Kelson Reviews Stuff - Page 38

Went out to see Stardust with a group of friends, and we all enjoyed it. People have been comparing it to The Princess Bride, and it’s an apt comparison: both are light-hearted fantasy adventures with a love story at the heart. Stardust takes itself a bit more seriously, though there’s plenty of humor.

The concept: Three groups of people pursue a fallen star (in this world, a woman). Tristran wants to bring the star back to impress a girl. The cruel princes of Stormhold are seeking the necklace she wears; the one who claims the gem claims the throne. The witch Lamia wants to cut out her heart to restore her own youth for another 400 years. Tristran gets there first, but has to bring her back without the more malicious seekers reaching her.

There’s swordplay, magic, betrayal, comedy, and romance. Michelle Pfeiffer throws herself gleefully into her role as the witch Lamia. Prince Septimus oozes slime as a cross between Prince Humperdink and Professor Snape. And Robert De Niro’s Captain Shakespeare is… indescribable. Charlie Cox as Tristran and Claire Danes as Yvaine (the star) manage to hold their own with the impressive cast of villains and supporting characters.

I was the only one of the four who had read the original novel by Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess, but for the most part I didn’t mind the changes. I did think the climactic battle got a bit overblown after a while, and I really missed one aspect of Una’s character which is revealed near the end of the book. Overall, though, Stardust does it right: change the details, or even the structure if you have to, to make it work in a different medium. But stay true to the heart and spirit of the book.

Addendum

After re-reading the book, I was impressed at how closely the movie tracked the story. Incidents were expanded or contracted, minor characters were removed or replaced. I still regret losing the revelation that Una planned certain events years ahead of time, but I do think that the ending they went with works better on screen than the one from the novel would have. And the movie actually does a better job of portraying the developing relationship, which sort of comes out of left field in the book.

While I liked the attitude and metatextual humor — the main character gets into arguments with the narrator, and points out odd coincidences that only make sense in video game logic… and there are a number of references to The Princess Bride in a game in which Cary Elwes voices the main character — it was also annoyingly linear. The whole game felt like one long railroad.

Admittedly the original games didn’t have much in the way of side quests, but they felt more expansive, particularly the first two in which every dungeon level was built on a 22×22 grid. You could really explore the levels, while most of the dungeons in this game are essentially start at point A and work your way to point B, hacking up two types of monsters along the way.

Update: The newer Bard’s Tale IV is much more an update of the original gameplay!

Finally saw The Bride of Frankenstein (which I suspect I saw when I was maybe 10, because I recognized the framing sequence, but I don’t remember much more). It’s interesting to see just how much of the Frankenstein mythos not only isn’t in the book, but isn’t in the first movie. Much of the tearing around the countryside is in Bride, for instance, and Igor doesn’t even show up until the third movie, Son of Frankenstein (and he’s a far cry from the mad doctor’s faithful assistant!)

It’s always a risk to go back and watch something you enjoyed when you were younger. Your tastes change as you grow up (or you actually develop a sense of taste). There are some cartoons and movies I refuse to watch because I want to remember liking them. Sometimes they work out(ex: Real Genius). Sometimes they don’t (ex: Something Wicked This Way Comes).

Edward Scissorhands still holds up: The contrast between the inventor’s mansion and the pseudo-50s achingly “normal” suburbia, Danny Elfman’s fairy-tale music, the neighborhood’s curiosity, then acceptance, then ultimate rejection of this strange visitor, Peg’s determination to make things work out, Kim’s slow realization that her boyfriend isn’t a very nice guy, and that this scary blade-handed stranger is, the cop’s efforts to smooth things over—all with Tim Burton’s distinctive quirky style.

(Re-watched in the theater as part of a “flashback features” series.)

Since it’s been over a year since I read the book, and I knew to expect a historical drama/horror rather than a documentary, I actually thought it was a fairly decent Jack the Ripper film (if there is such a thing). Unfortunately they ripped out some of the key parts of the book — all the symbolism in London’s architecture, for instance, wouldn’t have fit onscreen anyway, but I rather liked the flash-forwards to the 20th century during his psychotic break after the final murder. One of the main points was that this version of Jack believed he was ushering in the future. They kept the line, but left out everything that supported it.