ntang (ntang) wrote,
ntang
ntang

Stardust

I took the kids to see Stardust today.

I know it hasn't gotten great reviews, overall, but I have to say that I really enjoyed it. I won't go into too many details, but if you can get past the fact that it's a somewhat liberal translation of the original story, and more than a little sappy and cheesy at times, it really is quite enjoyable. It made me happy, anyways, and I'd say was definitely the best version of his work I've seen on screen so far. (Not sure that's saying much, yet, but he's got a bunch of stuff in process, so hopefully there'll be more to choose from soon.)

So there you go. Go see it, it hasn't made nearly enough money yet. (No, really - it cost $70m to make and only grossed $20m in its first two weeks out of the gate. It deserves to do better than that. Even if it could've been better, it's important for the studios to think of Neil Gaiman as worth taking risks on, which they won't if he bombs.)

Interesting bit of trivia: Robert De Niro is possibly the worst part of the movie. I'm not a big fan of him as a comic actor, and this does nothing to help that impression. However, I found Charlie Cox and Claire Danes to be surprisingly charming, and I did like Michelle Pfeiffer in her role. It's also quite amazing to me that she seems to get more beautiful over time - or maybe I just appreciate her more as time goes on? Could be my aging has more to do with it than hers.

Anyways, didn't mean to wander off on a tangent. Go see the movie, already.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 6 comments