Eric D. Snider
Stardust
Movie Review
"Stardust"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, August 10, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
"Stardust" might be the "Princess Bride" of its generation: a darkly comedic and imaginative fairy tale full of witches, princes, and magic spells, not to mention a happily-ever-after ending. The story (based on a book by Neil Gaiman) is bursting with memorable characters and sly wisdom, with heroes you can love and villains you can love hating. A couple of small missteps aside, it's one of the most purely delightful movies of the year.
Our hero is 18-year-old Tristan Thorn (Charlie Cox), an unremarkable but good-hearted lad in the 19th-century English village of Wall. He is in love with the vain Victoria (Sienna Miller), and when they see a falling star one night, he vows to bring the star to her as a token of his love. In exchange for this, she says she will marry him.
The star has fallen on the other side of Wall's wall, in an enchanted land called Stormhold, and Tristan is surprised to learn that stars have a human shape. This one, named Yvaine, has the shape of Claire Danes. She finds Tristan rude at first, and Tristan has eyes only for Victoria, but they can help one another here: Tristan has a magic candle (bequeathed by his long-lost mother) that can get Yvaine back to the heavens where she belongs, and he agrees to let her use it if she'll accompany him back to Wall and let him show her to Victoria.
Other people want Yvaine, too, though. The king of Stormhold (Peter O'Toole) is dying, and the throne will go to whichever of his sons can 1) get the ruby that is now in Yvaine's possession, and 2) avoid being killed by his brothers. The Stormhold princes have a tendency to murder one another, you see. Their ghosts, still bearing the marks of the way they were killed, are doomed to hang around, observing and commenting and continuing to quarrel, until the matter of heirship is settled.
Furthermore, a trio of ghastly witches needs the star's glowing heart to recharge their youth and beauty, which has withered dramatically in the 400 years since they last got a boost. One of these sisters, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer), sets out in search of Yvaine, disguised as a younger, beautiful woman. She must use her magic sparingly now, as each spell she casts chips away at her disguise.
I'll leave the details of the adventure alone and let you be surprised by them, by their daftness and ingenuity. Animals turn into people; people turn into animals; ships sail the skies to capture lightning; heroes engage in swordfights with dead men; a nonagenarian proves skilled in hand-to-hand combat; a prince bleeds actual blue blood. And that barely scratches the surface of the story's eccentric, thoroughly entertaining details.
There are events in the tale that suggest a great deal of twisted creativity went into it -- first from Gaiman, and now from the film's director, Matthew Vaughn, whose only previous film, the gritty crime caper "Layer Cake," used his eye-catching visual style for much darker purposes.
The film's weak points, I think, are its two major bits of stunt casting: Ricky Gervais (England's "The Office") as a lowlife merchant, and Robert De Niro as a mean pirate with a soft side. Gervais plays the same unctuous character he always plays -- i.e, more or less himself -- and this is in contrast to the film's other actors, most of whom are trying to play actual characters. (Michelle Pfeiffer, for example, is so fearless and funny as the evil witch, in all her varying degrees of grossness, that you almost wish the film were about her.)
De Niro, meanwhile, plays on both of his reputations: that of a tough guy, and that of a guy who likes to make fun of his tough-guy reputation. He overdoes the latter aspect, earning laughs that are hearty but cheap, like a character in a lowbrow sketch-comedy show. I'm not saying it's not funny; I'm just saying it doesn't fit in this movie. It throws us off-course for a while, and the film has trouble getting back on track.
But everything else is nearly perfect, an utterly beguiling, magical film from start to finish, with a lovely musical score by Ilan Eshkeri to boot. It's ultimately a love story, naturally, as Tristan and Yvaine grow fond of each other during their travels and adventures. I find their romance touching, in its fairy-tale-template way, and though the happy ending is as predestined as in any Grimm fable, that doesn't make it any less sweet when it arrives. The joy is in the journey, and "Stardust" has a lot of joy in it.
Grade: B+
Rated PG-13, moderate violence, a little innuendo and naughty humor
2 hrs., 10 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 26 comments
August 10, 2007 at 9:07 am
"'Stardust' might be the "Princess Bride" of its generation."
You hooked me with this line. I am seeing this movie.
August 10, 2007 at 10:21 am
It should be noted that Stardust the novel did not have a happy ending, but a heartbreaking, bittersweet one.
So that's one major change. Wonder how many others there are?
August 10, 2007 at 10:44 am
Didn't most Grimm tales have horrible, grisly endings?
August 10, 2007 at 11:23 am
Completely coincidentally, I just read stardust a couple of weeks ago. What about the ending of Stardust was heartbreaking and bittersweet? Did we read the same book?
August 10, 2007 at 11:52 am
Most Grimm fairy tales did not have neat, tidy endings. In fact, some of them were really dark and disturbing. (If you ever have a chance to read the originals, do so. They make for fascinating reading.)
August 10, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I seem to remember that the Grimm fairy tales I have read had horrible, grisly beginnings and middles, but happy endings... at least for the good guys. I admit I have not read most of them, but I was under the impression that was the norm.
August 10, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I have a good, thick (and I mean THICK) book that is a collection of (allegedly) all the Brothers Grimm's fairytales. I don't remember any "bad" endings at all. The symbol of authority, usually the king, almost always suffers a horrible fate, while the protagonist lives a happily-ever-after. Excluding the endings, though, almost all of the rest of the stories are dark, and--well, grim.
As for the book, can anyone else state whether the ending was different from the movie's or not?
August 10, 2007 at 2:05 pm
There shouldn't really be drastic differences between a book and a movie. I don't think this one had many drastic changes...
August 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm
**SPOILER**
The ending of Stardust the book: Tristan and Yvaine live happily for a while, but then Tristan dies and Yvaine is left alone with his memory...unable to return to the sky, never to die herself.
The ending of Stardust the movie:
Tristan is transformed into a star and lives with Yvaine in the skies for all time and eternity, happily ever after.
I would say the novel ending is a lot sadder and darker than the film ending.
I guess Brett disagrees.
August 10, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Wizardry like Harry Potter, faries, etc. sleeping beauty is for the kids. I don't suppose I'd like Stardust. Too much otherworldliness.
August 10, 2007 at 7:43 pm
@John: Tristan lives a full life for a mortal -- what more can you expect? It's not really the ending but the epilogue. Seemed happy to me -- but compared to the movie ending (I haven't yet seen) I get your point.
August 10, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Happy for Tristan, no doubt...but Yvaine is left rather stuck, with nothing left but her duties as Queen of Stormhold...and no prospect of ever finding release. Or being reunited with the man she gave her heart to.
It's not the climax, but it is the ending of the story.
August 10, 2007 at 9:44 pm
In the original Snow White, just to give an example, the Wicked Queen was forced into a pair of red hot iron shoes and then made to dance until she died. Not a pleasant ending at all, especially when reading to a small child.
August 10, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Hey, guys! Spoiler warnings, huh?!?! You just gave away the end!
August 10, 2007 at 10:47 pm
What treen said!!!
August 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm
We have edited comment #9 to indicate there are "SPOILERS," but really... If I were reading a comment that said The ending of "Stardust" the movie: I would probably infer, even without seeing the word "spoiler," that there were about to be some spoilers. I'm just sayin'.
But yeah, people need to say "SPOILERS" in their comments if they're going to talk about the endings of movies.
August 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Eric, normally I agree with you whole-heartedly in your reviews, but this time I'd like to say that I loved every minute of Stardust, INCLUDING Robert DeNiro's part. I was HOWLING with laughter watching him prance around. I'm glad you did like it for the most part, though, because I am a big fan of the book. I thought the changes that they made were great, when I usually cringe at how a beloved book is slaughtered in translation. And does anyone else wonder about that preview for "Beowulf?" Specifically: why does it have to be creepy motion capture animation?
August 13, 2007 at 9:50 am
I have both read the Stardust book and seen the movie, and while there were some fairly large differences, I recommend that those who have seen the movie read the book and those who have read the book see the movie, mostly because both were wonderful and entertaining. The author (Neil Gaimen) had a large enough role in the movie that the changes that were made had his consent, so maybe, so many years after it was written, he chose to change the storyline. Anyway, I recommend both the movie and the book, and yeah, Beowulf looks terrible.
August 13, 2007 at 10:22 am
Like other commenters, I've both read the book and seen the movie. "Stardust" was the first Neil Gaiman novel I read (I call it a Gateway Gaiman--it seems so innocent, and then it leads you into other, darker things. ;) ) and I've loved it for years, considering it one of the most original and enjoyable adult fairy tales ever written. I feel excitement and anxiety in equal parts when I see that one of my beloved books is being turned into a movie, and I'm very glad that this is the movie it is.
The pacing seemed a little off to me in the first twenty minutes or so, some of the acting seemed stilted, it felt a little long in the end, and the climatic battle was almost too much, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Definitely captured the charm of the book, if not all of its magic. I agree that De Niro was over the top, not quite fitting in the movie, but all of the other differences made sense in the movie world.
Definitely try them both--well worth the time and effort!
August 18, 2007 at 9:19 pm
"daftness" or "deftness" ...?
August 19, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Wow "Laura F," I'm a "Laura F" too! Cool. Um, that aside…
I think that the movie was handled really well, especially in comparison to movies like "Series of Unfortunate Events" or the Harry Potter movies. While they didn't copy the book exactly, which would have been totally wrong for a movie, I liked that they didn't change the really appealing things from the book. (Like Yvaine's prickliness, or Trist(r)an's… awkwardness.)
I would have really liked to see a copper birch tree though, even if it weren't voiced by Tori Amos. I just loved that random conversation between it and Tristan.
It's really too bad they did such a bad job advertising. The trailer made me - a HUGE Gaiman fan - not really want to see the movie. That's quite the feat. They would have been much better off using the tagline that Neil Gaiman had suggested, "Stardust - it's not a sequel to anything."
August 30, 2007 at 9:10 pm
My 20 yr. old daughter and I saw it and loved it. She said it had to be one of her favorite movies. The ending was sweet and I have not read the book, not even knowing there was a book actually. So it was a classic fairy tale and a very fun movie. Loved the aging process of Michelle. She was not afraid to look ugly!.. and Robert was a bit over the top, but I too howled!.. Two thumbs up!.
September 10, 2007 at 10:16 am
I really, really liked this movie.
November 13, 2007 at 10:07 am
I rather enjoyed this movie. I can't find any glaring faults, which is unusual. Either it was well executed, or it was so enjoyable that I overlooked the faults. Too bad it didn't do better at the box office. I'd like more movies like this one.
March 16, 2008 at 1:30 am
This was my favorite movie of last year. I loved it from the minute it started & haven't found anything that I didn't like in it. I originally went to see it because my British crush David Walliams is in it as Sextus (the ghost with the burned face), & ended up being absolutely enchanted with the whole movie. I'd never seen Charlie Cox in anything before & though he did a great job with Tristan. And am I the only one who thinks Michelle Pfeiffer is better looking now than she was when she was younger? She was so perfect as Lamia. I have to disagree with Eric on the casting, because I don't believe there were any mistakes in the casting of the movie. I laughed until I cried over DeNiro's scenes. It was a gorgeous & well acted movie, & is in my DVD player at least once a week!
July 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm
spoilers below
i don't know if any of you recall but the book ending sounds very similar to the lord of the rings. aragorn becomes king but after living out his rather substantial dunedain lifespan, dies, leaving arwen a tragically immortal widow.
i haven't read the book but to be honest really liked the movies happily ever after ending - happily ever after is no longer the norm after all.
yvaine professing her love to rodent tristan made me cringe but i suppose it was necessary to setup the loophole at the end?