Anyone seen Stardust?

Robin Low · 20 October, 2007, 10:44:31 AM

The review in the latest Meg savaged it, but the handful of reviews I've looked at online seem positive. Any thoughts? Worth the time and money?

Despite buying the orginal four issues and the fancy hardback years ago (current hardback edition is horribly expensive and the reproduction doesn't so hot), I still haven't read it yet. I'm wondering if I can watch the film without having the original spoiled.

Regards

Robin

The Enigmatic Dr X · 20 October, 2007, 12:29:32 PM

I read the book for the second time last month, in anticipation of seeing the film.

I'd read the book first, as the film (I think) places greater emphasis on minor characters. I say this without seeing the film, but knowing that the character played by De Niro is in the book for about three pages and having no idea who the Gervais character is.

Trout · 21 October, 2007, 01:37:34 PM

I liked the book a lot, and recommend it. I'll try to find a way to see the film, despite permanent-late-shift-and-no-babyitters hell.

I can't decide whether to be amused or pissed off by Jonathan Ross, who keeps admitting he's not objective because his wife co-wrote it, then features it at length on one of his many BBC programmes.

Still, Piffiffer's a babe.

- Trout

Adrian Bamforth · 21 October, 2007, 02:13:45 PM

Neil Gaiman's also a close friend of his...though I seem to remember his review of Mirrormask was only lukewarm (though it's got the usual taken-out-of-contect quotes on the cover), and he loved League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen film, despite being a Moore fanatic. I assumed he's probably bow out and get someone else to review it though in a way it would be admitting that he's partial - I think he'll be pretty used to reviewing friends' films by now. That said, it would be difficult if it had been a stinker.

I like some of Gaiman's work though I can't say I'm very drawn to this by the trailer - the Gervais cameo seems very predictable and incestuous (other than Brent, he's just not an actor), the flying ship CGI looks very hokey and Gaiman alsoways seems to move his stories along with the same 'have to find the next magic object or character' device. But then maybe it's just notaimed at me.

House of Usher · 21 October, 2007, 03:26:43 PM

Kids' film. Why in the world would I...? etc.

COMMANDO FORCES · 21 October, 2007, 03:30:18 PM

What do you mean, kids film.

I thought David Essex looked the part as a rock star!

dweezil2 · 21 October, 2007, 04:06:23 PM

And what a fine movie that is too, the David Essex one, that is.

Keef Monkey · 21 October, 2007, 09:10:43 PM

Haven't seen the movie yet but Jonathan Ross' review seemed pretty balanced to me. Really enjoyed the book(only other Gaiman book I've read was Neverwhere which didn't really do anything for me) but the trailers for this haven't convinced me they've made a good movie of it. Will probably wait until I can rent it or watch it on tv rather than risk a wasted cinema trip.

vzzbux · 21 October, 2007, 09:25:24 PM

I thought 'That'll be the day' was better.

V

johnnystress · 22 October, 2007, 08:11:44 AM

I was pleasantly surprised with this after seeing the trailer, which didn't give a good impression. It's a very good kids film and as I was watching I thought that had I seen this 20 years ago I'd have loved it.

It omits some minor characters ,and there are some modern phrases that jarred a bit but is very faithful to the book in other aspects.

It looks very nice too

Dunk! · 22 October, 2007, 09:18:14 AM

Saw it.

Liked it.

Forgotten most of it already.

Except Robert DeNiro is a terrible at playing camp

Tiplodocus · 22 October, 2007, 12:11:39 PM

I enjoyed it and so did Tiny Tips (7). It's pretty much a very straight forward fairy story; very little of the knowingness of Princess Bride that some of the reviews/previews would have you belive is there.

The leads are likeable (eventually), there's lovely scenery, Michelle looks positively radiant and you leave with a nice warm feeling.

Amusingly, I've seen Gaiman on MAKING OF... shows saying, "They changed all sorts from my original story but, what the heck, it's all good stuff". I know he's probably being paid to say that but it does make a difference from "They've ruined it!".

I tend to disagree with Worley about nearly all of his film reviews so I've stopped paying attention to him. It's only an opinion after all.

LARF · 22 October, 2007, 02:27:53 PM

Yeah I thought Worley's review was quite scathing and uncalled for in a way - he's the type of 'critic' (used loosely) to whom I often think 'do I give a shit what he thinks' and it actually makes me want to go and see the film.

I tend to ignore most critics anyway. Anyone who funds their life fauning over others or on the other foot, kicking them down, needs to have their head looked at.

Wils · 22 October, 2007, 02:32:04 PM

'do I give a shit what he thinks'

Tbh, that's what I think about *all* critics of every kind, and the answer's always "no". Food critics being particularly odious twats.

COMMANDO FORCES · 22 October, 2007, 06:45:19 PM

Mr Ross might just have a teeny weeny bit of bias in his review seeing as his wife had a major part in the script. Even so that doesn't stop it being a good film if it is (I haven't seen it and I don't think I will as there may not be enough gory deaths for me).