New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stardust (2007)

post #1 of 56
5/2/08 at 7:00pm
Thread Starter 
Kind of missed out on this one last year, largely because it got released when I had a shitton of other stuff to see at the cinema. Finally managed to get it on DVD and had an absolute blast with it, we ended up watching when the missus hated Iron Man with a flaming passion. We popped into a HMV on the way home and she picked it up as a film for her to watch, I think we probably got a lot out of it though.

I really shouldn't be surprised at how great the film looks, Vaughn proved himself a more than capable director with his debut, but I was shocked at how well the tone of the film was nailed. There is an airy sort of charm to the film, an anything goes spirit which makes it way more charming that its story would suggest. Danes is great in a lead role but I was surprised by how much I liked Phieffer as the villainess of the piece, in fact I think aside from Gervais and DeNiro (who plays his gay side a little broadly) everyone is absolutely great in the film.

The final swordfight also took me by surprise in how well it was done. It's an interesting concept anyways, but the choreography behind it was really fantastic.
Reply
post #2 of 56
5/2/08 at 7:08pm
Most underrated film of '07. Vaughn nailed it direction wise, as you said. Quite the ambitious debut, at least difficulty wise. He could of gone the Guy Ritchie route with easier material, but instead did smashingly with this.
Reply
post #3 of 56
5/2/08 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkovsky View Post
Most underrated film of '07. Vaughn nailed it direction wise, as you said. Quite the ambitious debut, at least difficulty wise. He could of gone the Guy Ritchie route with easier material, but instead did smashingly with this.
You DO know that Vaughn's directorial debut was Layer Cake, right?
Reply
post #4 of 56
5/2/08 at 7:12pm
Debut? Vaughn did do the "a lot of fun" Layer Cake before Stardust.

I really love this movie. Only thing that bothers me about it is Ricky Gervais, but at least he doesn't have a lot of screentime. A very enjoyable movie. A great double feature with The Princess Bride.

EDIT: Tati beat me to it.
Reply
post #5 of 56
5/2/08 at 7:15pm
I actually liked Stardust more then The Princess Bride. That's how good I think it was. The only thing that didn't quite work was DeNiro, but he was close.
Reply
post #6 of 56
5/2/08 at 7:36pm
Finally saw this a couple of weeks ago and I agree, it's one of my favorite movies of the last year. DeNiro and Gervais stick out like sore thumbs, tone-wise, but luckily they don't take up a ton of time. It's a fairly faithful adaptation of the book, but a little more Hollywood-ized, particularly the climax. It works well for the film, though.

Princess Bride is the best comparison for this film, although Stardust is a bit less satirical. They're both great in their own way, though. Anyone who takes a pass at Stardust is really missing out.
Reply
post #7 of 56
5/2/08 at 8:08pm
One of my favorite movies from last year, and I champion it to anyone I talk to. Even DeNiro's over the top part is a ton of fun. Everyone should give this a chance.
Reply
post #8 of 56
5/2/08 at 8:33pm
Sorry to to be the hater, but I really don't get why so many people like this film. It has lots of elements I should like, including Vaughn, whose Layer Cake was way better than I thought it would be. And I did try to enjoy it. But it was over-long, unoriginal, uneven, unamusing fantasy hogwash from where I was sat. And Charlie Cox was terrible. I was so disappointed and I can't imagine wanting to see it again anytime soon.

And I know I'm in the minority, which makes me wonder why I couldn't connect with this, cos I'm not the sort of guy to just hate on films. I really try and enjoy them and generally do if its possible. But this did not work for me one bit. Four of us went to see it. Two really enjoyed, me and the other thought it was gash. Go figure.
Reply
post #9 of 56
5/2/08 at 9:07pm
I thought everything was good except the lead actor, whose signing was IMO a pretty big misstep given the rest of the cast. With a bankable lead, (Orlando Bloom? James Macavoy?) I think Stardust could have been a big hit.
Reply
post #10 of 56
5/3/08 at 3:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
You DO know that Vaughn's directorial debut was Layer Cake, right?
My mistake. I wasn't exactly sober when I was writing, which is funny. I love Layer C4ke, it's one of my favorite movies.
Reply
post #11 of 56
5/7/08 at 5:40pm
Realy liked this one myself. Charm and sincerity made a refreshing change from the post-modern smirk every fantasy film seems to feel mandatory these days.
Reply
post #12 of 56
5/7/08 at 8:51pm
Stardust gives us a number of different threads, managing lightly to skip among them without a misstep. Its villains are menacing without being terrifying, its love interests are well and truly lovable, and it manages to gain and maintain a sweet, lighthearted, wonderful tone from beginning to end.
Reply
post #13 of 56
5/7/08 at 9:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graynadian View Post
I thought everything was good except the lead actor, whose signing was IMO a pretty big misstep given the rest of the cast. With a bankable lead, (Orlando Bloom? James Macavoy?) I think Stardust could have been a big hit.
Stardust may have made more money with Orlando Bloom in the lead role, but I don't think it would have been a better movie. Cox was bland, but Bloom is some sort of black hole that sucks the life out of nearly every scene I've seen him in. The only time I ever found him really entertaining was the scene where Paris got the snot kicked out of him in Troy. I haven't seen much of James Macavoy's work, so I can't make any judgments in that direction.
Reply
post #14 of 56
5/7/08 at 10:04pm
James McAvoy isn't bad. But, I hardly think he was very bankable when Stardust came out.

Okay, Last King of Scotland, but that was mainly Whitaker. And Atonement wasn't until the Fall/Winter. As a younger skewing fantasy/romance, would he really be much of a player in terms of making the film a hit?
Reply
post #15 of 56
5/7/08 at 10:05pm
I think Charlie Cox does a pitch perfect job as Tristan. I was pretty concerned about his casting, as he was a total unknown, and at the front end of the film he was kind of bland. But the character is meant to be bland, and not special at all, and growing and becoming an exciting man by the end. Once he gets his makeover from DeNiro Tristan is played a lot less bland. I hope Cox gets a chance to show his chops soon.
Reply
post #16 of 56
5/7/08 at 10:17pm
I've never read the Gaiman book, but you can really see his hand in the film. He has a real talent for walking the fine line between unpleasantly and humorously macabre, and almost more than anything, I think that keeps Stardust feeling fresh. Stuff like divining the future through animal entrails really drives away cliche and balances out the potentially sappy elements.
Reply
post #17 of 56
5/7/08 at 10:19pm
Read the book LlamaRama. There's a couple scenes, one in particular, that was cut due to just how gruesome it was. No way it would have made it anywhere need a film trying to be kid friendly.
Reply
post #18 of 56
5/7/08 at 10:19pm
The book ending is different in tone, and honestly, I prefer the movie ending. The way the story builds, the book ending would not be very satisfying. Truthfully, some of the pacing near the end is also better in the movie.
Reply
post #19 of 56
6/15/08 at 4:59am
Holy shit, this was way more fun than it deserved to be. It wasn't even near my radar, didn't hear much about it, yet I was blown away. Claire Danes was adorable, Michelle Pfeiffer was awesome, and Gaiman's humor poked through every single chance it got. I totally need to get this on DVD.
Reply
post #20 of 56
6/15/08 at 5:04am
I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this by a lady friend and I still thank her to this day. Just a fantastic little movie. Charming to the last.
Reply
post #21 of 56
6/19/08 at 1:39pm
I rented this on DVD a couple of nights ago. I truly, truly regret not seeing this in the theater. When the movie ended, my wife looked at me and said 'buy this one'; nothing more needed to be said.

I agree with virtually everything that has been said so far, although I liked DeNiro and his over-the-top performance. He was having fun, just like everyone else.
Reply
post #22 of 56
6/19/08 at 1:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
I agree with virtually everything that has been said so far, although I liked DeNiro and his over-the-top performance. He was having fun, just like everyone else.
Yeah, I'm totally giving the guy a pass since I honestly don't remember the last film he made where he looked like he was even remotely enjoying it.
Reply
post #23 of 56
6/19/08 at 1:45pm
I was expecting to like it okay, and that's exactly how I felt after watching it. The way the story was presented, I felt like it was like a fairy tale building on the goodwill of a story I'd heard many, many times before, and yet I found nothing inside me resonating with any kind of nostalgia or warmth. I don't know if that really makes any sense, but that's how I feel about it.

I still suggest it to people, b/c like this thread, I find a lot of people enjoy the shit out of it that I'd never expect.
Reply
post #24 of 56
7/1/08 at 8:09pm
So, for anyone pondering the whole book vs the movie question...having just read it over the last two weeks then giving the film another spin....

They're about neck and neck for most of the time. The book benefits from copious amounts of sex and violence, Gaiman's sense of whimsy and obvious love of nature, a more organic, growing chemistry between Yvaine and Tristran, and Tori Amos as a tree. The movie benefits from McKellen as narrator, a lot of well-earned humor, a few great ideas from the book given room to breathe in exchange for dropping some of the minor details.

The film then runs circles around and zooms way past the book in quality with the ending. I like the bittersweet Arwen/Aragorn-ish note the book leaves us on, but in every other respect, Matthew Vaughn improved on the source material.
Reply
post #25 of 56
7/2/08 at 12:56pm
This movie does such a great job of balancing the darker elments and humor with the charm it has in spades. I do think the the two lead performances could have been stronger, but they wer good enough to hold interest. I can see not liking it if you were overly hyped, but having no expectations going in made this a great surprise.
Reply
post #26 of 56
7/4/08 at 2:15am
I really enjoyed this one. My only complaint was that it took the movie a while to get into its groove. The first act was really weird because there were so many plot threads beginning so far from each other.

Claire Danes suddenly became very appealing to me during this movie. Charlie Cox... I liked him, but there was something odd about his performance. He never played it up and it always seemed like he was never that worried about his mortality. It's like he always knew things would work out in the end. It didn't make for a very suspenseful movie, but it made for a very easy-going and fun one.
Reply
post #27 of 56
7/14/08 at 11:22am
I finally had the chance to watch this last night. What a great flick! The only thing missing were a host of Henson creatures to round it out.
Reply
post #28 of 56
7/14/08 at 12:54pm
I love that this thread is getting sporadic bumps still. Keep showing your friends this film people!
Reply
post #29 of 56
7/14/08 at 12:59pm
I love that I talked my sister into watching this film. She grudgingly watched it and called me immediately afterwards and thanked me for it. Spread the word on this one, it's great.
Reply
post #30 of 56
10/21/09 at 2:44pm
Had a movie night with some friends while I was housesitting. They have a great cable package. Stardust was available OnDemand in HD and several of them hadn't seen it yet. I think I loved it even more. Knowing what to expect, the complaints I had last year about the first act being really scattered didn't matter anymore. I also no longer minded the way the movie plays fast and loose with its fairy tale logic. I simply enjoyed myself too much to care.

And this time, I couldn't ignore the fact that Claire Danes really gives Emma Watson a run for the money in the brow-furrowing department. My god! Yet I still couldn't help finding her character appealing. I simply love the device of her hair glowing. Makes me warm.

Oh, and only now I realized that not only is Mark Strong in this... but so is Mark Heap. Brian from Spaced! As Tertius! I recognized his face and couldn't place him. Bugged the shit out of me, so I had to IMDB it.
Reply
post #31 of 56
10/21/09 at 4:16pm
I wish it'd come out on Blu-ray already. It's kind of weird hanging onto the HD-DVD player for this, Big Lebowski, and The Frighteners.
Reply
post #32 of 56
10/21/09 at 4:20pm
Huh... no kidding? Had no idea it wasn't on blu-ray, though oddly the thought of purchasing it didn't cross my mind. Now that I'm told I can't have it... I WANT IT!
Reply
post #33 of 56
10/21/09 at 4:31pm
You can get it on HD-DVD though.
Reply
post #34 of 56
10/21/09 at 4:32pm
It's extra frustrating because it was one of the earliest Paramount Blu-ray announcements. It's on the 'coming soon' slip with my Iron Man disc. Maybe the UK has it...

Edit: Now it's even more frustrating. I just discovered it's the only Paramount HD-DVD to NOT get a Blu-ray release.
Reply
post #35 of 56
10/21/09 at 7:58pm
That's nothing compared to the catching up Universal still has to do, but yeah, this is one of those neat little justifications I pull out when people ask why the hell I still have the HD DVD add-on still plugged into the XBox.
Reply
post #36 of 56
10/21/09 at 8:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post
That's nothing compared to the catching up Universal still has to do, but yeah, this is one of those neat little justifications I pull out when people ask why the hell I still have the HD DVD add-on still plugged into the XBox.
JustinClark,

I still use my HD DVD A3 player to play DVDs, because it's upconverting.
Reply
post #37 of 56
10/21/09 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
You can get it on HD-DVD though.
Don't patronize me, doctor...


Does the lack of urgency in releasing Stardust on blu-ray have much to do with the fact that the movie wasn't a hit?
Reply
post #38 of 56
1/21/10 at 6:14am
Just watched this for the first time in a couple of years - damn, Vaughn's such a good director. And the ending got me a little misty, I'm not ashamed to admit.
Reply
post #39 of 56
3/18/10 at 5:44pm
Hey everyone, just want to appologise in advance for typos on this post I am on my iPod right now because the Internet at home is not working

I rewatched some of this last night and I have to saw that it's grown on me quite a bit. I liked it before, but now I'd have to say it definitely is pretty clever and charming


Two quick things I wanted to comment about

Claire Danes does fantastic work as the star. She is very realistic in the role and is totally believable as a fallen star

the second thing I wanted to say was that the end credits song is really
catchy and quite lovely. 8/10 is the rating Id give that song. I've been singing it to myself all afternoon. Kind of getting a little aggrivating actually

That's all for now
Reply
post #40 of 56
3/18/10 at 5:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
Claire Danes does fantastic work as the star. She is very realistic in the role and is totally believable as a fallen star
I'm curious...please define what an unrealistic/unbelievable performance of a star would be.
Reply
post #41 of 56
3/18/10 at 9:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
I'm curious...please define what an unrealistic/unbelievable performance of a star would be.
I guess it's just that the idea of someone playing the role of a fallen star is a very unusual.... And yet somehow I accepted that that's just what Danes was. The way she was alternatively full of herself and completely naive and child like was pretty crafty acting, IMHO. It easily could have seemed silly, but rather than sitting there thinking about the fact that I'm watching an actor attempting to portray a massive, luminous ball of plasma that is held together by gravity, I just took it at face value.

I really enjoyed her performance, where as Mr Cox (the male lead) was inoffensive but bland.

PS Good thing they did not cast DeNiro as the star! He would have gone method and begun a fusion reaction deep in his body
Reply
post #42 of 56
3/18/10 at 9:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
I'm curious...please define what an unrealistic/unbelievable performance of a star would be.
The Claire Danes character is a fantasy being. Like Gandalf, the wizard, who is an immortal entity with magical powers created by gods in the form of a fully adult human. I thought Ian McKellan's performance was believable. I think that's what Kate meant, but then I think you're just baiting her.
Reply
post #43 of 56
3/18/10 at 9:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
The Claire Danes character is a fantasy being. Like Gandalf, the wizard, who is an immortal entity with magical powers created by gods in the form of a fully adult human. I thought Ian McKellan's performance was believable. I think that's what Kate meant, but then I think you're just baiting her.
I agree, Chris.

No worries though, I was on my iPod so I was indeed a bit vague about what I meant. I *hate* typing on that thing and so I didn't take the time to go into detail. Judas' question afforded me an opportunity to expand on my comments
Reply
post #44 of 56
3/18/10 at 10:20pm
OK. Maybe it wasn't bait, then. Sorry, Judas. But, Kate, people sure do like to call you out on every little idiosyncratic thing you say.

Actually, it's kind of interesting. Fantasy stories often ask us to find believable the personality of beings or creatures that are very remote from humanity by anthropomorphizing them or giving them human emotions. A character with feelings, desires, or motivations that are too alien will not be relatable to human audiences.

And of course, since all film audiences are human (to my knowledge no one has yet made a film targeted to, say, dogs or chimpanzees), all characters need to be "human" in at least some way.
Reply
post #45 of 56
3/18/10 at 10:43pm
There was nothing nasty or mean in my question to Kate. It just seemed like an odd statement for someone to make about a fantasy-based character. You either 'buy' her as a fallen star or you don't; is the part written and acted in such a way that you can get past the fact that she's playing something impossible? YES. In my opinion, Claire is entirely successful, and that's one of the big reasons why the film works.
Reply
post #46 of 56
3/19/10 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hill View Post
OK. Maybe it wasn't bait, then. Sorry, Judas. But, Kate, people sure do like to call you out on every little idiosyncratic thing you say.

Actually, it's kind of interesting. Fantasy stories often ask us to find believable the personality of beings or creatures that are very remote from humanity by anthropomorphizing them or giving them human emotions. A character with feelings, desires, or motivations that are too alien will not be relatable to human audiences.

And of course, since all film audiences are human (to my knowledge no one has yet made a film targeted to, say, dogs or chimpanzees), all characters need to be "human" in at least some way.
CH,

No worries, I totally understand and I appreciate you standing up for me. I just was saying in this particular instance, I was less than fully clear

And I agree with your take there. I guess I don't know what a star would be like in real life, but all the same Danes was convincing in the role. I felt like *she* believed she was a star, and so I just went along with it.
Reply
post #47 of 56
3/19/10 at 1:53pm
Kate, Take That wrote the song and I think its called Rule the World.
Reply
post #48 of 56
3/19/10 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
Kate, Take That wrote the song and I think its called Rule the World.
Thanks for the info, Ken. I might try to iPod it

I like it alot. But... I was thinking that the 'rule the world' sentiment is one that pretty much ensures that the song won't ever work outside the context of the film
Reply
post #49 of 56
3/20/10 at 2:32am
Pretty underrated movie IMO. Lots of charm, humor, and likable characters. Not to mention there aren't too many good fantasy flicks coming out these days.
Reply
post #50 of 56
9/7/10 at 4:44am
So... FINALLY coming out on blu-ray, eh!? YES!
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Stardu...y/1186/#Review
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video