Csillagpor

Gaiman's book is just heavy hype, whose biggest weakness is the author's inability to properly develop the themes of the "other" type of fantasy that he claims to be writing, which is why the expectations for the film were zero. It was all the more surprising to me in the end that I consider Stardust the best fantasy film since The Lord of the Rings. It won't impress you with bombastic special effects (the film was very heavily underfunded) or a sophisticated plot (it couldn't have squeezed more out of the book anyway). Yet from amongst all the films that followed Jackson, only now has a film come along that doesn't ooze producer calculations, but is instead shot with refinement, confidence, and proper authorial passion. Charlie Cox is likable, Claire Danes is truly as beautiful as a star in the sky, and Michelle Pfeiffer still exudes irresistible sex appeal. But none of them can compare to Robert De Niro, who clearly sensed that this was a proper role after all these years, and he enjoys his rugged captain with the tender soul of a transvestite so phenomenally that I (with apologies) shit myself with bliss. From a filmmaker's point of view, it's not worth top marks, but I nevertheless give it full marks for the sincerity that kept me endlessly entertained for two hours...with a wink. (2008.02.20)

Although in terms of technical aspects I can find all sorts of issues, except for the excellent soundtrack, in terms of pure emotion, Stardust affected me like few romantic / fantasy films... I immediately found connection to the likeable heroes, I smiled at the jerky humor, the imaginative choreography and joyfully light storytelling, through which Vaughn masks a relatively forgettable artistic vision and a (lack of) feeling for strong composition. Visually, Stardust is really just a mixture of proven techniques and bad CGI effects, which reveal that 70 million was simply not enough... However, the incomplete impression of the kingdom of Stormhold literally drowns in a nice impression of the story and great characters (especially the central couple and the famous De Niro, who turn a good movie into a great spectacle)... in my opinion Matthew Vaughan managed to create a less than magnificent fairy tale with a big soul. Unfortunately, today's viewer likely prefers magnificence. (2007.10.01)

An engaging story with a pleasant esprit of British dry humour and finally, after a long time, a fairy tale that does not make a fool of the children and delights the adults with its wit and the originality of its setting. I'm sure I'll read something by the oddball Gaiman sometime. Matthew Vaughn has grown up, and the likeable De Niro hasn't had such a rewarding role in a long time (his "travesty dance" in The Wardrobe is, I'd say, a rare moment in his long acting career). I don't mind the visibly limited budget at all, because this film has a soul and that's worth it. The slightly rushed finale is a bit of a pity perhaps, but otherwise it’s a very nice film. (2007.12.25)

Stardust is a gem with a playful soul hidden in an undignified shabby technical garb. That is, exactly the opposite of what is usually the case these days. P.S. About a year and a half later: With each subsequent screening (it's a small miracle in itself that I voluntarily watch something more than once), I love it more and more. Slowly, but very surely, it has become one of my favorites... ♫ OST score: 5/5 (2022.02.09)

I only needed a pleasant mood, a head full of imagination, and a few minutes in the Wall. Thanks to the second projection of Stardust, it became the most pleasurable delight in a very long time. With this, I am paying a huge tribute to the story of Tristan, Yvaine, or Septimus, and I am slowly setting off to search for the star. This radiant enlightenment has given me a romantic mood for months to come. Vaughn, with numerous cliché violations and at the same time confirming all the necessary aspects of a great adventure spectacle, created a heartwarming film after which fairy tales will never be the same as before. Now excuse me, I'm going to dry my eyes. But it's not because of being moved, it's just some specks of dust that fell into them. Guess what kind. (2008.07.06)