I like it not love it-I'm just pecked to death by little flaws...which I'll tell you about...(SPOILERS)

Rating: 6/10 (5 January 2008)

(Contains lots of spoilers) Too long ago I read the source novel by Neil Gaiman, or rather half, stopping not because the story was bad but rather because I disliked the way the story is told. I'm of a similar mind concerning the film adaptation.
First and foremost I have to say I like the film. Its an okay time killer. Its not the be all and end all that some people have claimed-most recently a person in my office who basically accosted me with her "best film" talk. Its an okay film thats wounded by some deep flaws. Keep in mind I do like the film (even as I break it into pieces) Do I need to tell the plot or can we just assume that most people reading this already know the story is that a young man promises to get a falling star for his lady love never imagining that the star would be a young woman.
As a fantasy film it looks pretty good, though to be perfectly honest in the bootleg copy I've looked at actually looks better since its less "flashy Hollywood dress up". The effects mostly work and I don't think I can really fault the film on a technical level.
The problems for the most part are two fold,namely some of the casting and the script or perhaps the work of Matthew Vaughn (and sometimes both at the same time).
Sienna Miller is wasted and her part so badly written that there is no sense why Charlie Cox has any interest in her- other than she looks beautiful. She is bland. The same can be said for Claire Danes who looks good but is so incredibly dull. She radiates nothing as the love interest at all. Robert DeNiro looks good but his fay reading of Shakespeare is often amusing but more often than not really belongs in another movie. Its a choice, which like several other "knowing" choices that make me want to slap director Matthew Vaughn around.
Let me get into the script and Vaughn's choices. First off the knowing nods that pervade the film wobble it. If the film had been a knowing homage like the Princess Bride (damn I didn't want to mention that) where most of it is tongue in cheek things would be fine, but Vaughn wants to have to it both ways, he wants a serious fantasy with a hero and villains but he also wants to be silly and send it up.
Examples? The way Michelle Pfeiffer looks in the mirror seems much too out of date. We have Captain Shakespeare being overly swishy, which doesn't quite work, we have some of Ricky Gervais' schtick being anachronistic and we have the ghosts of the dead which serve no purpose except to act as redundant Greek chorus and to take an edge off the blood letting. They made me think that they had some left overs make up designs from Pirates of the Caribbean and since Vaughn was such a fan of the Frighteners he decided to use them. Is the movie silly or serious, I don't think the film knows and it cuts down the suspense since neither the witches nor the princes (especially the princes) are ever truly frightening.
The other thing that really bothers me is that it makes no sense internally. Never mind that its top heavy with foreshadowed contrivances (oh please I knew how it was going to go from the start) and cheats (candle), this movie makes no real sense whats so ever.
Want examples? How long was the trip on the sky boat? There's a long sequence of Shakespeare teaching Tristan and yet the time that passes for the witch and the princess seems so much less. Even if its not how fast did Tristan learn? The unicorn would never have brought Danes to the inn. Why? because if it would know about the other dangers it would know that the whole place was bad.
How can the magic (candle) work in Wall when there is some inference that once you cross the wall the magic is gone.
The climax in the witches castle doesn't play right from the cutting of the strap onward.
There are more instances but those are the ones immediately stand out (The Unicorn one got me shhhhhed when I said that the unicorn would never have taken her to the inn out loud.) I could go on and I could dismantle the film (pieces that serve no purpose, The out of place music, the over done riding shots, the goats-which sound good on paper but make no practical sense) but I don't see the point. Its the type of film you're either going to love for what it is flaws and all or you're going to find annoying because it pecks you to death with little details. Personally I've been pecked.
A good but not great movie. Certainly not something I need to see again, but which is worth seeing with a bag of popcorn and soda in the right sort of mind-frame.
Strangely I'm very disappointed. I know some thought I would hate the film and dismiss it out of hand, but I don't, and I'm not. Actually its good enough that I'm really angry that its not better. I'm annoyed because what I think are glaring errors could have and should have been fixed. This is one of those movies than almost works and falls in the cracks. I mean this is taking the line about reaching for the stars and having what we want exceed our grasp a bit too literally.