Mediocre Movie Club Movie Reviews

Stardust

3/7/2016

C
1.96

In a countryside town bordering on a magical land, a young man makes a promise to his beloved that he'll retrieve a fallen star by venturing into the magical realm.

Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Starring Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Mark Strong, and Michelle Pfeiffer
Initial Review by Phil Crone

There are two types of movies that fall into that dreaded B- to C range. The first are those that are just a big, fat nothing. The second are those that try hard and have a number of really good things and really bad things. They’re interesting but flawed. That’s the best way I can describe “Stardust.” While Stardust is successful at providing a refreshing take on the fairy tale genre and subverting a few of its tired tropes, it is ultimately weighed down by one of the most muddled third acts I can remember in a long time.

At its base level, Stardust works as a classic fairy tale. It’s a story we’ve all heard in some way. The valiant pauper must prove his love by completing a dangerous quest in a faraway land. Unlike most fairy tales that allow this without any explanation, Stardust at least analyzes this with a critical eye. When we are first presented with Tristan and Victoria, I thought Victoria was shown as a real world bitch for lack of a better word. She shows up in the grocery, cuts the line, gets Tristan fired (though not through his own foolishness there either), and sends him on a dangerous quest for her love. I did appreciate Yvaine pointing this out and Tristan finally coming to his senses. It justifies the audiences’ feelings through the bulk of the early action. The result of the reunion with Victoria is ultimately a satisfying exchange as a result.

While Stardust does subvert one of the bigger tropes in fairy tales, it ultimately embraces others. This is still a hero’s journey love story. The only difference here is that Tristan took a while to realize who he was after. I did enjoy Charlie Cox & Claire Danes as Tristan & Yvaine, but I never actually bought into their relationship. Why does Yvaine start falling for Tristan after he saves her in the inn? He had to do that to get Victoria! I was still emotionally invested in the ending, but I credit that to caring more about Tristan finding happiness than this relationship actually working. Speaking of the end, it was nice to see Yvaine ultimately save the day, proving to be more than just a damsel.
Getting to that end though is a bit of an issue. Stardust stumbles pretty heavily in the third act. The movie clocks in at 127 minutes, and I have a feeling they could have easily stood to either have 160 minutes or cut out some of the fat. One thing I always appreciate is when every character proves to be vital to the story in some way, and that was the case here. However, the sizes of roles were a little difficult to grasp. Look, I get it… You get Robert De Niro in your movie, you have to feature him. However, a lot of that stuff just didn’t work at all. He wasn’t a funny character, no matter how hard they tried to make him one. Again though, you have to keep him in in some way thanks to training Tristan to fight, getting them closer to the wall, and the lightning catching that proves to be important-ish in the fight with Lamia. And that’s the big issue here. What do you cut? It felt like Matthew Vaughn got to the scene where Tristan and Yvaine were dropped off near the wall, and the clock was already nearing 100 minutes. I’d be curious to see what additional info is in the book, as there were just a handful of bizarre things in the third act with almost no explanation. I felt like we needed some more explanation of Una and the witch that ordered her around. The whole scene where Tristan was turned into a mouse was just bizarre and pointless. Why did the witch feel compelled to do that?

Stardust is a fine fairy tale that likely was a better book than it is movie. I did enjoy my time with it, but I was left a little confused by some of the decisions made. Given that it’s Neil Gaiman, I assume the source material was great, and there’s a great movie in it somewhere. Unfortunately, this isn’t it.

+ Questions some of the tired tropes of the genre
+ Tristan is a character that’s easy to root for
+ All actions prove vital to the story
- Still falls into tropes
- Tough to buy the Tristan/Yvaine relationship
- Captain Shakespeare

Grade: B-

22 Comments

Admin

3/7/2016 03:57:42 pm

Space reserved for replies to initial review.

Jon

3/9/2016 08:55:31 pm

That reunion with Victoria struck me as completely false and plot-driven as opposed to character-driven. He's in the middle of this epic quest to get Yvaine back to Wall, with evil witches and princes hot on his tail. Instead of focusing on his business, he momentarily abandons Yvaine, and takes several hours to run into town just to tell off Victoria. That sequence only served to clue Tristan into the fact that Yvaine had to stay in the fantasy world, and I'm sure there were easier, more natural ways for that to be discovered.

3/9/2016 08:57:23 pm

I've also got a quibble with Yvaine being anything more than your classic damsel, as her powers are only manifested when she is reunited with this milquetoast dude she's known for a few days.

Sean

3/9/2016 09:20:20 pm

I like milquetoast, I should try to use it more

Mindy

3/7/2016 04:00:59 pm

It wasn't that bad, B, B-

Phil

3/7/2016 04:21:37 pm

Kissel, please file this under "review of the year"

Lane

3/7/2016 04:30:43 pm

I’m going to commit nerd treason and say that I’ve never cared for Neil Gaiman very much. I know he’s a talented storyteller and auteur of all things fantasy, but his stuff has never been dark enough for my tastes. It always dances around the macabre without ever submerging the audience into existential despair. And that’s too bad. I like my fairy tales with a bit more bitterness, violence, and tragedy. I like “Homeland” Claire Danes more than “Stardust” Claire Danes.

It was interesting to watch “The Witch” on a Friday afternoon and then “Stardust” the next day. These films couldn’t be more different than each other, but it’s still fun to intellectually compare two different takes on folktales and mythology. “The Witch” was folklore grounded in the brutality of everyday life. It’s folklore as horror, something more akin to the original Brothers Grimm (I mean the 19th century ones…not Matt Damon and Heath Ledger). It doesn’t completely hide the fantastical, but it cloaks it behind a veil so that you’re not completely sure what is happening and what isn’t. Also, it helps that you’re dealing with Satan.

“Stardust,” on the other hand, is what happens when folklore gets Disney-fied. Nuance is lost; anything that might actually be scary or dark is either purged or refined into a saccharine version of itself. Satan is nothing more than some creative makeup on Michelle Pfeiffer. The character archetypes still exist, but they just aren’t as interesting because you don’t really care too much about what happens to them.

I disagree with the original review that “Stardust” was able to subvert any of the traditional fairy tale tropes. I think, in fact, it hewed much too closely to them to be able to be original in any way. Some of the comedy was good, however—Ricky Gervais stole a few scenes (as he usually does) and I found that while I didn’t like the ghost peanut gallery at first, they ended up being one of the more enjoyable gimmicks of the film. The acting was solid B work across the board.

The film ultimately didn’t do it for me, but it was at least mildly entertaining.

Grade: C+

3/9/2016 03:09:33 pm

I agree that Stardust ultimately does give into some of those tired storylines we see in classic fairy tales, but I at least appreciated that it called out some of the more annoying items, like the "proving your love" trope. You at least have to agree that it called that out if nothing else.

Also, I appreciated that Yvaine wasn't a total damsel like The Princess Bride. She winds up saving the day in the end after all. I appreciated that they ended up needing each other in the end at least.

3/8/2016 01:04:34 am

Stardust reminded me off Big Fish in that Tristan wanted to explore and find himself and the other people at the Wall town were content with their lives. Totally it wasn't far off either in the whimy. Unfortunately it was the least bit entertaining.
Acting was really bad- lets cobble together some names and faces and hope to sell this movie. We won't have to make them interesting or even ask them to try hard.
DeNiro could get worst supporting actor only I don't totally blame him for the performance as a closteted pirate, just the demeaning way the character was portrayed. I did half chuckle when he and Victoria's man shared a glance at the wedding.
I don't hate Clair Danes she's typically just fine but she sucked as the naive fairy princess type- played much better by Amy Adams in Enchanted.
Michelle Pfeiffer isn't a good actress and she did nothing to harm that reputation.

I don't completely know who this movie was made for- was it for kids? not nearly fun enough. Was it hoping to be the universal hero love story for all ages Princess Bride?- probably the goal but it didn't come close.

I'm not sure there were any standout characters- maybe the wall guard who had some (Spoiler Bryan) prequel Yoda skills.
Phil is right in regards to Victoria though- total bitch who uses Tristan and she got her just desserts.
D+

3/9/2016 03:11:34 pm

I have disagree with the acting being "bad" across the board. De Niro was a mess but everyone else was servicable at worst.

3/9/2016 03:58:45 pm

I thought De Niro was okay, but it just wasn't much of a role. "Meet the Parents" showed he can do comedy--this role just didn't really use him in a way where that talent could come through.

It was kind've like there was an executive somewhere that said, "Hey, remember that time Dustin Hoffman played Captain Hook? Yeah, let's do that again" and then they rewrote the script so that De Niro could play a pirate.

Shane

3/9/2016 10:08:01 pm

The acting was pretty bad outside of Septimus. Though I thought Pfeifer was ok. Cox was flat.

3/9/2016 08:48:17 pm

Between Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, fantasy films used to generate just as many me-too copycats as superhero films do now. Thanks to stuff like Stardust, The Golden Compass, and Eragon (remember that one?), that trend has slowed way down.

I'll be frank: I didn't pay very close attention to this movie, and as a result, the various plot twists and motivations that I missed got me agitated, through no fault of the film (probably). For example, I scoffed at Tristan being a prince, thinking the movie's dipped into chosen-one nonsense. After rewatching the intro, his mother does indeed tell his dad that she's a princess, so fine, I missed that. I wish I could say the film overcame my disinterest, but it never happened.

There's instances of it coming close. I liked the fratricidal brothers, but felt they were underutilized. The witch coven had potential, too, but then they were disrespectfully dispatched, suddenly becoming less powerful because the script needed them to go away. To that end, Mark Strong and Michelle Pfeiffer, who I do think of as a good actress after watching her in Scorsese's Age of Innocence, stole the film, as I thought they were the only actors legitimately having fun.

When either of those two weren't onscreen, my already tenuous attention was further frayed. I think De Niro could've easily been cut out of the film and it wouldn't have missed anything. Just casting a competence spell on Tristan would've been as effective, with the added bonus of a meta wink to the audience about the absurdity of training montages plus a 20 minutes-shorter movie. Ricky Gervais, whose presence I've been finding increasingly distasteful, played himself in period dress. Claire Danes is not given an opportunity to do what she's good at, specifically cry-face. Her Yvaine is barely a character, falling in love not out of believability, but out of proximity.

The biggest culprit is Charlie Cox, a failure of a protagonist. I felt nothing but antipathy towards Tristan. His early relationship with Victoria should make me feel sorry for him and build sympathy, where it actually made me hate Tristan for how naive and needy he was being. One of my biggest pet peeve's in fantasy movies is when someone from a non-magical world encounters a magical one, and doesn't react like this is the most earth-shattering development imaginable. That's Tristan, a guy who could teleport to a fallen star's landing area, realize the star is actually a person, shrug his shoulders, and drag her back to his home where he plans to present her to Victoria as a gift. Here, Victoria, I got you this grown-ass woman. I've enjoyed Cox (phrasing) in other works, specifically Boardwalk Empire, but he's a flop here, never able to draw me in as someone worth rooting for.

Like Phil, I also appreciate the action works of Matthew Vaughn, and actually had Kingsman as a backup in case anyone vetoed Chi-Raq. He does a good enough job here that my estimation of him isn't diminished, despite the casting flubs. He repeatedly gets pretty-looking establishing shots that sweep from a distance into a specific location, and the intercutting of the witches and Septimus rolling the runes was the best scene in the film, almost solely based on the inventive editing from editor and frequent Vaughn collaborator Jon Harris. The visuals certainly aren't lacking, but Stardust never clicked for me. Some more ruthless cuts (so long, cloud pirates) and a romantic focus that wasn't as forced would've helped. It has the occasional asset, but it's mostly deficits, starting from the top. C

3/14/2016 12:15:16 pm

Exactly with the pirates. They cast De Niro and had to leave it in.

3/9/2016 09:53:55 pm

Full review tomorrow, but why didn't she just shine bright like 15 minutes before? What is going on?

C-

Bryan

3/9/2016 10:54:58 pm

Trying my darndest (no idea what word to put there) to finish, but I feel like this was a Super Nintendo game script prior to being made into a movie.

3/11/2016 10:17:45 am

This is so accurate.

3/12/2016 09:12:42 am

I was really hoping the unicorn would impale the goat. DeNiro (sp) as the gay flying pirate, yikes.

3/11/2016 10:39:43 am

Stardust has a fun premise and a more mature take on the fairy tale genre, but it ultimately collapses on itself like a black hole. (That's a star joke, guys)

Stardust piqued my interest almost immediately when Tristan's father visits a (whore?) and actually sleeps with her. I had hopes that we'd see an adult version of a fairy tale and for the most part that's what we get. People die here a lot, which is something that just doesn't happen in most fairy tales. It gives us some stakes. Unfortunately, we have to want the characters to not die, but we don't get that here. Even Stardust's main protagonist, played poorly by Charlie Cox doesn't move the needle. I'm not sure why anyone would want him to succeed other than he's a pleasant looking white guy. And not only succeed, by why in the hell do we want him to be king? He doesn't even have any qualifications. He doesn't even know about the magical land in the least bit and he's so dense that the personification of a star doesn't remotely shock him. It's like solving a complicated math equation in front of a child and they don't even react because children are dumb.

Then we get to the third act, where nothing makes sense, including the dues ex machina ending. (Even if it made sense that she had to wait until that moment, why does closing his eyes protect him from the heat of a star while it annihilates the witch? Like heat cant enter your body if your eyes are closed? And considering the witch knows a lot about stars, shouldn't she have known to close her eyes too? And why did the one witch jump up and around just to jump down to impede Tristan's path? What was going on there?)

I'd like to say that the story was probably too long and they had to simply wrap it up, but they spent a ton of screen time just traveling around. Walking in fields and whatnot. Even the introduction was a waste of time and to much background info. Why did we need to know that scientists rejected the idea of this place? What is going on?

Speaking of wastes of time, the pirates weren't. They gave Tristan a chance to learn how to fence in 3 days or whatever. Montage training scene!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFrMLRQIT_k

The film does a few things well. I thought the scenes were very well shot. I spent a lot of time looking around at the details and surrounding areas.

I also liked the pirates and thought De Niro was just fine. It was goofy, but I thought overall it worked just fine. Had the film been better overall, the quirkiness of the pirates wouldn't have been as flat.

Mark Strong was a pretty good villain as Septimus. He was the only one I was sad that died because he gave the film depth.

I liked the ghost brothers. I thought it was corny at first, but it ended up working out over the long run.

Ricky Gervais remains criminally overrated.

I'm sticking with a C-, although I almost talked myself down to a D+.

3/12/2016 09:51:58 pm

Pick any timestamp in the movie and watch for 5 minutes. You'll go down to a D+ or lower.

3/12/2016 09:46:30 pm

Thank God that finally came to an end. Someone put those characters out of their misery. The ghosts and the unicorn were a'ight. The coyotes mauling that lady was ok too. Everything else was lame. D.

Cooker

6/20/2016 04:21:29 pm

Hmmm. I gave this a B- when I watched it years ago, but I just simply don’t have time to re-watch Cody Rhodes’ alter-ego’s biographical documentary. I’ll stick with a B-

Stardust

C
1.96

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

Stardust

C​1.96

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

C
1.96