Actually, the movie differs so far from the events in the book that even longtime fans will be surprised at the events therein. I was pleased to find that my adoration of the source material did not diminish my enjoyment of the film. In fact, the new plotting was just as enjoyable in a cinematic sense as the old was for the book.

It was just like the Princess Bride! Only without the charm.

Blah. Needed more magic less bad jokes. It was like a bad Python film at times.

I saw it yesterday and loved it! This is my favorite movie of the summer. The entire audience in my theater really seemed to enjoy it as well. Lots of laughter and cheering at the right moments. It doesn't take itself too seriously, but doesn't go overboard with the farce. The guy who plays Tristan is good, he undergoes a nice transformation through the movie (loved the haircut scene). Michelle Pfeiffer is a great villain. De Niro is campy but fun. Clare Danes is, well, radiant.

Go see this movie!

Wow. Just.....wow. Did we see the same film? "Stardust" had tons of magic. And charm. Wonderful wonderful movie. Loved every second of it.

Of course you two did - you just had different opinions!!

I'd been waiting for this for about the last six months, and was fully prepared to be wholly let down after seeing it, but was very happy to have had the opposite happen. I loved it! I do think it'll do very poorly at the BO, though . Hopefully it'll get a simultaneous release on HD/BD with the DVD.

Gee thanks. I had no idea others didn't mirror my thoughts. My response was a joke. Clearly we saw the same film. Was just letting him/her know I thought it had everything he/she said it lacked. Three exclamation points.

Its because people who reviewed it have seen the movie, and not based the reviews on the trailers like so many people here have already done.

The movie looks like utter crapola based on the trailer. Even Ebert hated the movie. And when the big guy hates something, you know it's bad.

Count me in as loving this film. In fact, I'm going to see it *again* tonight!

2.5 out of 4 isn't exactly hating it.

Like Blue Velvet and The Usual Suspects?

^...and Fight Club, South Park, and If I am not mistaken the first lord of the rings movie?
I'm not saying Stardust is as good as any of these films but it is very enjoyable and doesnt pander to children like many many many of the films ebert has given thumbs up to.

That was Roeper who hated on Rings #1.

I thought they both gave it thumbs down and then once it was huge and everyone loved it they gave part 2 and 3 glowing reviews.

Ebert was never particularly impressed with the films though, until the last one anyway.

Nope, Ebert seemed on the fence about the first 2 but thumbs upped both and praised #3. Roeper went from finding #1 boring to flat out loving #3.

I was dragged to the movie kicking and screaming, and I was surprised to find the movie to be really charming and a lot of fun. The trailer was so awful, so I didn't have much hope for the movie. Now I will be picking up the DVD for sure. I enjoyed everything in it, but Michelle Pfeiffer totally owned everyone in the movie. Her performance was just a joy to watch. It was straight up perfect.

I just came home after watching the movie, previously I watch the trailer and it was kinda bleh for me but Gaiman is a big plus in my book. I have to say it's the best movie of Summer 2007 for me. From the beginning to the end, it was magical. I have to go and get the soundtrack too. When I saw the preview I wasn't sure if Claire Danes was the right choice but she was a bright spot through the movie. Pun intended. DeNiro and Pfeiffer were also great. Plus all of the Princes (sp.?) were great too.

I will be really sad if it wasn't in the top 4 or 3 this weekend. It was a wonderful fairy tale that can be watch over and over again. I am definately getting the dvd for Stardust. Hope it will be full of special features.

I had a really good time watching this film. It might be this generation's "The Princess Bride", though I would put "Stardust" a tad below TPB if I were ranking them.

The fantasy/fairie tale of a film starts off whimsically enough, but as it builds and introduces characters, the film gains quite a bit of momentum, helped by a nice screenplay with nary a dead spot in the film (impressive for a 128-minutes film these days), and finishes up with a nice conclusion. I liked how no matter how large or small the role was, each actor (be they principal or ancilliary) gave just enough to elicit a laugh or curiousity from the viewer. The large cast is rather good, without much of a weak spot in the lineup.

And then when I realized that it was based off the story by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by Charless Vess, I understood why the source material could yield such a delightful cinematic fairie tale. Matthew Vaughn had the right directorial tone for the film, and it paid off time and time again.

I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.

Oh yeah, I'll definitely be picking this up on DVD.


Here's a nice review:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/08/...-for-all-ages/

And yet my response being a joke as well passed you by? (Even threw in the exclamation points in to hammer the point home)

I thought this was horrible. Used every fantasy film cliche in the book. Poor De Niro.

It was just weak.

Grade: C-

Whoever said it was like a bad Terry Gilliam movie hit it right on the money. Even though Terry Gilliam movies nowadays haven't been so great.

I saw it and loved it as well. The Princess Bride comparisons are right, although I would also rank it well below Princess Bride (the Princess Bride's dialogue was much better, and left fans with about 100 different catchphrases to use, whereas I can't remember a single line from this one that fans will be repeating).