(guys we need a stamp.. of the Pedobear stamp of approval kind)
You know a movie is bad when you make killer robots idolized by young and old folk both far and wide, into naggy, whiny, and not to sound like a complete teenager but really lame androids devoid of personality or any instance of coolness. Okay, so there were some personality involved. But good heavens, have we not learned from the School of Me-sa Jar Jar Episode 1 Disaster? Racial stereotypes were never funny and will never be funny. If simple comedians with a twenty minute set list can't get away with racially biased jokes, how can a full length 2 hours and 20 minutes movie hope to?
Across the board, as Ad would put it, "big massive clubbed thumbs down" from all of us. For what it is worth, this is my summary, as demonstrated in Paint.
Since I'm a born optimist, I will say that the one good thing that came out from this show is that Nick, the token Y chromosome chapter of the group finally came around to recognizing Megan Fox's blatant unhotness:
"Dude, she's kinda plastic".
Never has there been sweeter words spoken in the face of abominable epic robot fail.
If there was one important thing to take away from movies in year 2007 was the arrival of one Rian Johnson. He crashed into the scene with a rocket launcher in the form of Brick and it was hard to ignore the tour-de-force that was that film. He breathed new life and boundless energy into a normal whodunnit film and twisted and melded movie genres into this crossfire of intrigue and impossible coolness. Brick was a highly unusual film in that regardless of the conceit, the film was always grounded in the characters. The stylized dialogue may have been hard to take at first, but eventually it washes over you as you focus on the heart of the story that was Brendan's/Joseph Gordon-Levitt struggle with uncovering the truth. Every hit that he took, all the blood that he shed, the confusion and the loneliness that was Brendan's world - we felt it right there with him. It was a holy trinity of amazing direction, casting and writing. So, how do you top such an amazing first go?
Like this: Well, apparently if you are Rian Johnson, you simply pull out more of that magic stuff from your bag of tricks and spin another tale of intrigue and impossible coolness. Again, much like his debut film, The Brothers Bloom relies on a certain conceit - the hyperreality of a world of con men. Unlike say, Matchstick Men or the Ocean's trilogy, the story's setting, rather exotic actually - Montenegro, Prague, New Jersey, among others, is merely a tool to deliver some of the best written characters in recent film. It could have been set anywhere. So long as we had these characters, it still would have been magic.
Mark Ruffalo's Stephen and Adrien Brody's Bloom are two brothers who make a living out of being con men. Stephen is to put it simply, the brains behind the operations. He calculates and plans the action almost as if he were a playwright constructing little plays where the lead is his brother. This perfectly ties in with his role as the elder of the two, where he guides and protects Bloom through his schemes. Bloom, on the other hand, is the reluctant actor who regardless of his personal disinterest, finds himself following the whims and fancies of Stephen. Even though he hates the job, he loves his brother, and that is always his sole motivation for going along with the con. Together with a silent sidekick, Bang Bang (Rinko Kinkuchi), the boys decide to pull their last con on a rich eccentric lonely woman, Penelope (Rachel Weisz). Bloom ends up falling in love with Penelope which jeopardizes the entire con, but before you expect a Kodak moment-type ending, Johnson throws a monkey wrench into the works.
In the age of recycled story ideas and cliched creations, Johnson's movie is like a tall drink of cold water in the burning desert. Hollywood is suffering from a derth of original ideas. Unless Charlie Kaufman, Michel Gondry or Wes Anderson writes something new, it is a backwash of unnecessary sequels, remakes and immaterial productions. Therefore, it is beyond refreshing to find this nugget of a film. Infact, it is this type of rare original film that makes me keep going back for more regardless of the countless turds that I consume (then bitch about) from the Hollywood factory. It's two for two for Mr. Johnson. And for that I commend you.
The casting in this film is impeccable. In fact, the film cannot be if one of the actors were taken out of the equation. The playful and unwielding brotherly affection between Stephen and Bloom is nicely contrasted with the sweet romance simmering between Bloom and Penelope. The central focus of this film is, of course, Bloom and Penelope. Both are characters who have lived a forced-life that they never wanted. So when they eventually fall in love and discover one another, it is a highly delightful visual feast. The chemistry between Brody and Weisz is so believable that I cannot help but smile with glee as their story unfolds. From their very first awkward meeting to their first kiss, as they learn to love and be loved amongst the artifice, there really are no words left but, 'Awwwwww.'
But while all the characters were solid, the story wouldn't quite sell so well if not for the authenticity of the rich eccentric lonely woman. Quirkiness is a difficult thing to balance. Too much and it becomes Phoebe Buffet in Friends. Not enough and it becomes a, "Oh my god. So random" passing character. Rachel Weisz completely owned this. Her underlying eagerness and charm grounded what could have been an overly fantastical movie. Penelope's enthusiasm adds a depth of sweetness to what is essentially a story about cons and lies. Where there is the conned, there is also the con men. Adrien Brody is so effective at portraying the younger brother who is slowly unveiling his own truth at every turn. The way his cynicism washes off in the presence of Penelope, is enough to make my cold black heart bleed for more. And that I do. Rian Johnson is undoubtedly one of the most exciting new writer/director on the block. I can't wait to see what else he comes up with. Statistically speaking, it looks to be perfection.
---
I still don't quite understand how this movie ended up screening in Malaysia. More so because it received a general release as opposed to a more probable arthouse limited release. And especially in light of the school holidays where the public has been deluged with nothing but animated films and Disney-friendly fare. I wasn't around here to know if Brick ever received screening over here. But I dare not question the logic for I am so glad that TGV Cinemas decided to bring it over. This gives me hope that I'll be able to catch Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist and 500 Days of Summer eventually. The proper (and legal) way, that is.
As a constant movie-goer (despite the inactivity on this page, I do still watch the films rather religiously), you get used to the sneaky tricks of the movie execs when it comes to movie trailers. Movie trailers are essentially carefully edited sound bytes and clips, carefully constructed to give a taste of the milk to the audience without giving away the entire cow. All trailers, that's right, every single last one of 'em, can be broken down into these three categories:
1) The ones which incite a Happy-plosion in your pants Usually reserved for the summer flicks or films which come with a ton of fan-fare.
These trailers capture the complete essence of the movie in 2 minutes and change and it metaphorically shoots a liter full of adrenaline into your system making your pupils dilate an inch wider, your heart pump just that much faster and your saliva glands to go into overdrive. But you don't need any further convincing since you've already bought your tickets, like, two months ago. Simply put, these trailers are the celluloid version of ecstacy. You watch it and you can't help but get high and want more.
See: X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Harry Potter #6, Watchmen, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, films featuring Jason Statham.
2) The 'Been There, Done That' ones which attempt to promise you something more but is really the same thing wrapped up in different coloured paper Usually encapsulates the bulk of these genre films: holiday movies, romantic comedies, horror movies, films by Michael Bay or the Judd Apatow clan and films which feature Will Ferrell.
South Park explained these kind of trailers best in this season 6 gem:
You basically go in to watch this movies because familiarity breeds security. Comparable to McDonald's, there will be no unexpected plot twists over here, just more of that magic juice you know and want.
See: Any movie with Matthew McConaughey - even more so if it also features Kate Hudson, or movies directed by Uwe Boll (in that you know it's going to create new levels of suck)
3) The rare ones that unexpectedly grab your attention and make you hunt it down at all cost Usually reserved for the foreign flicks, most independent flicks, or commercial films that truly intrigue the movie-goer, which is very rare in this day and age.
Now this third section of trailers is a big reason why even the most jaded movie-goer, scarred by brainless action films and neanderthal comedies, continue to brave the hallowed halls of the cinema. These trailers are not like the first, where it condenses everything and shoves it all up in your face in flashing lights and cut-rate editing. With the former, you don't have a choice but to sit there wide-eyed and slack-jawed as the movie execs spoon feed you every last drop from the magic drug. With this kind of trailer instead, it's a slow-burning kindling where something about the trailer gets under your skin - be it the music, the actors, the plot, the presentation of it all - and it manifests with continued viewings until the passion bursts forth into full-blown yearning. You watch it not because the movie folks tell you you should, but because you just really want to.
See: Brick, Cloverfield, Shaun of the Dead, Sunshine, Stranger than Fiction, My Summer of Love, The Reader.
There's no better high in the movie world then when a film totally and irrevocably delivers every bit of awesomeness as promised in the trailer. Such viewing treats like 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' or 'Crank' is made that much more awesome because even though you knew some parts were coming, there was more from where that came from. The good parts weren't solely contained in the trailer and there were hidden goodness in the film. You walk out of the theater thinking, "Oh yeah. Totally worth that 11 bucks I spent!"
On the other hand, some movies are so generic and terrible that watching that two and a half minutes of footage sixty times is actually better than sitting though the 120 minutes of film time. All that stuff you were cracking up over in the trailer are now being groaned about.You can't help but feel cheated and embittered after realizing that you were basically conned into going into this movie that sucked massive shuddering balls. Wolverine and Watchmen, I'm looking at you. In fact I'll give Watchmen a pass, since I was never really as into it as I was with the former. But oh, Wolverine, how you shat over my psych-itude and rubbed it in the turgid waters of cheesiness and predictability. At long last you promised a perfectly cast Gambit, but delivered about 7 minutes of screen time. You turned my snarling, raging anti-hero into a love-sick puppy with retractable claws. Before any nuance of real emotion can be properly conveyed, messy inane CGI-effect destroyed the atmosphere. The remaining boner that was stifled in my pants from viewing the trailer slowly deflated as the movie progressed. Nay. My proverbial penis actually retracted inch-by-inch into my body at the unghastly sight of my Wolverine being annihilated. Not cool, dudes. Just not cool.
In what was perhaps one of my bigger asshole moments, I wrote snidely on a friend's Facebook wall that when it came to The Dark Knight, "-spoiler alert- Batman will win in the end". I wrote that remark approximately a week ago from when TDK premiered on the 16th of July. At that point I was completely and absolutely tired with everything Batman related.;the jokerized everything on ONTD, the never ending viral marketing, the discussion regarding Heath Ledger's unfortunate death and how that may or may not be affected by his portrayal of the Joker, the obnoxious fan parade - like I mentioned before, all that insane hype and build up was ironically detracting from the movie's appeal. At that point I just wanted to get it over and done with so the madness would stop.
Perhaps a little backstory is necessary. I have never been a fan of Batman. This is rather ironic given that of all the Marvel/DC superheroes, I am most familiar with the history of Batman, ie his various incarnations in popular culture and how it's shifted over mediums and time. But really, to me, Batman is effectively a rich guy with too much money to spend and an overwhelming sense of self-importance. Blah blah blah, "but Karen he's so honorable cause he's like avenging the death of his parents!", I can hear the fanboys cry out. Well, there is honour in being a lawyer too is all I have to say. But then I suppose the story of a super lawyer would be better fitted to a John Grisham novel than a comic book. Anyway to reiterate, me no likey Batman. Not very much at all.
Alright, so we fast forward to Monday, 14th July 2008 and suddenly I'm realizing that my feelings about Batman isn't integral to my movie-watching experience. The fact that the entire cast reads like a modern wish list of the greatest cinema geek was more than enough reason to get my arse to the cinemas and watch The Dark Knight. Besides, it was Christopher Nolan's film. There could be nothing short of epicness when that name is attached to a project. So on Thursday morning of the 17th of July, my movie watching bud and I took the day off work and went down to our local cinema to catch the 10.30 am screening. Seems a bit over the top, but mind you, that cinema hall was half-packed.
So what is my opinion of the film now that I've watched it? Well for starters, it is very, very good. It is also very dark and violent as NY Mag is so quick to point out. But it is a necessary darkness that Nolan delves into for within it then only can I finally understand the appeal behind Batman and why the Dark Knight has endured the superficial misgivings I have been so quick to label him with. The Dark Knight is essentially a philosophical study in where the lines are drawn in morality, corruptibility and ethics. Batman as we know, represents the paragon of goodness that the Joker doesn't. Heath Ledger plays the Joker without any of the camp aesthetic Jack Nicholson brought to the role, thus making his villain a very scary one - anarchistic and evil, yet very clever. It lends credence to Batman, gives his villain-fighting a greater sense and purpose that goes far beyond the excuse of avenging his parents.
But I'm getting a head of myself. We were talking about morality, corruptibility and ethics. There is no better character study of said issues than in the character of Harvey Dent (played by the woefully overlooked Aaron Eckhart in the wake of the Ledger posthumous-praise). Dent starts out as one of the few good guys in Gotham city, working hard as District Attorney to clean up the streets of Gotham City. He and Batman are essentially the same person but on two sides of a coin. Dent is a city hero, catching the crooks, showing himself to be incorruptible when dealing with criminals, wanting the affections of Rachel Dawes. The people love and adore him giving him the title of 'the White Knight of Gotham'. Batman on the other hand, shares many similarities but is on the flip side. Labeled a vigilante, an outcast, he is the Dark Knight - as the title indicates. In an alternate universe, Wayne probably would have ended up the same route as Dent, fighting injustice through reasonable means - being a lawyer. Watching the turn both men takes as the movie progresses is absolutely riveting. It certainly teaches us that chance and choice begets very different results.
As mentioned before, the cast is phenomenal. Each individual by themselves are terrific performers, but together they band together to create a story so moving, so absorbing, that for 2 and a half hours, there is no other reality than what you observe on screen. A lot has been said and written about Ledger's Joker and I don't feel the need to add to that. Heath Ledger's death was very tragic, and the fact that his last role was so disturbing will probably fan the fire of conspiracy theorists for a long time. All I have to say is, of course he was fantastic. Has Brokeback Mountain taught you nothing?! Let's not forget the rest of the cast though. Christian Bale is brilliant at switching between the gravitas needed for the role of the Caped Crusader and the frivolous playboy alter ego Bruce Wayne. Aaron Eckhart's descent into madness and into Two-Face was approached with great subtlety and nuance. But I clap the hardest for Gary Oldman's Lt./Commissioner James 'Jim' Gordon. It's a hard task playing the straightest of straight guys, but Oldman imbues his character with the commitment and strong will that is needed to believe that he believes in good and will never be persuaded by the dark side. The final act in particular and Jim Gordon's speech enforces my new appreciation of Batman.
So yeah, I was a massive wanker for taking such a condescending tone with Batman in that early Facebook wall post I left. And I have since apologize to said friend for being an asshole. Because the truth is, Batman's 'win', if you want to call it that wasn't as cut and dry as I made it out to be. This is no Spiderman 2. Under Christopher Nolan's direction, every success came with a heavy loss. It adds unparalleled depth to the case for Batman and in this light do I finally accept his 'superhero' status. It is only in The Dark Knight that Bruce Wayne's life choices has finally earned him the title of superhero in my books.
My biggest problem with 21 may seem like a really trivial insignificant one but upon discovering it, it wouldn't get out of my head, nor could I find any explanation for it, hence it drove me nearly insane trying to figure it out which is why I'm just going to spill it out here because if I think about it one more goddamn run-on sentence longer, I'll "break my cheekbone with a hammer"* and here it is:
If Ben is supposed to be hard up for cash, why the hell is he carrying, of all messenger bags, a Freitag bag?
I'm a little ashamed to admit that one tiny oversight from the wardrobe department bothered me so much since it was nowhere near integral to the plot or direction of the film, but I suppose knowing how much one of those babies cost (Ben's bag in particular is going for about US$190 on the website), it was really distracting to see this 'poor', yes, I'm breaking out the quotation marks, dude struggle to earn cash.
I thought about it throughout the movie. Was it perhaps a gift? A shopping splurge? Did he get it off a second hand store? Discounted? By using a Freitag, are we supposed to glean off Ben's life philosophies? Did the wardrobe department not expect common movie goers to know about Freitag? Why Freitag and not a plain canvas bag? For a movie that only rolled out brand names after the Blackjack team started winning at Las Vegas, why was there mention of a brand now? Ben's entire wardrobe, short of the winning streak in Vegas, was completely nondescript and brand-less. He wasn't even wearing Chucks or some other easily identifiable footwear. So why a Freitag bag?
I couldn't understand why I was so fixated on this. Was I merely pulling off Lost fanboy tendencies and inflicting meaning into every single happening? Have I perhaps chanced upon some kind of anal-retentive brand association characteristic that was previously lying dormant? Why was this Freitag issue holding up so much of my attention?? And then it dawned on me.
The reason why I was wasting my efforts focusing on one minute detail that occurred four minutes into the film was because the other two hours of the movie as a whole was simply not riveting. At all. For a movie to be about cheating the institution at high stakes gambling, 21 was very dull and lacked any real suspense. Everything about the film was very by-the-numbers, observe:
Insert one bland but pretty main protagonist; Check. Insert one love interest who will inexplicably end up falling for bland pretty main protagonist; Check. Insert background team members with random quirky behaviour; one kleptomaniac, one 'other female' and jealous loser, all present. Insert evil antagonist with mysterious past and dead eyes; Kevin Spacey, there you are! Insert flashy scenes of Las Vegas montages, yay!-we're-rich-watch-us-now sequences, unimportant background actors, people from 'The Man'-type institutions; all here. Final double cross action during the climax? Yawn.
It should have been gold. I remember watching the story of the MIT Blackjack Team way back when and being completely absorbed. What went wrong between transcribing the story from real life to celluloid, well, a weak script and an even weaker director would be my guess. And as much as I adore Jim Sturgess, casting him as a 21 year old works about as well as casting Jessica Simpson in any other role but the chesty dumb blonde. But not to worry. At the rate Hollywood is revisiting old material recently, there should be a new updated version of this story in, say about five years. Three, if they get really desperate, and they decide to stop making Adam Sandler-type movies featuring Adam Sandler. Let's hope that messenger bags aren't the sole attention grabber in the next hypothetical film.
* = The threat is a direct line used in the interrogation scene in the movie. I'm keeping it and using it for future references.
[edit]: Read this article by Wired Magazine instead. It's infinitely more interesting than the movie.
(a Google Image search for the movie poster turned up a bunch of explicit pictures. Something tells me my kid-safe search option is not turned on.)
Anyhow, we're talking this Smother, starring one laconic Dax Shepard, one gorgeous Liv Tyler, one [adjective] Diane Keaton and one underused Mike White. A recipe for comedy gold, if you were me, would be fooled into thinking. Oh, but what a mistake!
Let it be known that death by smothering is more enticing than sitting through another minute of this insult to film. Unless the intention was to glorify lazy comedies with an overly-convoluted plot that relied heavily on overacting to deliver the set up, punch line and entire gag. If that was indeed the intention, bravo, dear Tim Rassmussen and Vince Di Meglio, for you have achieved a film unlike any other; It is virtually the anti-thesis to a comedy. Film-making schools will look upon it in the future and analyze what not to do in making a film of this genre. I think I speak on behalf of my generation when I say, thank you for your contribution. May you pave the way to a future filled with quality comedies that actually incite laughter.
It's been an on-going obsession of mine to hunt down a really good Western horror movie. You'd think it'd be a pretty easy task considering the large quantity of films Hollywood churn out per year. However when you take away films that are true-gore masquerading under the horror genre (Saw, Audition, every Eli Roth movie), the Asian remakes (The Grudge, The Eye, The Ring), the old '80s film remakes (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, every George Romero remake), the video game remakes (Resident Evil, Doom, House of the Dead) and films by Uwe Boll, the pie chart gets a lot smaller. And let's not even consider the abomination to the genre that are the films which pitch two classic horror icons against each other.
Horror, as it is, is such a loosely defined term. What makes one person scream in terror, is another's idea of comedy (re: Uwe Boll). To me, good horror is atmospheric. It gets under your skin and makes you doubt what you think you know. Those irrational fears as a child that you've long forgotten comes back to the surface and you wonder, just maybe, there might be something to it there. It could be something simple as darkness, aliens or zombies. Urban legends is a good one, but Urban Legend 2: The Final Cut (2000) wasted away the opportunity. A good horror movie subverts all the modern cliches that have become attached to the notion of horror. Yeah, we know the amped up music indicates the looming death of a peripheral character, but how will it be different from all the others is what will set a good and bad horror movie apart.
Which brings me to They. Plot wise, it's been done to death; what haunted a bunch of children when they were younger, has returned to claim them later. As per your standard text book horror film, the cast is attractive and the dialogue leaves nothing to the imagination. What makes this stand out, apart from the fact that I had watched it following Pulse and frankly, anything after that cinematic piss-pile of IQ-diminishing junk would be Oscar worthy, is the fantastic tension that runs throughout the film. I mentioned atmosphere being the most important component in a horror film, and They delivers unequivocally on that front.
Having witnessed her best friend, Billy, shoot himself in his brain after mumbling erratically about night terrors and things that go bump in the night, Julia (Laura Regan) begins to find that the night terrors she suffered as a child has returned. The running theme of reality versus paranoid delusions is executed quite perfectly to a T. The decision to write Julia as a student psychologist makes her hyper-awareness an interesting aspect little seen in other horror movies I've seen. In one scene where she speaks to her psychologist, having her self-examine her own case lays out quite explicitly what we've all thought about in times when we thought we saw something at the corner of our eyes.
Just before he offs himself, Billy tells Julia to run when the lights go out, darkness being their main source of existing. Actually that's another brilliant point from the film. 'They' are never quite shown. Basic understanding of psychology tells us that humans are afraid of what they don't know, things they can't see. Cloverfield, for the most part, was a pretty interesting film, right until the actual monster was shown in all his fidgety-camera glory. For the film to never explicitly reveal the true faces of the 'they' heightens the tension; best encapsulated in the climax where Julia is fending them off in a subway tunnel. To get back to the original point though, throughout the film, TV news report warn off rolling storms that affect the electrical output in the city. So when lights start flickering, like Julia, you're never quite sure if it's because of the storms or them exactly.
I read on IMDb that many found the ending pretty weak. They were unhappy with such a depressing conclusion and thought it cheapened the meaning of the film. On my Region 4 DVD, I found both the film ending and the alternative ending very satisfactory, one celebrated the visceral desolation that of reality while the other completed the theory of paranoid delusion vs reality that was hypothesized. Either way, the movie is certainly one of the better Western horror movie I've seen in ages.
And just because this post isn't long enough, let me throw in what I think are some worthy horror moments in modern film:
1. The opening sequence of Boogeyman. Watching it, I was so sure it'd be a pretty damn awesome flick. But 'tis not to be. The rest of the film rates up there with Pulse in the race for "Worst Horror Movie Ever, No Hyperbole, Seriously!" 2. Nightmare On Elm Street, Part 1. 3. The Birds by Alfred Hitchcock. 4. The opening sequence of 28 Weeks Later. The film isn't bad by any count, just lackluster to Danny Boyle's original. 5. Ju-On. Although this might have been indefinitely scarier because I watched it in the most run down movie theatre ever. We're talking the kind of place people go to die at in horror movies. 6. "They're hereeee." 7. The Exorcist, but not where it should matter. Personally I only shudder when Linda Blair goes for her very thorough medical examination. What can I say? I have issues regarding sticking foreign objects in bodies.
Last but not least, I'd just like to add that if anything should be learned from They is that horror movies don't need gore, sex and slash to make it good. Eli Roth, do take note!
Having waited with bated breath for the Stardust to open in Australian cinemas (September 20), scoring tickets for a special premiere a whole month earlier would what the UrbanDictionary define as "sweet". To have Charlie Cox, breakout star of said movie, introduce the movie and regale us with random bits of trivia is just the perennial icing on the already very sweet cake. That the movie completely fulfils my every expectation and pulls out some unexpected surprises as well? Consider me a diabetic after the whole experience.
I feel that I must pre-face the review with this note; For those not in the know, Stardust is an adaptation of cult-fantasy-author Neil Gaiman's book off the same name. Neil Gaiman... that name itself explains more than I'll be able to in summing up the story.
The movie follows the quest of Tristran (played by Cox) who hunts down a fallen star in order to procure the hand of his lady love, Victoria (Sienna Miller). The fallen star takes the shape of a woman (Claire Danes) upon crashing onto the ground. Unbeknownst to Tristran, the star is also hunted by a witch (Michelle Pheiffer) who wants it for eternal youth and a king (Rupert Everett) who cannot take the throne without it. Of course thanks to the mind of Neil Gaiman, the story isn't quite cut and dry. Woven into the plot are pirates, magical kingdoms, ghosts, and unicorns. According to Wikipedia, Matthew Vaughn pitched the film as "The Princess Bride meets The Pirates of the Carribean." While I do not necessarily agree with the pitch, I can certainly see that the intricate balance of humour, action, and love found in these three films are what the critics will refer to in drawing comparisons.
I was very excited to see what Matthew Vaughn would do in only his second take at directing after Layer Cake (which impressed me so), and I must say that all in all, Vaughn did a fantastic job. Telling a story that is so detailed and encompassing isn't one for the weak-skilled. Initial choppy editing at the beginning of the film aside, Vaughn's vision and strength progressed to culminate into a killer climax. Many times during the film, I sat on the edge of the seat, trying hard not to yell words of support to the screen. It seems silly but I am definitely one of those who gets caught up in the moment. It certainly helped that all the players brought everything they had to the table.
Unfortunately, films from the sci-fi/fantasy genre (that is not made from George Lucas) has a tradition of doing poorly in cinemas. Stardust opened at number four in the American box-office in its opening week. Hopefully it'll continue to stay strong and strong word-of-mouth will cause the public to flock to watch it. Nonetheless, what it lacks in box office sales will definitely be made up for when the DVD hits. Don't be one of those lagging dopes only catching it when the DVD drops! Verdict: In 21 words or less... A future classic! There'll be a whole new generation of kids who will grow up on Stardust.
Trivia according to Charlie Cox: The scene where Robert De Niro's pirate meets Ricky Gervais' bootleg seller is mostly ad-libbed. The actors had to turn their heads away from the camera to cover their laughter.
