Q: If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:

(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery."

OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer?

"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"

The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge.
A: negative
Q: This remarkable film can be summed up very easily. First of all, while the comparisons to "Princess Bride" are inevitable, it's almost futile to do so. While both films combine adult wit and humor with a fairy tale backdrop, "Stardust" is so much different than any other fantasy/sci-fi film I've ever seen. It's such a hybrid of those genres, but its plot and script are so unique that--along with the performances, special effects, cinematography, and score--the finished product is simply not all that comparable to anything that has ever appeared on the silver screen. Secondly, the score is very effective at simultaneously pulling us into the story and the fantasy world in which it takes place and pushing the story along, while creating just the right amount of awe and excitement necessary to make the magic believable within the realm where the characters exist. Thirdly, I did not find the film to be even remotely difficult to follow or confusing in any way. In fact, the interesting interplay between the three main subplots actually made it even that much more compelling to watch. Wonderfully casted, and superbly acted across the board. This fantasy adventure (with sci-fi elements) was the best one I've seen since "Return of the King" (not that I am comparing the two at all). OK, so its not that easy to sum up, but don't let any crude and/or heartless and cynical review nor the film's pathetic PR prevent you from partaking in the best time you could have at the movies this summer (or even possibly in a long time)!
A: positive
Q: I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.

On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.

Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.
A: negative
Q: This movie does a great job of explaining the problems that we faced and the fears that we had before we put man into space. As a history of space flight, it is still used today in classrooms that can get one of the rare prints of it. Disney has shown it on "Vault Disney" and I wish they would do so again.
A: positive