(no subject)
Aug. 10th, 2007 03:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
teslaJust returned from watching Stardust.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book when I read it, and re-read it. (Some sites are referring to it as a "graphic novel," which it isn't - it's an illustrated novel.)
It seems to me that the movie mostly adheres to the spirit of the book.
Of course a few changes were made to the story, probably for the sake of being able to tell it in just over 2 hours. For the most part I didn't find them too disorienting. It was a trifle odd that Dunstan didn't marry, and that Tristran, who was renamed "Tristan", wasn't allowed to merely walk through the wall but instead traveled by magic candle, but I'll get over it. In fact, I did get over it, and I stopped noticing the discrepancies in favor of being caught up in this similar-but-not-identical story.
The way that Claire Danes played Yvaine bore little resemblance of the way I had imagined the character, but it was a truly great portrayal. As with the story itself, I now have two Yvaines in my head (and welcome).
DeNiro (as Captain Shakespeare) pleased and irritated me in equal parts. I thought that his "cultured gentleman" aspect was perfect, but that his foppishness was overblown by far.
I *loved* the final swordfight scene. It was twisted and visually perfect.
I was not bowled over by the music, but I didn't dislike it, either.
As far as I'm concerned, it was definitely worth the price of admission. I think everyone should run out and see it. We'll blow opening-weekend sales out of the water and show Hollywood that we're ready for a broader range of movie fare.
I can certainly see why people are comparing it to "The Princess Bride." It fits a similar "bygone-era fantastic romantic comedy" niche, although it is rather less absurd. I wonder whether it will inspire passionate viewership for as long?
I thoroughly enjoyed the book when I read it, and re-read it. (Some sites are referring to it as a "graphic novel," which it isn't - it's an illustrated novel.)
It seems to me that the movie mostly adheres to the spirit of the book.
Of course a few changes were made to the story, probably for the sake of being able to tell it in just over 2 hours. For the most part I didn't find them too disorienting. It was a trifle odd that Dunstan didn't marry, and that Tristran, who was renamed "Tristan", wasn't allowed to merely walk through the wall but instead traveled by magic candle, but I'll get over it. In fact, I did get over it, and I stopped noticing the discrepancies in favor of being caught up in this similar-but-not-identical story.
The way that Claire Danes played Yvaine bore little resemblance of the way I had imagined the character, but it was a truly great portrayal. As with the story itself, I now have two Yvaines in my head (and welcome).
DeNiro (as Captain Shakespeare) pleased and irritated me in equal parts. I thought that his "cultured gentleman" aspect was perfect, but that his foppishness was overblown by far.
I *loved* the final swordfight scene. It was twisted and visually perfect.
I was not bowled over by the music, but I didn't dislike it, either.
As far as I'm concerned, it was definitely worth the price of admission. I think everyone should run out and see it. We'll blow opening-weekend sales out of the water and show Hollywood that we're ready for a broader range of movie fare.
I can certainly see why people are comparing it to "The Princess Bride." It fits a similar "bygone-era fantastic romantic comedy" niche, although it is rather less absurd. I wonder whether it will inspire passionate viewership for as long?
