![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stardust Expectations
Two weeks ago I had a couple of days off, and on one of them Teri and I used some free movie tickets to see Stardust. If you haven't seen it, it's a fantasy film based on a novella by Neil Gaiman. If you want to see it in a theatre, you're probably too late.
But let me make a quick digression for a second.
Whenever I talk about movies, I often end up helplessly searching my memory for the last good modern movie I've seen in a theatre. Inevitably, I end up picking RoboCop. Why? Well, partly because I don't get to see many movies. But also because the commercials for RoboCop were just so terrible. I went into the theatre expecting a totally crappy movie, and was delighted to find that it was an unusually well-written, funny, and intelligent action movie.
Contrariwise I've gone into movies which have been critically praised as practically the Second Coming, and almost inevitably I find myself feeling let down at the end.
So what does that have to do with Stardust? Well, I first became aware of it when Teri and I saw a trailer for it at the most recent Harry Potter movie (which I thought was well done, for a Hollywood flick). I noticed Neil Gaiman's name, of course, which set off a few caveats in my mind.
He's a very talented writer (although I'd still place Alan Moore solidly above him in the comic book pantheon). I like a lot of what he does. At the same time, previous movies that his name has been tied to have been strangely lacking. Teri was interested by the trailer, and so was I, but I was prepared to be disappointed.
That expectation was increased by two other events: a review in Salon which started off with a spoiler of what was probably the high point of the film, and an overall rating from the film critic community of "B-minus" for the movie (according to Yahoo).
Plus, it was a love story. I badly feared chick-flickism.
Maybe all that's why it was so hard for me to decide what I thought of it when it was over. But looking back, I have to say: it was actually quite well done! There were some flaws - definitely some points which I think should have been re-written a bit, to make the story stronger - and overall, the film had a light feeling, not in that it was whimsical but in that somehow the flavor of it wasn't a strong as it should have been (if you know what I mean). But the acting, writing, and effects were all good. It didn't quite have the magic of a true classic, but it was a well-made, entertaining film.
I got curious, so I ordered the novella from the library. I'd hoped for the illustrated edition, but they got me the regular edition instead. It felt strange to be reading the book after seeing the movie; that's not the usual order of things for me! Over and over I found myself thinking that the movie had actually been better than the book (the screenplay wasn't by Gaiman, incidentally). I wonder if I'd have thought differently if I'd read the book first, but I doubt it; the book isn't bad, but it's not a classic. It wouldn't (and hasn't) stuck with me - so I wouldn't have been comparing the movie to it.
I had some specific ideas on how I'd have improved the screenplay, but since I suppose someone here just might still see the movie I'll hold off on spoiling it.
But let me make a quick digression for a second.
Whenever I talk about movies, I often end up helplessly searching my memory for the last good modern movie I've seen in a theatre. Inevitably, I end up picking RoboCop. Why? Well, partly because I don't get to see many movies. But also because the commercials for RoboCop were just so terrible. I went into the theatre expecting a totally crappy movie, and was delighted to find that it was an unusually well-written, funny, and intelligent action movie.
Contrariwise I've gone into movies which have been critically praised as practically the Second Coming, and almost inevitably I find myself feeling let down at the end.
So what does that have to do with Stardust? Well, I first became aware of it when Teri and I saw a trailer for it at the most recent Harry Potter movie (which I thought was well done, for a Hollywood flick). I noticed Neil Gaiman's name, of course, which set off a few caveats in my mind.
He's a very talented writer (although I'd still place Alan Moore solidly above him in the comic book pantheon). I like a lot of what he does. At the same time, previous movies that his name has been tied to have been strangely lacking. Teri was interested by the trailer, and so was I, but I was prepared to be disappointed.
That expectation was increased by two other events: a review in Salon which started off with a spoiler of what was probably the high point of the film, and an overall rating from the film critic community of "B-minus" for the movie (according to Yahoo).
Plus, it was a love story. I badly feared chick-flickism.
Maybe all that's why it was so hard for me to decide what I thought of it when it was over. But looking back, I have to say: it was actually quite well done! There were some flaws - definitely some points which I think should have been re-written a bit, to make the story stronger - and overall, the film had a light feeling, not in that it was whimsical but in that somehow the flavor of it wasn't a strong as it should have been (if you know what I mean). But the acting, writing, and effects were all good. It didn't quite have the magic of a true classic, but it was a well-made, entertaining film.
I got curious, so I ordered the novella from the library. I'd hoped for the illustrated edition, but they got me the regular edition instead. It felt strange to be reading the book after seeing the movie; that's not the usual order of things for me! Over and over I found myself thinking that the movie had actually been better than the book (the screenplay wasn't by Gaiman, incidentally). I wonder if I'd have thought differently if I'd read the book first, but I doubt it; the book isn't bad, but it's not a classic. It wouldn't (and hasn't) stuck with me - so I wouldn't have been comparing the movie to it.
I had some specific ideas on how I'd have improved the screenplay, but since I suppose someone here just might still see the movie I'll hold off on spoiling it.
no subject
no subject
Teri thought that Stardust was "weird", which I find amusing. I thought it was pretty standard Gaiman fare - actually it was pretty tame Gaiman fare. But now that I've read the book, (which was also tame, except for some mildly explicit sex at the beginning) I have to say that the screenwriters of the movie deserve big credit for improving the source material. Not enough credit for me to make the effort of bothering to go look up their names, though. :D