missing something, but good

Rating: 6/10 (11 September 2007)

"Stardust" has enough of the elements of a classic faerie story, executed with skill, to please the fan audience. It also has a lot of comedy and some very good FX, so it should have been a bigger hit with general audiences as well. Personally I found it just a pleasing diversion, but somehow missing the qualities that would really make it stand out from the current pack of fantasy epics.
Tristan (Charlie Cox) is a young man who swears to bring back a fallen star from the magical land "over the wall" to prove his love for shallow Victoria (Sienna Miller). He discovers that in the magical world a fallen star would take a feminine form, in this case Yvain (Claire Danes), and eventually (at LONG last) falls for her instead. Along the way they're hindered by the sons of the former King (Peter O'Toole) who need to recover the star to claim the throne and by a trio of evil witches headed by Lamie (Michelle Pfeiffer) who can use the star's heart to reclaim their youth. They're also aided by a pirate (Robert Deniro) with a secret.
The best parts of the film for me were the scenes with Deniro and Pfeiffer. Pfeiffer, who I admit I've never particularly liked (or, for that matter, disliked) comes off the best. It's not a difficult part but she balances the comedy demands without making her fearsome personal seem ridiculous, which is an accomplishment. My favorite gimmick in the movie was the way that using magic would gradually age her, which produced some humorous results. Deniro has a short, showy, and comedic part. His role in the film as well as his performance are reminiscent of his part in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" (a far superior film). Most of the really funny scenes in the film come courtesy of Deniro's flamboyant buccaneer.
Aside from that, my favorite bit was probably the continued presence of the princes of the realm, who must stick around as ghosts until a new King is chosen. Rupert Everett was particularly great in the role of the most ruthless of the princes.
I didn't care particularly for either of the leads. Nothing in particular wrong but they just did not have cinematic presence; they were like TV actors stuck in a movie. Ricky Gervais' bit didn't hold up the weight the director apparently thought it would and his death scene felt jarringly gratuitous. The parts with the hero's mother could have been done better and integrated into the larger story more smoothly.
But I think the main thing that kept me from really entering into this fantasy world was just the poor definition of the fantasy world itself. The separation between the "real" and the "faerie" world was not maintained in the way that you need to in order to really establish a good fantasy world. The people in "Wall" are too much aware of the existence of the faerie world, and the people likewise in the faerie world are too aware of those in "Wall". That blurs the line between the fantasy and the real and destroys the validity of the story as a faerie tale. I only became conscious of this after watching the film and reflecting on it, but this connects up to some of the things Professor Tolkien said in his brilliant essay "On Faerie Stories". The problem isn't the comedy in the fantasy world (Tolkien himself wrote many whimsical fantasies including "Farmer Giles of Ham" and the original "Hobbit"), but rather in the lack of definition or absolute separation between the two worlds, which seem to co-exist even in the same physical space much like "Oz" in the original book by Frank Baum. However at least in "Oz" Baum makes it very difficult to move between the faerie world and the real world; in this story all it takes is to trick a dude that's standing guard on a wall and you're in the faerie world. This is not to place extrinsic values on the film, but it's a weakness of the fantasy aspects of the film that prevent it from reaching its full potential.
People have compared it to Reiner's "Princess Bride" perhaps because of its combination of heartfelt romance and whimsical ironic humor. I recognize these points of comparison and I do think this was probably a good "family" film because it could entertain both kids and adults (though personally I thought the violence too heavy for younger kids). I'm tempted to talk about how much better "Bride" is, but it's a movie that sort of grew on me over the years. I'm one of the people who actually saw "Princess Bride" in the theater (people forget that it wasn't any more of a box-office hit than "Stardust" is) and I didn't care for it much at the time. I guess the two share some weaknesses IMHO  occasionally distracting humor, weak leading actors with no presence, and perhaps too much sentiment at times. But over time I was able to look past those things and see "Bride" as a great fantasy romance, partly because of its self-consciousness. It's hard for me to say whether "Stardust" will grow in my affections in the same way, but I wouldn't rule it out. I also wouldn't be surprised if audiences discover it on DVD and make it a "cult hit." My only real doubt is that in "Bride" there were at least a few really memorable scenes, especially the duel on the cliffs. There was no real powerful scene like that in "Stardust", nothing that provided a lot of action while advancing the characters. I didn't think it was a great film, but it surely has something different and special to offer and I feel it deserved better treatment on its first release compared to most of the other stuff I've seen this summer (especially that awful 3rd Pirates film).