Stardust

Is Stardust the next Princess Bride? That’s the question everyone has been asking ever since they saw the first trailers for this movie. I challenge you to find a well-known critic who reviewed Stardust without mentioning Princess Bride. It’s too obvious to pass up. And can you blame them? Stardust has such a light-hearted fairy-tale atmosphere with roaming adventures, sharp wit and quirky characters played by big-name actors. Even so, it seems kind of unfair to make the comparison; Princess Bride is a genuine classic that is next-to-impossible to duplicate. Critics similarly made unreasonable comparisons of Anthony Hopkins’ villain in Fracture (just released on DVD) to Hannibal Lecter. In any case, is Stardust the next Princess Bride? No. But it tries really hard.

Stardust has a lot of things going for it. The first is the work of newcomer Charlie Cox who plays our hero, Tristan. Cox is able to light up the screen with his comedic timing and lovelorn innocence; he is a treat to watch. I’m really hoping he doesn’t take the Orlando Bloom path but instead heads in the John Cusack’s direction. Ricky Gervais (The Office (UK), Extras) is his perfect bumbling self in the small role of a salesman, and Michelle Pfeiffer is perfectly evil as a witch trying to regain her youth. At 49, she can still look hot. The other thing that Stardust has going for it is the wonderful story. Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman, this story is enchanting and has a pretty good pace. While I think a couple of things are not explained fully, there is still a flow that takes the audience on a wonderful adventure.

I’m still divided on a couple of things in Stardust. The first is the cross-dressing work of Robert DeNiro. While I think it is brave for him to do such a fruity, flamboyant role, I wonder if he feels like he has to prove himself. I mean, this guy did Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter and Raging Bull; he has nothing to prove. We know he’s a good actor. Maybe he made this one for the kiddies. Who knows? I just know I’m not quite sure what to make of his over-the-top role in this movie. I am also not sold on the love interests in this film. Sienna Miller plays a selfish beyotch who toys with the affection of Tristan. I have no idea what he sees in her. Claire Danes is the falling star, Iyvaine, who also seems pretty moody. Daines does have her moments but I preferred her work in Romeo + Juliet, My So-Called Life and even Terminator 3. Another thing that confused me in Stardust, is the role of the dead brothers who are entertaining with their bystander commentaries but woefully underused. I’m still surprised someone like Rupert Everett would take such a small role. I guess the story is not about the dead brothers and giving them more would only lengthen the already two-hour storyline but I did think there was more potential. Finally, the special effects were not that great; it seemed kind of old school, but maybe that’s what they were going for.

The only thing that really bothered me while watching Stardust was the giggling gaggle of girls in our row. They laughed a little too hard at lines that were only moderately funny; they loudly swooned every time Charlie Cox appeared on screen. I wouldn’t have been surprised if a pillow fight had broken out. Isn’t that what happens at slumber parties? I guess the film is directly aimed at that demographic so I can’t complain too much. So should you see Stardust in the theatre and risk the interactive female responses, I would say no. I think this film has a lot of great things in it but you can get the same experience at home. Maybe if the special effects were more special I would suggest the big screen, but this film fits perfectly on DVD. It’ll be a great movie to distract the kiddies during Thanksgiving or Christmas.