"Nothing says "romance" like a kidnapped injured woman!"
SO I saw Stardust last night. Unlike everyone else, I'm not going to gush fawningly over it. I definitely enjoyed it, but there were bits I was unsure of, bits I was uncomfortable with, and bits that outright pissed me off.
First things first: the dialogue infuriated me. What's the point of setting something in the nineteenth century if most of the dialogue consists of the tedious sort of sassy backchat that so often passes for wit these days? I know there's a trend for inserting modern vernacular into period films - PotC and Plunkett And Macleane are excellent examples - but I felt it was done poorly (with exceptions - Gervais' cameo and the ghostly chorus were both excellent), presumably because it was written for children. There's nothing wrong with writing for children, I suppose; but surely the best scripts are those which appeal to children on one level, and adults on another?
The acting: hmm. Pretty much all the supporting actors (but especially Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mark Heap, Ricky Gervais and David Kelly) were excellent, playing their roles with relish and panache*. Unfortunately, the two leads were simply not charismatic or talented enough to carry the film, which they were required to do for some stretches. I cared about Tristan most after he'd been turned into a mouse (that looked suspiciously squirrel-like to me - bulging eyes, fluffy long tail)! And Claire Danes can't keep her head still for two seconds, particularly when she's making the speech to the mouse. It makes her look like a particularly empty-headed shampoo model with neck problems.
The special effects: for the most part surprisingly ropey, but thankfully this didn't matter because...
...For once, the background detail and hokum was really detailed (I'm guessing a chunk of that is due to Nail Gaiman) and involving! The snowdrop charm, the use of magic that causes the beautiful witch to wither a little more each time, the transporting candles, the dread pirate with a thing for french lingerie.... some of it was a bit clunky, but there was so much of it that it really helped carry the movie. Just as well, given the leads...
It was a pleasure to see a strong, sympathetic, overtly gay father-figure. Robert De Niro plays Cap'n Shakespeare mostly straight (as it were), he's probably the most decent character the heroes encounter on their travels, and De Niro ensures that his homosexuality acts as a proper piece of characterisation, rather than just a clumsy plot device. Also, the moment where the pirates reveal they "knew all along you was a whoopsie!" and his subsequent reaction is genuinely rather touching.
The one thing I was really unhappy with, on the other hand, was the ending. Why destroy the witch at the end? I felt the best conclusion for Lamia would have been for her to be left utterly defeated, genuinely crying and inconsolable (rather than the frankly rubbish no-I'm-not defeated-yet red herring it turned out to be), to live out an eternity of loneliness and alienation in her cold, rock-bound castle. Yes, Lamia was trying to kill Yvaine purely for her own vanity - she's evil, that's the point. But when the good guys start despatching the bad guys with equal callousness (sugar-coated with a sense of smiting righteousness), doesn't it start to get difficult, morally, to tell them apart?
*Except for Sienna Miller, who galumphed her way through the "romantic red herring" role with all the subtlety of a performing bear in a tutu.
So, yes. Enjoyable overall, but problematic for me. And so help me God, if anyone says "It's only a film, fer chris'sakes!", the vitriol will pour thick and fast.
Also saw a trailer for The Northern Lights Golden Compass. The polar bear bears a remarkable resemblance to the polar bears on the Coke advert about five years ago; the other CGI looks really ropey too. This, along with the cutesy air of the trailer, bodes decidedly ill, and I'm suddenly dreading these films. Bah.
Many books to write up, but I'm being, um, rubbish.
No points here, because it's bleeding obvious...
First things first: the dialogue infuriated me. What's the point of setting something in the nineteenth century if most of the dialogue consists of the tedious sort of sassy backchat that so often passes for wit these days? I know there's a trend for inserting modern vernacular into period films - PotC and Plunkett And Macleane are excellent examples - but I felt it was done poorly (with exceptions - Gervais' cameo and the ghostly chorus were both excellent), presumably because it was written for children. There's nothing wrong with writing for children, I suppose; but surely the best scripts are those which appeal to children on one level, and adults on another?
The acting: hmm. Pretty much all the supporting actors (but especially Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, Mark Heap, Ricky Gervais and David Kelly) were excellent, playing their roles with relish and panache*. Unfortunately, the two leads were simply not charismatic or talented enough to carry the film, which they were required to do for some stretches. I cared about Tristan most after he'd been turned into a mouse (that looked suspiciously squirrel-like to me - bulging eyes, fluffy long tail)! And Claire Danes can't keep her head still for two seconds, particularly when she's making the speech to the mouse. It makes her look like a particularly empty-headed shampoo model with neck problems.
The special effects: for the most part surprisingly ropey, but thankfully this didn't matter because...
...For once, the background detail and hokum was really detailed (I'm guessing a chunk of that is due to Nail Gaiman) and involving! The snowdrop charm, the use of magic that causes the beautiful witch to wither a little more each time, the transporting candles, the dread pirate with a thing for french lingerie.... some of it was a bit clunky, but there was so much of it that it really helped carry the movie. Just as well, given the leads...
It was a pleasure to see a strong, sympathetic, overtly gay father-figure. Robert De Niro plays Cap'n Shakespeare mostly straight (as it were), he's probably the most decent character the heroes encounter on their travels, and De Niro ensures that his homosexuality acts as a proper piece of characterisation, rather than just a clumsy plot device. Also, the moment where the pirates reveal they "knew all along you was a whoopsie!" and his subsequent reaction is genuinely rather touching.
The one thing I was really unhappy with, on the other hand, was the ending. Why destroy the witch at the end? I felt the best conclusion for Lamia would have been for her to be left utterly defeated, genuinely crying and inconsolable (rather than the frankly rubbish no-I'm-not defeated-yet red herring it turned out to be), to live out an eternity of loneliness and alienation in her cold, rock-bound castle. Yes, Lamia was trying to kill Yvaine purely for her own vanity - she's evil, that's the point. But when the good guys start despatching the bad guys with equal callousness (sugar-coated with a sense of smiting righteousness), doesn't it start to get difficult, morally, to tell them apart?
*Except for Sienna Miller, who galumphed her way through the "romantic red herring" role with all the subtlety of a performing bear in a tutu.
So, yes. Enjoyable overall, but problematic for me. And so help me God, if anyone says "It's only a film, fer chris'sakes!", the vitriol will pour thick and fast.
Also saw a trailer for The Northern Lights Golden Compass. The polar bear bears a remarkable resemblance to the polar bears on the Coke advert about five years ago; the other CGI looks really ropey too. This, along with the cutesy air of the trailer, bodes decidedly ill, and I'm suddenly dreading these films. Bah.
Many books to write up, but I'm being, um, rubbish.
No points here, because it's bleeding obvious...