Who's psyched for the Stardust movie?

Cafe Society
61

I went with my son this afternoon, and loved it.

It did stray from the book in bits, but not badly so — stretching the part of the pirates a bit, changing the ending a tiny bit, but I felt they were all still in the spirit of the book.

It didn’t have the constant laughs that Princess Bride did, but neither did the novel. There were quite a few moments when I laughed out loud, though, and heard similar guffaws throughout the theater — particularly when DeNiro was on the screen. I also felt that the Bernard and Billy scenes were brilliant.

62

I forgot to mention: I loved how they handled Tristran realizing that Yvaine couldn’t cross the wall. It was perfect.

63

“We always knew you was a whoopsie”

My husband and I both loved it. I too was grinning like a fool throughout and for a while after walking out of the theater.

“ARRRR!” is a new catchphrase in this household. Whenever I think of pirates from now on, it won’t be Captain Jack, it’ll be Captain Shakespeare.

64

It opens here soon, but Ebert found it mundane. We’re not familiar with the novel either. I think we’ll miss this one.

65

Considering Ebert gave it a mere half star above the pitiful Rush Hour 3 doesn’t put a lot of stock in his opinion.

66

Yeah, Ebert tends to not like fantasy and comedy. He hated Return To Oz and Raising Arizona, for instance, two movies that I think are absolutely wonderful. When Ebert likes something, I’ll almost always like it too, but when he doesn’t like something, I know enough to get other opinions/information, because he’s disliked a lot of really really good movies. (or at least, movies that I like/love and think are good/great).

67

Ebert also didn’t like The Usual Suspects, which we loved. I liked Raising Arizona, too (the wife never saw it), and he did write before that at least once a week someone tells him he’s wrong about that film. Still, his opinions tend to match mine amazingly well, and so I’d rather not waste my time checking out a film I may or may not like when there’s something else I could be watching.

As for his giving this film only half a star above Rush Hour 3, he’s explained before that his star ratings are generally genre-specific. Someone had asked him something along the lines of whether his giving his top four stars to films like Down and Out in Beverly Hills and Risky Business meant that he placed them up there with greats like The Godfather or Casablanca. He said of course not, that the rating just meant that it was worth four stars (or 31/2 or whatever) for that particular genre and should not be compared with films in other genres.

But instead of getting bent out of shape over a star rating, I think the mature film viewer should read contrary opinions to try to see what it was the reviewer did not like about a film. The times the wife and I disagree with Ebert, we at least can understand why he did or did not like a film, and that in our eyes is what makes him superior. That plus we have the same taste. (I never could stomach Gene Siskel.) The number of stars should serve as a rough guide. Read the review itself. Ebert’s even said he had wanted to drop the star ratings at one point but that his editor was against the move.

It’s not just Ebert who was not impressed wiht the film, either. I see it’s doing only so-so among the Cream of the Crop on Rotten Tomatoes.

68

I don’t think that’s the least bit true. Do a search of his three- to four-star reviews on his website, and you’ll see a lot of comedies and fantasies.

69

Here, I’ll even help you. Ebert’s reviews of comedies he’s given three stars and up are here (672 items).

And of his total of 49 reviews in the fantasy category here, 19 he rates with three stars or above.

70

After having read and loved Good Omens, I’m working my way through Gaiman’s books. So far I’ve read American Gods, Anansi Boys, Neverwhere and Smokeand mirrors, his collection of short stories.

I’m saving Stardust until after I’ve seen the film, I’ve found reading the book first tends to ruin movies for me, but seeing the movie first rarely ruins the book.

Fact for Gaiman fans:
In the short story “The Facts in the Case of the Disappearance of Miss Finch” Jonathan and Jane are Jonathan Ross and his wife Jane Goldman. Jane co-wrote the screenplay for Stardust.

71

She was so right.

72

That’s what I usually do, and that’s exactly what I said. If he likes a film, I’ll almost always like it too because he has great taste in movies and has steered me to several excellent films. It’s just that he doesn’t like a lot of films that I do like, and so I don’t even consider his opinion and don’t even read them if it’s something I want to see anyway. I might read it after I see the movie just out of curiousity, but not before.

If it’s a movie I want to see, as Stardust was, I don’t have to read his review in advance, and wouldn’t have no matter what. If I hadn’t liked it, I would have had to find out for myself.

I think of movies in various categories:

MUST SEE, NO MATTER WHAT, ASAP (Stardust was in this category)
Definitely want to see
Will probably see
Might see, depending on director, cast, story, and reviews
Someday, Maybe
Never In A Million Years

Critics have little say in my mind about the first three categories. I don’t even read what critics say about movies in the first two until after I’ve seen the movie. Critics can change my mind about the last three categories. I wanted to see, say, Knocked Up, but if it had been on my NIAMY list, the critics certainly would have made me want to see it and I would have been glad of it.

Dopers have the same clout. Good reviews from dopers can change a movie in the last 3 categories to being in the 2nd or 3rd.

I guess I trust Dopers, on the whole, more than you do. Most of us are saying Stardust is a good movie, but since a couple of people and Ebert didn’t like it, so you’re going with the negative view. That’s ok, there’s nothing wrong with that. Our mileage varies.

In any case, one of these days I’ll read Ebert’s review, but it’s not going to change the fact that I thought Stardust was, while not great, a pretty good movie. I though it was lots of fun, beautiful to look at, and well worth my time and money spent to see it in the theater. I want to see it again too and I’ll certainly buy the DVD when it comes out. I might not ever love it as much as I love The Princess Bride, but it would go on the same “shelf” so to speak.

ETA, I saw your post in the other thread. I’m a woman, not a guy.

73

My SO and I went on Friday - it was OK - we weren’t bored, but we were not exactly wowed either. I would suggest seeing it on the big screen as that did make it better than if we had seen it on DVD. On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being excellent, we would give it a 6 and a half.

Michelle Pfeiffer was quite good and some of the effects were kind of cool.

74

Oops! My apologies, madame. :smiley:

75

My husband and I saw this last night, I was really looking forward to it and whilst I enjoyed it, overall I was underwhelmed.

I felt it was really badly edited and wouldn’t be surprised to find a ‘directors cut’ come out which vastly improves the pacing. There was so much plot to get through that the beginning felt too rushed. I never really felt that I entered the world of Wall and I think this was necessary to appreciate the mindset of Tristran. The whole time, I was ‘watching’ the film, rather than ‘immersed’ in it.

On the way home, my husband and I were discussing that it might have worked better as a TV mini-series like BBC’s Gormenghast or Sky One’s Hogfather. I think in particular the love story would have benefited from more time to develop.

76

I enjoyed the movie a lot, and yet I would agree that this is an entirely valid criticism. My appreciation requires me to look past the herky-jerky opening act.