Stardust.

In the New York Times, Neil Gaiman tells Charles McGrath that he wrote Stardust "in longhand, using a fountain pen and a leather-covered notebook... and the result was that he eliminated 'a lot of computery bloat.' His aim was to evoke the manner of early-20th-century writers like Lord Dunsany and Hope Mirrlees, who wrote fantasy stories of a sort that was sometimes called 'faerie.'... Stardust in other words, was intended to be pre-Tolkien, a fantasy novel that didn't read like one, and the movie's creative team - the director, Matthew Vaughn, and the screenwriter, Jane Goldman - have attempted much the same thing: a fantasy film that can be watched not just by the Lord of the Rings crowd, or even by Mr Gaiman's worshipful following, but also by people who wouldn't be caught dead at a fantasy film."

Updated through 8/13.

Contrast such hope with Mike Goodridge's take on the Stardust's prospects in Screen Daily: "[I]t's a tough sell. On the one hand, it's a romance for teenage girls with a handsome leading man in Charlie Cox and a feisty lead female character played by Claire Danes; on the other hand, it's a comic adventure for nerdy comic-loving teenage boys along the lines of classic Gilliam like Time Bandits and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Whether the girls will respond to the adventure and the boys to the romance is questionable... Likewise it's not a sure thing for smaller children, who prefer the more simple, less smart-ass mythology of Narnia, while adults might think it looks too childish to commit to sans kids."

"Stardust will accrue many comparisons to Rob Reiner's The Princess Bride, but director Matthew Vaughn's variation on the theme isn't as playful as Reiner's, and when Stardust does devolve into comedy, it fails miserably," writes Robert Wilonsky in the Voice.

"It's dazzling to look at, but in the end Stardust evokes other movies - Brazil and The Princess Bride, to name two - without offering their indelible magic," writes Tom Meek for the Boston Phoenix.

Earlier: John Anderson in Variety.

Updates, 8/9: "Michelle Pfeiffer had no intention of spending nearly five years away from the silver screen. 'You know,' the 49-year-old actress says matter-of-factly, 'it just happened.'" A profile from Susan King in the Los Angeles Times.

"No matter that both parts [the other, of course, is Hairspray] call on Pfeiffer to tap into her inner Cruella de Vil for a heaping helping of scene chewing," writes Neil Morris in the Independent Weekly. "They also represent her best work in years, perhaps since Frankie and Johnny and Batman Returns."

"Director Matthew Vaughn has done time as a producer for Guy Ritchie, and it shows," writes Vadim Rizov at the Reeler. "[T]he rule of thumb here is to never have an un-enhanced shot when you can throw in a CGI-aided transition and loud foley sounds to emphasize every last damn sword clink. If it weren't for the migraine-inducing 28 Weeks Later, Stardust might be the year's loudest movie. As it is, the film grows intolerable, with its every effect ratcheted up to a level Terry Gilliam would consider excessive."

Updates, 8/10: "Even when the movie goes haywire..., it barrels forward with a fearless audacity," writes Stephen Holden in the New York Times. "Far too many characters are crowded together for comfort, and there are serious casting errors, but the movie assumes that its churning energy, lightened with whimsy, will carry the day. And, to an extent, it does." He also floats a theory as to what's up with Robert De Niro's "zany drag routine."

"It's a film you enjoy in pieces, but the jigsaw never gets solved," writes Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times. "I liked it, but The Princess Bride it's not."

"Stardust is imaginative and intricate, but it's also joyfully casual, maybe to the point of being a little messy in places," writes Salon's Stephanie Zacharek. "But even its flaws work in its favor: Stardust feels organic, not mechanized, which is fitting for a story with one foot in the real world and the other in an imaginary one.... This is a picture that looks to have been made with pleasure, for our pleasure, as opposed to something we're supposed to be impressed by."

"Floating in on an airy breeze of dreams and true love, the lively adventure-romance Stardust offers that elusive quality summer movies are supposed to possess but rarely do - total escape," writes Kevin Crust in the Los Angeles Times. "Sophisticated in its execution, it is a movie that possesses a child's whimsical sense of wonder that propels the action, coupled with an adult sensibility that gives it emotional heft." Also, Sam Adams profiles Gaiman.

"One unembellished shot of a beach in Roman Polanski's Macbeth exudes a more mythic sense of grandeur and terror than any of the tawdry CGI gesticulations that wash over the eyes in Matthew Vaughn's competent but uninspired adaptation," writes Ed Gonzalez in Slant.

"The dialogue is unquotable. The story is clichéd (when it attempts comedy) and overly literal (when it fumbles for romance). And who knows how long it's going to take for people to decide that the existence of a manly man with an affection for frilly underthings isn't in itself hilarious." Annie Wagner in the Stranger.

"It's a shame," sighs John Constantine in Nerve. "Underneath the gaudy effects and needless action is a very pleasant love story about how big the world is even when it seems small. But that's not the movie in front of us."

Updates, 8/11: "It starts clumsily, varies in quality wildly and stuffs itself greedily, yet Stardust manages the notably rare trick of improving as it goes along, earning a place in your affections, if not necessarily your esteem," writes the Oregonian's Shawn Levy.

The Princess Bride "played to the strengths of its actors, while Stardust wants us to laugh at how De Niro and Pfeiffer play against type," writes Jeffrey Overstreet. "The Princess Bride had a feeling of spontaneity; the comedy in Stardust feels forced. The Princess Bride never needed to jolt us or jar us to hold our attention; but the closer we get to the end of Stardust, the more it devolves into a marathon of furious special flourishes."

"The movie is so poorly directed that it's a head-scratcher to reflect back on the taut suspense and wonderful staging in Matthew Vaughn's previous film Layer Cake," writes Nathaniel Rogers at Zoom In.

Update, 8/12: Peter Sobczynski talks with Vaughn for Hollywood Bitchslap.

Update, 8/13: "It's puffed up in obvious ways but disarmingly puckish in others," writes New York's David Edelstein. "The Pirates of the Caribbean people would have stretched this material out to eight-plus hours, while a visionary genius like Terry Gilliam would have royally screwed it up by putting more emphasis on the scenic wheels and pulleys than the narrative. The model here, luckily, is The Princess Bride with a dollop of The Black Adder - and, to cut the facetiousness, nonstop rhapsodic heavenly choirs."

Posted by dwhudson at August 8, 2007 7:52 AM