Fantasy Epic? Its a fantasy story with comedic elements but it is not an epic ala Narnia. To quote the narrator its not the tale of oung Tristan's growth from a baby to a boy but the far more interesting tale of his journey from a boy to a man.

If you read the book I believe you will be pleased as some scenes are line from line from the book. Some changes had been made, Captain Shakespeare's part is much expanded. An enjoyable fantasy romp with bits of quirky humor and great acting from all involved. Rush Hour 3 sold out? Go see this instead. Actually go see this instead of Rush Hour 3 even if its not sold out.

[Sandoz]

Stardust definitely felt like Stardust. It captured the feel and spirit of Neil Gaiman's work as much as it possibly could.

Some cuts were made even though the original book wasn't even half the size of the average Harry Potter book. I liked that the movie cuts right to the chase, beginning with Dunstan and Una's first meeting. (Dunstan deliberately trespassing over the Wall to go to the Fair created a nice father/son parallel with Tristan.)

The cast was very good. It was a smart choice to cast an unknown as Tristan; Charlie Cox is sweet and fits the part, like Orlando Bloom without the blankness. Claire Danes is a very spirited Yvaine. The special effects that show Yvaine literally "glowing" with happiness were cheesy but cute. Septimus was a lot of fun. The dead brothers made an amusing Greek chorus. I loved Rupert Everett's dramatic introduction and immediate execution.

On the negative side, I wish Captain Shakespeare wasn't such a blatant Dues ex Machina...or such a broad stereotype. You can tell that the filmmakers were hoping he'd be the breakout supporting character, like Inigo Montoya without the vendetta or Jack Sparrow without the sexual ambiguity. It doesn't quite work. Outside of his collaborations with Stephen Merchant, I don't think Ricky Gervais is funny. So while his part dragged on for too long, it was kinda cathartic to see him silenced and then killed.

The previews worried me; I thought all the clips of sword-fighting meant that they'd turned it into an action film, but I was pleasantly surprised. There was an action-y climax, but it wasn't without sparks of creativity (Septimus as the corpse-puppet).

One element I really disliked was the treatment of Victoria. In the book

Spoiler:

she's a nice girl who is genuinely upset when Tristran apparently disappears because of her.

I know that the movie had to make some shortcuts when telling the audience that Victoria isn't right for Tristan, but they took the predictable route and made her shallow and catty. The movie's last jab at her, which hints that her soon-to-be-husband is secretly gay, seems downright mean-spirited.

I did enjoy the altered ending. The original book is meant to be an adult fairytale, so

Spoiler:

the bittersweet conclusion (Tristran eventually dies of old age; the immortal and now-alone Yvaine never returns to the heavens)

works. The movie's ending is more traditionally happy (Dunstan and Una even end up together, even though their previous relationship was just a one night stand) but it doesn't feel strained. Considering the genuinely fun, whimsical tone of the movie, the "and they lived happily ever after...literally forever" ending was the right one.

[Discloner]

I agree with everything Sandoz said - if you took out all the parts referencing the book that preceded it. I'd never read the book prior - nor had I heard of it; but my roommate was a huge fan and thus got me excited for this film's debut.

Quite frankly I loved it - it was a wonderfully different story and unique film in the rest of the summer's bloated features. I loved that it had a bit of everything - love, action, adventure, whimsy, etc; and was distinctive in it's fantasy tone (from the get-go the whole separation of realms clued me in that this would be the tone of the film). The separation of plot-lines which were all wound together by the falling star was the stand out for me. Other films have juggled more independent plots - but I was amazed by how well Vaughn was able to juggle all of these quests without one over-shadowing the other or trumping the main plot of following Tristan growing up.

I don't think I'd have enjoyed some of the film if they had kept them the same as the novel having seen the story played out - in so many words they kind of damage some of the gleaming parts I enjoyed; though it's easy to see how elaborating on them in literature works much better towards their advantage then on film. Regardless, humanizing Victoria more for me probably would have detracted from the fact that Tristian and Yvaine were, by all intensive purposes, soul-mates; and having the novels ending probably would've put a damper on that as well - Guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

I did enjoy DeNiro's Captain Shakespere...though nobody in the theater was laughing nearly as hard as I was; so take that as you will.

I'd highly recommend it; one of the better movies to come out this year.

[BrendaBat]

I loved this movie. I read the book a few months ago and I was happy to see that the tone and all the important scenes were preserved in the film. The whole cast was wonderful and I really liked the new "sugar coated" ending. The book's ending left me feeling depressed but I left the theater with a smile after watching the movie.

I know that the movie had to make some shortcuts when telling the audience that Victoria isn't right for Tristan, but they took the predictable route and made her shallow and catty. The movie's last jab at her, which hints that her soon-to-be-husband is secretly gay, seems downright mean-spirited.

I hated that scene, too. I don't see why the film makers felt the need to turn Victoria into a character that felt like a High School Musical villain. And why would Victoria suddenly become sweet on Tristain just because he actually went through with his stupid promise to chase the star over the wall for her? Didn't make sense to me.

[Discloner]

And why would Victoria suddenly become sweet on Tristain just because he actually went through with his stupid promise to chase the star over the wall for her? Didn't make sense to me.

Speaking soley for the movie - Victoria was never sweet on Tristan; she just wanted to have the guy who would do more glamorous things for her. Tristan went to a foreign world which nobody prior (except his father) had been to just to obtain the star for Victoria, which in her mind was far more glamorous a prospect then her soon-to-be husband going to London to get a diamond. She never liked Tristan as a person, she just wanted someone who would pamper her the most.

[MajorTom]

Yeah, I didn't like the way Victoria was handled either. In the book, you got the idea that as Tristran had been away getting the star, Victoria had grown up, and felt terrible about what she did. It was just better character work. Otherwise, I loved the movie, and was pleasantly surprised.

[JohnCrichton]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the best movie of 2007.

Just picked it up.