I found the movie pretty tedious and yet nearly everyone raved about it. And the thing that annoyed me so much about that was that they all liked it at least partly because of what it was: written by Neil Gaiman, starring some Brits, fantasy, etc. Anglophiles in N America raved about it and everyone on this side of the pond loved it because it was British, damn it. The little Britflick that could.
And still nobody could explain to my satisfaction why it was any good.
The first hour is overlong, tedious and directionless, the hero likeable but dull. Then it turns into panto. I enjoyed De Niro but cringed every time Ricky Gervais or any other British comedy stalwart appeared; it all felt far too self-conscious.
Thank you for calling this out; I had pretty much given up on agreeing with anyone on LJ about the movie.
Thank you, too - I'm starting to get that same feeling I had in first grade when I felt like the only person in my whole school who knew that Santa Claus was a myth. Bleah.
But did they REALLY shave off Claire's eyebrows? I know they're naturally quite blonde and fine, but I really just didn't see them - especially in the "tender" scene where she is telling Mouse Tristan that she feels love. I couldn't deal with that scene at all, between her accent and her eyebrows. Would a good adaptation of Gaiman be too much to ask???
I didn't notice her eyebrows! (Perhaps because they weren't there?) Which, yes, I would have said were fairly blonde, but ... ? Maybe they just bleached the hell out of them.
You want Gaiman done right, I think you'd need a director like Guillermo del Toro.
Thank you! The movie was as execrable an adaptation as Possession was, which is saying a lot in my book. It made me so so angry to watch--for all the reasons you list above, plus the fact that (although I'm rather off Gaiman these days myself), Stardust the book is a fine piece of work, especially the edition illustrated by Charles Vess. It is essentially a Sandman story in novel form--well worth reading--but the movie *butchers* it. Grrr.
Comments 4
I found the movie pretty tedious and yet nearly everyone raved about it. And the thing that annoyed me so much about that was that they all liked it at least partly because of what it was: written by Neil Gaiman, starring some Brits, fantasy, etc. Anglophiles in N America raved about it and everyone on this side of the pond loved it because it was British, damn it. The little Britflick that could.
And still nobody could explain to my satisfaction why it was any good.
The first hour is overlong, tedious and directionless, the hero likeable but dull. Then it turns into panto. I enjoyed De Niro but cringed every time Ricky Gervais or any other British comedy stalwart appeared; it all felt far too self-conscious.
Thank you for calling this out; I had pretty much given up on agreeing with anyone on LJ about the movie.
Reply
But did they REALLY shave off Claire's eyebrows? I know they're naturally quite blonde and fine, but I really just didn't see them - especially in the "tender" scene where she is telling Mouse Tristan that she feels love. I couldn't deal with that scene at all, between her accent and her eyebrows. Would a good adaptation of Gaiman be too much to ask???
I'm with you, toots.
Reply
I didn't notice her eyebrows! (Perhaps because they weren't there?) Which, yes, I would have said were fairly blonde, but ... ? Maybe they just bleached the hell out of them.
You want Gaiman done right, I think you'd need a director like Guillermo del Toro.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment