Chaotic, Contrived, and Confusing

Rating: 5/10 (22 August 2007)

Stardust's downfall is that, in trying too much to be like old school fairy tales (Lord of the Rings and such), it carries the air of trying too hard. You can tell that it wants so bad to be the kind of classic fairy tale that everybody loves, but too much of it feels fake and pretentious, and there are several uselessly added layers that don't do much to enhance the story.
The film begins with a deliciously wonderful voice-over by the incomparable Ian McKellen, who narrates throughout the movie, and is undoubtedly one of the best things about it. His soothing voice carries us to a small English countryside town whose wall borders on the magical land of Stormhold. A man journeys forth into the magical world, and 18 years later his son, Tristan (geez how fairy tale-ey can you get?) (whose mother resides in Stormhold) has grown up into a man who is in young puppy love with a rich girl who lives down the street. Alas, he cannot win her heart because he is a mere shop boy, but luckily for him, a star falls from the sky that he promises to retrieve for her in exchange for her hand in marriage. He journeys to the star, only to find that it is actually a fallen star named Yvaine, and together they must weather other people who are after them, including a devilish witch (a smart but underused Michelle Pfeiffer) and three sons of a recently dead king (Peter O'Toole in the best role of the movie) who must retrieve an amulet that will give whoever finds it kingship over all of Stormhold. Yeesh. If that plot isn't enough to show you how contrived and pretentious this movie is, let me continue.
Stardust's greatest downfall is how much it believes that it is such a great tale of whimsy, fun, and fancy. But with such a convoluted plot (and believe me it gets convoluteder, er, more convoluted), there's no way it can claim to be a simple adventure. For starters, there are several things about the plot that should have been completely done away with. One is Robert De Niro's character of the gay pirate. Yes, I know everyone's raving about how he's playing against type and how great he is, but I don't really care. Once you get past the superficial "ha ha ha he NEVER plays this type of character!" there's not really much there, and the entire scene aboard his flying lightning harvesting boat (admittedly this is a pretty cool idea) is basically useless.Another useless point, however hilariously forgivable it is, occurs when De Niro sells his lightning to a trader, played by Ricky Gervais in, personally, my favorite moment of the entire movie, as Gervais milks the role for all it's worth, trumping, with three minutes on screen, De Niro's pirate effortlessly. Him, Ian McKellen, and Peter O'Toole are worth the price of admission all in themselves. The end result of the useless plot threads is a story that's so unnecessarily complicated that there's no way it can claim to be any kind of whimsical fairy tale. The extra plot threads wouldn't have bothered me if they had been woven into the tapestry of the movie enough to be unnoticeable, but they're so sloppily done the careless craftsmanship is almost unforgivable.
Aside from the useless, sloppily done plot threads, another thing that bothered me was the anything goes use of magic. Supposedly, when the witch, Michelle Pfeiffer, I don't even remember her name, uses magic, it takes a toll on her borrowed youth so that she ages. So she uses magic several times, sparingly, of course, and when she does two bits of magic, both of her arms fade to withered skin dotted with age spots. Understandable, as both of these bits of magic weren't that large. But then she conjures an entire inn, complete with rooms, a bar, baths, a stable, a dining room, and everything you could possibly imagine in an inn. This doesn't take a toll on her at all, and it is never explained. Other instances abound. You might say, "It's magic, it's not supposed to have rules!" but if magic has no rules, then anybody could do anything, and then there wouldn't be much of an interesting plot, would there? And in the grand finale to the film, all previous supposed rules of magic are tossed out the window in favor of an over-the-top (albeit semi-visually impressive, if a bit derivative) climax.
My other qualm with this movie is how its modern elements are completely disparate with its fantasy elements. When the star falls from the sky, we go up above the Earth and look down. What? This isn't sci-fi! Another way that this "fairy tale" rings false is how the characters easily jump into bed with one another as if they were part of the cast of "Friends", when the sleeping together does nothing to advance the story, and even detracts from it as the immediate physicality just reeks of lazy writing and a refusal to do anything new with this kind of storyline. It also diminishes the love the characters share for one another. Other amusingly ironic but ultimately too obvious pop culture references pepper the mix.
Too often Stardust seems to be trying to be this grand sweeping epic movie, but then it will go into moments where it strains almost to the breaking point trying to whimsical and charming. It never mixes effectively the parts are too different and not woven well enough together to create anything reasonably entertaining. All this being said, though, it can be an enjoyable ride if not over-analyzed, but for me, its slipshod craftsmanship and poorly woven storyline were too much to really give it a good recommendation.