I didn't know who Matthew Vaughn was until I saw Layer Cake. Even then the name didn't mean much. I eventually found out he was involved in the production of both Lock, Stock and Two Smokin' Barrels and Snatch. I've yet to see Snatch, but I did see Smokin' Barrels. And why am I bringing up all these Brit semi-gangster films?
Because while I enjoyed Barrels, I found Layer Cake to be exceptional. It is one of those rare films that once I start watching I can't stop until the end credits roll. It is an excellent film, with any number of things going on, all of which pay off at the end. Beautifully crafted, well acted, on and on. But I gush and what does this have to do with stars?
Not stars as in film stars, but stars as in bright balls of gas burning brightly billions of miles away. Stars as in shooting stars. Stars as in Stardust, Matthew Vaughn's insufficiently heralded film from the ancient days of 2007. Whoever was in charge of publicity needs to be taken out and beaten. Seriously. Criminal charges would be appropriate.
My daughter had managed to see Stardust in the theater and said that if for no other reason, I should see it because Robert De Niro is in it and wears a corset. My curiosity piqued, I waited for the DVD. Eventually it rose within the ranks of my Netflix queue. That wasn't enough. Now I own a copy of the DVD. Films this good should be supported and I try and do my bit.
Is Stardust perfect? No, but it is superb in precisely the ways that Pirates of the Caribbean 3 isn't. That is: Everyone can act, everyone has a motive, everyone interacts with everyone else in believable ways. Further, the magic is omnipresent yet strangely restrained, as well as being logical and consistent. CGI enhances scenes rather than dominates them. Most glorious of all, the villain has a clearly stated motive. And if that's not enough, it has an adult sense of humor about everything. The author of the graphic novel, Neil Gaiman, states in one of the DVD's extras that he wanted to create an adult fairy tale. Well, having never read it, I can't judge the novel but Vaughn succeeds in creating just that on the big screen (or even your TV screen).
Given all that, wherein does Stardust fail, or fall short? Well, I'm not much of a Claire Danes fan, though it's more a lack of appeal than some deliberate offense. Here, as said, she acts well and is adequate, but I would have expected more from a fallen star. Ditto Charlie Cox, the romantic lead, and why on earth does Sienna Miller keep popping up on screen? None of them causes offense, they're mostly just...(yawn).
The film sometimes treads dangerously close to relying a bit too much on coincidence to propel the plot. Also the aforementioned scene with De Niro seems to serve no purpose other than to firmly establish that his Captain Shakespeare is gay. Doesn't that stereotype get tired?
But by film's end all of that became forgotten because whatever flaws in the writing or acting or anything else, Vaughn's directing is superb. He juggles all sorts of bits and pieces into a whole that at the end comes together with simple beauty. Really. He ties up disparate storylines with an ease that should embarrass other directors. And while the climax is deus ex machina in nature, you just feel wonder rather than disappointment.
Dirty Harry, over at Libertas, feels much the same way and says it so much better than I. The film, as he says, has heart. I'd add that as with films like Transformers and Hot Fuzz, it's clear that everyone working on this film was having a grand time and wanted to share their adventures with us. Any actor shortcomings, any failings in the writing, all vanish under the joy of their work and Vaughn's deft control and at the end I was laughing and crying in the sheer glory of a perfect happy ending.
If not quite worthy of four stars (maybe 3.99999), Stardust is nonetheless worthy of your time, and I am looking forward to Vaughn's next project, Thor.
Comments