Stardust
So, “Stardust”. One of my favorite books becomes a movie. This could be bad — actually, this is usually bad. The novel is another of Gaimans masterpieces, a fable so well written one could mistake it from being a fairy tale from eons past, and then some. I loved the book when I read it. So yes, I was worried. There was so much magic, so many characters, so rich a world, so many details, how does a movie capture it faithfully?
Truth is, you don’t. You have to cut some corners. And to do that you have to understand the content. You have to realize what the story is about, how it works, why it works, and transfer those concepts onto the screen. There have been successful transfers like this (”Lord of the Rings” worked, “Sin City” was outstanding, to mention a few), but for every success there are probably a half-dozen failures. “Stardust” is solidly entrenched into the category of transfers that are successful. No ifs, no buts, no doubt. It works. It’s as magical as the book. And that, well, that is a feat.
Of course, the old saying that “the book was better” is true, in the sense that you’re comparing very different works. I loved the book but I’ll readily admit to loving the movie as well. Now, you don’t get as much Gaiman in the movie as you did in the book, for obvious reasons. However, in the book, you don’t get De Niro in one of his best performances in years (”The Good Shepherd” aside), a Michelle Pfeiffer who’s rarely been better in recent memory, and Claire Danes who literally shines. Actually, there isn’t a single weak link in the cast. The smallest parts are played out exceedingly well, a rare experience in a picture, and yes, that means that the “lesser known” people do a fantastic job.
Is the book worth reading? Yes. Very much so. Is the movie worth seeing? Considering I’m getting myself a DVD, yeah, I’d say so.