Stardust (Spoilers)

[Kahuna Burger]

Hah! Okay, see...that's the kind of detail that needed to be in the movie.

She was just a princess in the movie, to my understanding...so her unaging quality was extremely bizarre and seemed totally out of place.

In the book, iirc, she was kinda exotic and cat like - it's been a while, so I could be misremembering, but she wasn't just another human who happened to live on the other side of the Wall.

 

[Fast Learner]

And, yes, Smith counts Matthew Broderick's wretched miscasting among those warts.

Good lord, Broderick was the only think that kept that from being the worst fantasy film of all time. Different strokes, indeed.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Hah! Okay, see...that's the kind of detail that needed to be in the movie.

She was just a princess in the movie, to my understanding...so her unaging quality was extremely bizarre and seemed totally out of place.

She was also from Faerie, was bound in servitude to a witch until cryptic prophecy was fulfilled, and was regularly changed into a bird.... any one of these things would be sufficient, in a fairytale, to be almost completely unaging. Or to at least be so long-lived that 20 years is a drop in the bucket. I assume that if she had pointy ears we wouldn't be having this discussion?

 

[Shayuri]

Er...I thought she was from Stormhold, and was the daughter of a very human (and old) king, and was therefore human (and capable of growing old). Seems reasonable to me.

As for the changing into a bird thing...that couldn't keep you young, or the witches would be taking turns changing each other into birds and staying young forever.

And yes, if she had pointy ears, that would have been evidence of a nonhuman nature, which I'd take as a visual cue that she's of a species that ages differently or not at all...therefore I wouldn't have brought it up. But she has round ears...a human father and brothers...a human son...all evidence points to her being human in the movie.

So I think it's fair to observe that she doesn't age properly.

 

[pallandrome]

Ah, a chick flick. Thanks for the warning.

*snort*

It's a chick flick like Coraline was a children's book. That's one of the things I like about Gaiman, is that he can take a fairly conventional story and make it INTERESTING. I remember reading about when he pitched Coraline to his publisher.

Gaiman: "It's a fairy tale in the Brothers Grimm tradition."

Publisher: "So it's a childrens book!"

Gaiman: "... I take it you've never read the original Grimm?"

And sure enough, the publisher insisted on marketing it as a kids book, and were shocked when parents complained that the main character's mother was trying to eat her eyes.

 

[Shayuri]

...the book sounds way better than the movie. No big surprise. I'll have to check it out.

 

[Agamon]

Great movie. Ricky Gervais' character was worth the price of admission. Robert De Niro's character is worth twice the price of admission (especially if you didn't see it coming). Michelle Pfeiffer has aged very well, still a hottie (without the old witch makeup), Sienna Miller, not so much (she used to be smokin'!). And Claire Danes doesn't make a very good blonde.

Lotsa fun. This and Superbad made a good double feature for me.

 

[Hammerhead]

Good lord, Broderick was the only think that kept that from being the worst fantasy film of all time. Different strokes, indeed.

That, and the awesome soundtrack.

 

[Hammerhead]

Saw it tonight, and it was a great movie; very entertaining to watch. I was a little disappointed in the ending though, as well as the fact that Tristan's mom wasn't nearly as manipulative.

 

[Jdvn1]

Both the girlfriend and I liked it. Her more than me and she typically dislikes "fantasy" type movies. Bummer about the box office numbers. Hope it does better over time on DVD rentals and sales.

Exactly the same story over here.