Rating of
1/4
Unintentional Laughs is Stardust's Strength
JLFM - wrote on 01/05/13
It is important, if one enjoys the art of film, to occasionally see an awful movie. This gives balance to your opinion, gives you an idea of what truly bad cinema looks like, and provides some wonderful unintentional laughs. I say this because it's one of the few good things about Stardust. It will give one a much better appreciation for better films, and even mediocre films.
Stardust is about a shooting star that has landed on (presumably) earth. It turns out, the star is actually a person named Yvaine. The main character, Tristan, finds Yvaine, and wants to bring Yvaine home to his girlfriend to win her hand in marriage. He does not know, however, that there are other forces that want the star very badly, and will kill to get it.
There's more to the story than that, but the whole thing is so hopelessly tedious, and so unnecessarily complex, it's not worth it to explain the whole thing.
How so many critics have been won over by this is beyond me. Stardust (in addition to having very little to do with it's name) is endlessly trippy (in the worst way), often dull, and uneven in tone. Stardust tries to follow multiple stories at once, and the sequence of events and the poor editing makes it all feel lazy and slapped together, not to mention extremely in-cohesive.
Stardust is made even worse by a series of contradictions, plot holes, and obvious mistakes that should have been caught. Character development is also extremely rushed. Some characters literally reform in a single scene without showing any signs of remorse previously.
Stardust attempts to be many different genres. Action, comedy, parody, etc. This is typically a recipe for disaster, and Stardust is no exception. Moments of light-hearted and childish humor feels off when the film is so frequently dark and perilous. At times, Stardust feels more like a children's film with it's intellectually insulting humor.
The action scenes are barely what one could consider "action." It mostly revolves around people running away. The few times there's actually "true" action are surprisingly dull. The lengthy climatic battle may go down as one of the most tedious and campy of all time.
Special effects are mostly fine, and they admittedly look pretty good most of the time. Still, the first 10 minutes boasts some extremely dubious looking effects (two pint sized elephants being kept in a cage make up the most offensive of the special effects).
Acting is one of the most painless elements of Stardust. Charlie Cox is believable as Tristan, though a mostly brainless and indecisive idiot can't be too difficult to portray. Claire Danes is fine as the first obnoxious then overly sweet Yvaine. Michelle Pfeiffer makes for a creepy villain.
The score by Ilan Eshkeri is mostly uneven. At it's best, it's rousing, grand, and spirited. At it's worst, it's corny, childish, and shamelessly over the top. The love theme is also an obvious rip off of Howard Shore's Lord of the Rings cue, "Concerning Hobbits."
I am shocked and even a bit disgusted that Stardust has been so positively received from critics. It's ridiculously campy and trippy, hugely unfunny, and often immensely dull. Stardust is ultimately too childish to entertain adults and teens, and way too violent and off color for kids. One of the only reasons to see Stardust would be to get a few unintentional laughs.
