Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums - View Single Post

Teresa Edgerton · 14th August 2007, 08:04 PM

Well, I loved it.

The story was charming -- a somewhat predictable fairy tale (but I love fairy tales) with flashes of originality and wit. The humor wasn't so intrusive as to make a joke of the whole story, which I appreciated.

That said, I don't know that I would be in a hurry to see the movie again for the script alone. But then there were the sets, the costumes, and the cinematography, which I thought were stunning. As good as they look in the trailer, they are even more effective in the movie. As far as these things go, the movie was every bit as splendid and detailed (although in a completely different way) as LOTR. The effects were great, but they didn't take over the movie.

Mark Strong (I remember him from "Emma" -- the Kate Beckinsale one, not the Gwyneth Paltrow) was Septimus. This was a role that really could have been over-the-top, but he played it straight, which I thought worked much better. He was intense (and well-dressed) without being flamboyant.

Charlie Cox, who played Tristan ... well, Claire Danes was the one who literally played a star, but I foresee a stellar career for him. Between Cox, Danes, and Michelle Pheiffer, there was almost more personal beauty than one movie could hold.

It's fairly long, and the pace is leisurely. No blood and gore. I don't know if this matches the book or not.

I think I'm going to go see it again in a week or so.

14th August 2007, 08:04 PM	#10 (permalink)
Teresa Edgerton Ink-stained Wretch Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: California Posts: 4,577	Re: Stardust the Movie Well, I loved it. The story was charming -- a somewhat predictable fairy tale (but I love fairy tales) with flashes of originality and wit. The humor wasn't so intrusive as to make a joke of the whole story, which I appreciated. That said, I don't know that I would be in a hurry to see the movie again for the script alone. But then there were the sets, the costumes, and the cinematography, which I thought were stunning. As good as they look in the trailer, they are even more effective in the movie. As far as these things go, the movie was every bit as splendid and detailed (although in a completely different way) as LOTR. The effects were great, but they didn't take over the movie. Mark Strong (I remember him from "Emma" -- the Kate Beckinsale one, not the Gwyneth Paltrow) was Septimus. This was a role that really could have been over-the-top, but he played it straight, which I thought worked much better. He was intense (and well-dressed) without being flamboyant. Charlie Cox, who played Tristan ... well, Claire Danes was the one who literally played a star, but I foresee a stellar career for him. Between Cox, Danes, and Michelle Pheiffer, there was almost more personal beauty than one movie could hold. It's fairly long, and the pace is leisurely. No blood and gore. I don't know if this matches the book or not. I think I'm going to go see it again in a week or so.