Stardust

I finally saw Stardust last week, and I have very mixed feelings about the film. After leaving the theater, my friend and I spent the entire time it took getting over to Carney's trying to figure out what was wrong with the film. We agreed that it was too long, that it was quite shaky at parts, that it felt toned down. I think a lot of people were concerned about how this film would turn out- elucidated by Ken over at Giant Robots Make Me Nervous, Sometimes, who pointed at the beloved nature of the book and also posted Gaiman's reading of the story, so you'd better hop on over there.

TNT was showing Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films this weekend, and watching them made me realize what was wrong with Stardust, from a fan of the book's point of view. Jackson had the opportunity to make a serious, graceful trilogy but instead opted for prolonged battle scenes, shots of people crying a lot, Cate Blanchett being weird, and jokes about Gimli's beard and height. As you guys know, I'm not fond of the films, but having only seen the first one, I figured I should give the others a try. I caught the last half of Return of the King (and watched Matilda on Disney during commercial breaks; I have not seen that movie since it came out), and I think one shot helps explain what he could have done and what he did do. When Arwen and Aragorn finally meet, we are treated to a passionate kiss (twice) that throws out a lot of the decorum that Aragorn has displayed throughout the film and also nullifies what was a fairly nuanced performance from Liv Tyler when she appears in this film. (I haven't seen Two Towers. I understand she shows up, for some reason.) After the kiss, they smile at each other in a much more intimate and touching way that says a lot more than their eating each other's faces. If they had opted for the hug/smile, we would have gotten a more mature, calm interpretation rather than a pg-13 "this is love, kids" treatment. And as an aside, if they had here and there cut out just a few of the shots of people staring off at nothing with watery eyes, I don't think the film would have had to have been 3 hours long.

Throughout the films, and throughout Stardust, you can feel and identify the effort to tone things down, to make it more appealing to a younger group. While I don't object to this in general, nor to great big fantasy films, if you have such fantastic source material that could give you a magical, dark film, it's a shame the opportunity is passed up. (You know it's a problem if you're opting for the Bakshi version.) Perhaps if we are showing the battles for the violence and devastation rather than how awesome it is that the elf (the one who bothers to show up) can climb up elephants and shoot the baddies. You get the idea. I want scary, not action-packed. Decisions made by Vaughan and Jackson work for Harry Potter and Narnia movies. They ring false when bringing Gaiman or Tolkien's work to the screen. (Though I noticed Jackson was able to strike a good balance between scary-action-fun-tragic in King Kong, which I thoroughly enjoyed) so I'm not sure why LotR turned out the way it did.)

My friend said that she had hoped they would make Stardust with the same approach that you find in Pan's Labyrinth, and I think that sums up a lot of hopes for this film. What we have is an admittedly fun movie that has glossed over the delightful and macabre details of the original, like the death of the unicorn, the leaves, even the simple fact that Tristan's sticking his hand in the fire burned his hand. A high body count does not a dark movie make. If Vaughan had give us a simpler, more stylized (in the direction of Vess) movie, it could have worked. Instead, we have a huge film that feels too big for the original story and with casting that is suitable for a great big movie but not for the source. In terms of criticism confined to the film as a film, I would say it is too long and feels too epic, but there are some good occasions of humor and some nice visuals.

Bride also didn’t have a pair of romantic leads who seem more interested in their clothes than each other (x).

This is nothing like The Princess Bride, and the comparison are confusing. As reviewer Ethan Alter says, "Mr. Vaughn, I know The Princess Bride and your take on Stardust ain’t no Princess Bride."