'Stardust' is no 'Princess Bride'

Rating: 5/10 (11 August 2007)

Forget the Hollywood hype. Stardust is no Princess Bride. Having read and immensely enjoyed the novel, Stardust, by Neil Gaiman, I can sum up the film in just two simple words; magic lost.
It's hard for me to imagine that Neil Gaiman had anything to do with this filmlet alone the fact that he was a producer. I must admit that I was angry during the beginning of the film and found myself slowly accepting the reality that the film's narrative was failing to stay true to its literary counterpart.
Whatever happened to Tristran's one ear that was pointy and elfish as well as the reasons behind it? Why didn't we get to see how he was treated differently by his peers in Wall? Why didn't we learn the reason why Tristran's father, Dunstan, purchased the snowdrop (glass flower) from the gypsy girl who was the witch's slave? Why weren't we treated to the delicate love scene (as far as PG-13 will allow), between Dunstan and the gypsy girl, which resulted in the birth of Tristran? Why weren't we treated to the wonderful and mysterious goings on at the Faerie Market by all of the vendors and spectators who traveled so far to be there? In the book, vendors shouted, "Eyes, eyes! New eyes for old!", "Instruments of music from a hundred lands!", "Try your luck! Step right up!", "Everlasting lavender!", "Bottled dreams, a shilling a bottle!", "Swords of fortune!" and "Wands of power!" Inarguably, this would have lent such a magical feel and sense of wonder to the Faerie Market. Why weren't we told that this very special Faerie Market only took place every nine years? Most importantly, why didn't we get to see the reason why Tristran was granted entrance into the land of Faerie? Finally, why did the filmmakers leave out the hairy little elfin man who helped Tristran get around in the land of Faerie as well as the little faerie folk? Instead of the beautifully crafted narrative in the novel (which so eloquently and effectively establishes a fantastical yet very romantic time and place during the Victorian era), the film speeds past important story elementsthus, leaving us with contrivance and an empty feeling which makes us not care so deeply for the main characters.
Let's face it, Stardust will never reach a very high "rewatchability factor" that The Princess Bride has earned. There were no magic moments in Stardust to remember endearingly and no witty lines of dialogue to repeat over and over with friends like, "As you wish.", "Inconceivable!" and "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." The Stardust script was a mess and simply could not hold a candle to that of The Princess Bride. Undoubtedly, William Goldman is a true genius and an extremely gifted writer. Both his novel, The Princess Bride, and his screenplay adaptation, are far beyond compare. In the novel, and the film, The Princess Bride, one is captivated by the rich characters and their motivations. In addition, the comedic elements in The Princess Bride are priceless with several laugh out loud moments. None of this can be said of Stardust. In fact, Stardust fails miserably in the comedic department. (Honestly, a cross-dressing gay sky pirate?) The comedic elements seemed to have been thrown in haphazardly and were ill-timed at that. Perhaps more comedy would have been inspired if Rupert Everett's character wasn't killed off so suddenly.
Even the characters of time and place were not fully developed as in The Princess Bride. One never feels a connection to Wall or to Stormhold like we are of Florin and Guilder in The Princess Bride. In addition, other wonderful characters of Stardust were either small caricatures or just plain eliminated from the film! The mother who raised Tristran as her own was non-existent in the film. Even Tristran's father's character, Dunstan, was pretty much left in the dust. Even the way Tristran first encounters Yvaine, the fallen star, is ridiculous to say the least! Tristran's entire journey to reach the fallen star was skipped over completely. Instead of a rough, perilous journey, Tristran is suddenly 'beamed' to the star's landing spot viaCGI! What a rip. At least in The Princess Bride, we were treated to the journey as well as the narrow escapes of the Eels, Cliffs of Insanity, the Fire Swamp, Quick Sand and the triumph over the R.O.U.S.'s (Rodents of Unusual Size).
Is there anything redeeming about the film? Michele Pfeiffer makes a darn good wicked witch. That's it, really. Robert De Niro was OK in his role. He was the only real comedic relief in the film and, even here, his lines of dialogue were mediocre at best. Charlie Cox was no Westley and Claire Danes was no Princess Buttercup.
The film was choppy and, for the most part, the characters were like 'walking stick figures'. The make-up and costume departments did a fine job. However, the special effects were not that spectacular and did not compensate for the lack of development for either the characters or storyline. At many points, the film's score was so over the top and dramatic that it didn't fit the scene.
In the end, the mistake was putting two novices on this projectthe director, Matthew Vaughn (Layer Cake), and first-time screenwriter, Jane Goldman. And, it showed. (Let's face it, they hired the wrong Goldman!) I blame Paramount and Neil Gaiman, equally, for not choosing a better team. Rob Reiner (The Princess Bride), Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings) or Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands) would have been infinitely superior choices for director. (Neil, you should have adapted your own screenplay like William Goldman did!) Even Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer could not save this film. I truly believe that the studio knew Stardust was in trouble to some degree. The August release date of the film is rather telling. Paramount only wishes Stardust were the next Princess Bride.