Neil Gaiman is probably the best story-teller in the business these days. And "Stardust" is one of his most charming tales.
Okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I am already a huge fan of Neil Gaiman's work in print. That said, viewing a film made of any favourite writer's novel almost always leads to disappointment. Witness the hoard of Joanne Rowling fans who fault the films for making short shrift of Harry Potter story-lines.
A good sign, on the other hand, is when the author himself appears in the film credits as a screen-play writer or a producer, or even -- as was the case in Sin City -- acknowledged with a co-director's credit (for Frank Miller). In that instance, original director Robert Rodriguez was so adamant about honouring Miller's work that he quit the Directors' Guild of America (DGA) so Miller could join him as Sin City's co-director. As I said, usually a good sign.
In the case of Stardust, I was pleased to see that Neil Gaiman is credited as a producer on the film.
I rarely offer a full five-star rating to a restaurant -- or to a film, for that matter. That's just one of the reasons why I was shocked right out of my socks when I saw that Seattle PI "critic" William Arnold wrote: "Movie analysts are high on the film's box-office and critical prospects, but it certainly struck me as a huge pile of nothing: ponderously plotted, poorly cast, visually undistinguished and devoid of any real verve or charm."
Yikes! Did we see the same movie?
Likewise, Boston Herald film critic James Verniere thought the "cutesy-wootsiness" (his term) of the names sounded contrived, and that the film was "weirdly boring" and "lacked magic." Clearly this so-called critic does not read; he certainly has never heard of graphic novels and has no idea who Neil Gaiman is in the constellation of current novelists. Moreover, neither one of these guys is in touch with the movie-going audience!
Okay, enough about slamming reviewers whose views I do not respect. Here's what I thought of this classic "quest" film:
Stardust is one of those rare film experiences that accurately echoes the true spirit of the book upon which it was based. It is gripping, suspenseful, engaging, wry, amazing, magical and a whole lot of entertainment. At a recent preview screening, the entire audience broke into delighted, spontaneous and liberal applause at its conclusion. There were filmic special-effects so astonishing, that my 20-something (and usually blasй) escort leaned toward me and whispered, awestruck: "Isn't that effect wonderful?"
Imagination is underrated these days. Neil Gaiman has imagination a-plenty and nowhere is it better showcased (other than in his spell-binding books) than when realized brilliantly on celluloid. Bonus: The casting for this movie is absolutely perfect!
I read somewhere that Sarah Michelle Gellar turned down the part of Yvaine because the film was being shot in Scotland when her spouse Freddie Prinze Jr. was filming in the U.S. She explained, "I turned it down because it was Freddie's turn in New York. I would have loved to have done it -- are you kidding? But it was Freddie's turn."
Well, Gellar's commitment to her hubby is her loss and our gain, as Claire Danes is the perfectly ethereal (celestial-type) star for the part. Having seen Danes in the role, I couldn't imagine how dreadful a choice Gellar would have been. Danes is luminous in every meaning of the word -- she is the ideal "Star" and shines letter-perfectly in the part.
I've always thought that Michelle Pfeiffer -- besides looking splendid in the film (when she's supposed to) and in turns quite dreadful (when that look is called for) -- is a very under-utilized actress. Here she gets to strut her stuff as the 5000-year-old witch Lamia (for the record, she played the witch Sukie Ridgemont in The Witches of Eastwick but turned down the role of the White Witch in The Chronicles of Narnia), one of three Harpy-sisters in pursuit of the star Yvaine for narcissistic, unwholesome and murderous reasons.
I won't say much about Robert De Niro's character, Captain Shakespeare, except that this venerable actor's performance is quite remarkable. (You'll enjoy Peter O'Toole's brief cameo scene, as well.)
Charlie Cox perfectly portrays the always-abashed Tristran Thorn, and his father Dunstan (played by Nathaniel Parker) is a perfect match for him. They are just as fans who read the book will have pictured them. And -- for the record -- young Dunstan (played by Ben Barnes) is an uncanny match for Parker.
I can honestly say I haven't enjoyed a fairy-tale-type movie this much since the brilliant The Princess Bride. If you're a fantasy or graphic novel reader, this is a must-see movie. Forget what those faded critics say; they're not writing for YOU.