![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meganbmooreMaybe I'm the last person who should talk about less than perfect reviews(though I don't think I've ever called anything an actual review or deliberately tried to portray something as a proper review...I have too many typos most of the time to slap "review" on a post) but I just read a Stardust review that annoyed me for some reason.
Reasons it may have struck a wrong nerve:
1. Consistently referring to the book as a "novella." It was never a novella, it was a graphic novel that Gaiman later turned into a full length novel with minimal changes to the text. I probably wouldn't even be bothered by that bit, except that the author says they never read the book(fine) but later says it's a "proper homage to Neil Gaiman's novella." Uhm...if they haven't read it and don't know how faithful it is, how can they say that?
2. When laying out the plot, they seem to primarily focus on later revelations, as opposed to the setup of the overall story.
3. After a solid chunk of text that was primarily praises, they say "The acting, on the other hand, was first-class." "On the other hand" generally refers to an opinion differing from another...a strength and a weakness. Not, esentially "the plot is excellent. The acting, on the other hand, was first class."
4. They also used this pic for their sole picture:
Now, I love the picture, and the scene, but to someone who hasn't seen it, it gives you a very wrong impression of the romance.
On the flipside:
I agree with them that the Captain Shakespeare joke was overplayed a bit, but DeNiro did it so marvelously that I can't complain. I also wish the ending hadn't been so Hollywood fairy tale sweet and happy, but that's because I love the bittersweet ending of the book...if I hadn't read the book, I doubt I'd mind it. (At thisss point, the ending is the book-to-movie change I have a problem with.)
Hmm...I actually can't quite believe I actually made a post like this(I actually feel lightly guilty, omething I never do about LJ posts...)...maybe I just wanted to give non-Stargate fans a break...
In other news, Amazon just sent me the shipping notification for the newest Simon R. Green and Lian Hearn books, as well as the newest Wallflower, so I should be getting a lovely box soon.
"STARDUST" Review"
When I had first saw the poster, I could not drum any interest in seeing "STARDUST", directed by Matthew Vaughn. In fact, my interest remained dormant after viewing the trailer. Just today, someone had suggested that we see it, considering there was no other movie in the theaters we were interested in seeing. I said "no thanks". It did not end there. This "someone" literally had to coerce me into seeing the film. And you know what? I am glad that he did.
Based upon Neil Gaiman's novella, "STARDUST" tells the story of a young 19th century Englishman named Tristan Thorne (Charlie Cox), who becomes in involved in a series of adventures in magical kingdom located beyond the wall of his hometown of . . . Wall. His adventures resulted from his love of a young neighbor named Victoria (Sienna Miller) and his desire to find and retrieve a fallen star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) in order to prove his worthiness as a future husband. Tristan has no idea that his mother (Kate Magowan) is not only a citizen of this magical kingdom, but is also a royal princess who is enslaved by a witch named Ditchwater Sal (Melanie Hill). He does not realize that his two surviving uncles - Prince Septimus (Mark Strong) and Prince Primus (Jason Flemyng) - are in search of a ruby that will give either of them the throne to the kingdom. A ruby that had caused Yvaine to fall from the sky and is now worn by her. And Tristan is also unaware of a witch named Lamia who seek Yvaine. With the latter's heart carved out, Lamia and her two sisters will be able to regain their youth and power.
I do not think I will go any further into the story, because it is simply too damn complicated. It is not confusing. Trust me, it is not. But I do feel that in order to know the entire story, one would simply have to see the film. I have never read Gaiman's novella, so I have no idea how faithful Jane Goldman and director Matthew Vaughn's script was to the story. But I do feel that Goldman and Vaughn's adaptation resulted in an exciting, yet humorous tale filled with surprisingly complex characters and situations.
The acting, on the other hand, was first-class. It could have been easy for Charlie Cox and Claire Danes to fall into the usual trap of portraying the leads, Tristan and Yvaine, as a pair of simpering and and over emotional young lovers - a cliche usually found in many romantic fantasies over the years. Instead, Cox and Danes seemed to be having a good time in portraying not only the ideal personality traits of the two lovers, but their not-so-pleasant sides through their constant bickering and mistakes. Vaughn filled the cast with some of his regulars like the always competent and dependable Dexter Fletcher and Jason Flemyng, along with Sienna Miller, who did a surprisingly good job of portraying Tristan's bitchy object of desire, Victoria. Mark Strong was excellent as the ruthless and sardonic Prince Septimus. Robert DeNiro did a surprising turn as Captain Shakespeare, a flaming drag queen who pretends to be a ruthless and very macho captain of a pirate ship in order to maintain his reputation. DeNiro was very funny. But by the movie's last half hour, the joke surrounding his deception threatened to become slightly tiresome. But the movie's true scene stealer turned out to be Michelle Pfieffer as the evil and treacherous Lamia, the oldest and most clever of the three sister witches. At times seductive, funny, malevolent and creepy, Pfieffer managed to combine all of these traits in her performance, allowing her to literally dominate the movie and provide one of the most creepiest screen villains to hit the movie screens in the past decade. Margaret Hamilton, look out!
As much as I had enjoyed "STARDUST", I had a few problems with the movie. I have already pointed out how the joke surrounding Captain Shakespeare's sexual orientation threatened to become overbearing. I also found the movie's running time to be a bit too long. This problem could be traced to an ending so prolonged that it almost rivaled the notoriously long finale of "LORD OF THE RING: RETURN OF THE KING". And the fact that the movie's style seemed to be similar to the 1987 movie, "THE PRINCESS BRIDE", did not help. Another problem I found with the movie was its "happily ever after" ending that left me feeling slightly disgusted with its sickeningly sweet tone. But what really irritated me about "STARDUST" was Jon Harris's editing. It seemed so choppy that it almost gave the movie an uneven pacing.
But despite the movie's disappointing finale and Harris' editing, "STARDUST" proved to be a very entertaining movie. Using a first-class cast and an excellent script, director Matthew Vaughn managed to pay a proper homage to Neil Gaiman's novella. He also proved that his debut as a director ("LAYER CAKE") was more than just a fluke.
When I had first saw the poster, I could not drum any interest in seeing "STARDUST", directed by Matthew Vaughn. In fact, my interest remained dormant after viewing the trailer. Just today, someone had suggested that we see it, considering there was no other movie in the theaters we were interested in seeing. I said "no thanks". It did not end there. This "someone" literally had to coerce me into seeing the film. And you know what? I am glad that he did.
Based upon Neil Gaiman's novella, "STARDUST" tells the story of a young 19th century Englishman named Tristan Thorne (Charlie Cox), who becomes in involved in a series of adventures in magical kingdom located beyond the wall of his hometown of . . . Wall. His adventures resulted from his love of a young neighbor named Victoria (Sienna Miller) and his desire to find and retrieve a fallen star named Yvaine (Claire Danes) in order to prove his worthiness as a future husband. Tristan has no idea that his mother (Kate Magowan) is not only a citizen of this magical kingdom, but is also a royal princess who is enslaved by a witch named Ditchwater Sal (Melanie Hill). He does not realize that his two surviving uncles - Prince Septimus (Mark Strong) and Prince Primus (Jason Flemyng) - are in search of a ruby that will give either of them the throne to the kingdom. A ruby that had caused Yvaine to fall from the sky and is now worn by her. And Tristan is also unaware of a witch named Lamia who seek Yvaine. With the latter's heart carved out, Lamia and her two sisters will be able to regain their youth and power.
I do not think I will go any further into the story, because it is simply too damn complicated. It is not confusing. Trust me, it is not. But I do feel that in order to know the entire story, one would simply have to see the film. I have never read Gaiman's novella, so I have no idea how faithful Jane Goldman and director Matthew Vaughn's script was to the story. But I do feel that Goldman and Vaughn's adaptation resulted in an exciting, yet humorous tale filled with surprisingly complex characters and situations.
The acting, on the other hand, was first-class. It could have been easy for Charlie Cox and Claire Danes to fall into the usual trap of portraying the leads, Tristan and Yvaine, as a pair of simpering and and over emotional young lovers - a cliche usually found in many romantic fantasies over the years. Instead, Cox and Danes seemed to be having a good time in portraying not only the ideal personality traits of the two lovers, but their not-so-pleasant sides through their constant bickering and mistakes. Vaughn filled the cast with some of his regulars like the always competent and dependable Dexter Fletcher and Jason Flemyng, along with Sienna Miller, who did a surprisingly good job of portraying Tristan's bitchy object of desire, Victoria. Mark Strong was excellent as the ruthless and sardonic Prince Septimus. Robert DeNiro did a surprising turn as Captain Shakespeare, a flaming drag queen who pretends to be a ruthless and very macho captain of a pirate ship in order to maintain his reputation. DeNiro was very funny. But by the movie's last half hour, the joke surrounding his deception threatened to become slightly tiresome. But the movie's true scene stealer turned out to be Michelle Pfieffer as the evil and treacherous Lamia, the oldest and most clever of the three sister witches. At times seductive, funny, malevolent and creepy, Pfieffer managed to combine all of these traits in her performance, allowing her to literally dominate the movie and provide one of the most creepiest screen villains to hit the movie screens in the past decade. Margaret Hamilton, look out!
As much as I had enjoyed "STARDUST", I had a few problems with the movie. I have already pointed out how the joke surrounding Captain Shakespeare's sexual orientation threatened to become overbearing. I also found the movie's running time to be a bit too long. This problem could be traced to an ending so prolonged that it almost rivaled the notoriously long finale of "LORD OF THE RING: RETURN OF THE KING". And the fact that the movie's style seemed to be similar to the 1987 movie, "THE PRINCESS BRIDE", did not help. Another problem I found with the movie was its "happily ever after" ending that left me feeling slightly disgusted with its sickeningly sweet tone. But what really irritated me about "STARDUST" was Jon Harris's editing. It seemed so choppy that it almost gave the movie an uneven pacing.
But despite the movie's disappointing finale and Harris' editing, "STARDUST" proved to be a very entertaining movie. Using a first-class cast and an excellent script, director Matthew Vaughn managed to pay a proper homage to Neil Gaiman's novella. He also proved that his debut as a director ("LAYER CAKE") was more than just a fluke.
Reasons it may have struck a wrong nerve:
1. Consistently referring to the book as a "novella." It was never a novella, it was a graphic novel that Gaiman later turned into a full length novel with minimal changes to the text. I probably wouldn't even be bothered by that bit, except that the author says they never read the book(fine) but later says it's a "proper homage to Neil Gaiman's novella." Uhm...if they haven't read it and don't know how faithful it is, how can they say that?
2. When laying out the plot, they seem to primarily focus on later revelations, as opposed to the setup of the overall story.
3. After a solid chunk of text that was primarily praises, they say "The acting, on the other hand, was first-class." "On the other hand" generally refers to an opinion differing from another...a strength and a weakness. Not, esentially "the plot is excellent. The acting, on the other hand, was first class."
4. They also used this pic for their sole picture:
Now, I love the picture, and the scene, but to someone who hasn't seen it, it gives you a very wrong impression of the romance.
On the flipside:
I agree with them that the Captain Shakespeare joke was overplayed a bit, but DeNiro did it so marvelously that I can't complain. I also wish the ending hadn't been so Hollywood fairy tale sweet and happy, but that's because I love the bittersweet ending of the book...if I hadn't read the book, I doubt I'd mind it. (At thisss point, the ending is the book-to-movie change I have a problem with.)
Hmm...I actually can't quite believe I actually made a post like this(I actually feel lightly guilty, omething I never do about LJ posts...)...maybe I just wanted to give non-Stargate fans a break...
In other news, Amazon just sent me the shipping notification for the newest Simon R. Green and Lian Hearn books, as well as the newest Wallflower, so I should be getting a lovely box soon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 10:22 pm (UTC)Also, certain lines really sound like they were lifted out of someone else's review...
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 10:47 pm (UTC)