Forum Overview :: Peter Molyneux's The Movies :: Re: Stardust

[quote name="Zseni"][quote name="bombMexico"]This was awesome and great and....impressive. Not only because it was on 15 minutes after the shitty simpsons movie and the most convenient way to <i>make them pay</i> but also for non-revenge reasons. Pros and cons lists are for faggots who don't know how to make paragraphs. [/quote] Hahaha well anyway. [quote] Switching to rebuttal format so as not to blow your mind (with paragraphs).[/quote] I'm leaving this part in because cute. [quote][quote name="Zseni"]Ricky Gervais, whose schtick works super wonderful in a fanstasy setting, and I hope this leads to many other such roles for him. [/quote] Yeah, bit parts! Fuck that guy right? I wish i got paid for saying "brilliant" 5 times in 3 minutes.[/quote] His were the parts of the movie which rolled closest to Mad Max, just like the bits with the evil princes dying were the bits most like Munchausen. Do you see a pattern here? How the best bits of Stardust were the bits that came closest to actual good movies? Do you see that, <i>Mexico</i>? [quote][quote]t's a romance built on some of the least likeable leads I've ever seen [/quote] For anyone who hasn't seen her lately, Claire Danes doesn't do that thing where her skull looks like its about to pop out when she's upset like she did all the time on her mtv show. Also, only a dum girl would call this a romance. More of a fantasy, just as much faggot shit, but more stabbings and boob jokes.[/quote] Two stabbings and A Boob Joke. Don't pander to Caltrops, BM. You can't man up this estrogen-fest, and you do everyone involved a disservice by saying that it's <i>fantasy</i>. The fantasy is all dress-up. Stardust is 95% Date With An Angel, 5% American Beauty, and some fantasy-colored frosting on top. [quote][quote]Clumsy fag jokes alleviated not in the slightest by that their target is Robert DeNiro, and for fuck's sake what a hidebound old-fashioned Gay Sidekick queen he's playing.[/quote] This is retarded and i'm going to tell you why. Normal people need their movie gays to be prancing and crossdressing and flapping their wrists about for them to know that they're gay, because the alternative is guys pounding other guys. Balls slapping against balls for christsakes, what's wrong with you?[/quote] Flaming queens have their times and places and I love Peacocks In The Park as much as anyone. However, the quean in the movie was both 1.) not in the book! and 2) a tired hackneyed done-over swish, a castrated Auntie Mame, and yet another in a long line of rehash and genre tripe that passes for characterization in this wash-out. If I'm watching a movie in which every character plays a clumsy stereotype, does it become magical fantasy just because one of the dudes has an eccentric career? NO, IT IS STILL A LAME MOVIE. Compare and contrast: David Bowie queering to the hilt in Labyrinth, and Robert DeNiro with a love patch in Stardust. One of these dudes is representing a genuinely bizarre, mysterious, even alarming kind of sexuality; the other is safe as punch and pie. Tim Curry in Legend and Robert DeNiro in Stardust: one is an archetype, the other is a stereotype. Are you getting this image yet, Kurosawa? Are you coming to grips with the fundamentals here, Mr. Lynch? FUCKING AUGRA IN THE FUCKING DARK CRYSTAL HAS MORE THAT IS DISTURBINGLY SEXUAL AND HUMAN IN HER THAN ROBERT FUCKING DENIRO PLAYING A GUY COMPLETELY CHARACTERIZED BY HIS SEXUALITY. The fundamental problem here is that you have bad taste in fantasy. All you want is dress-up, apparently. You like eye-candy and superficial exotica. Maybe you're getting your Real Movie thrills watching all the Real Movies that I freak out and can't watch (because they're too real for me) but for me fantasy isn't about dressing up and <i>saying</i> you're a princess. Fantasy is a place to trawl one's dreams; it is a formal stage, set off from the requirements of "realism" and linear narrative, on which we let our hopes and fears run free. Maybe the matter discovered therein can be set into a larger fabric of humanity's dreams (fairy tales, superstitions, dead religions) but it's always necessary to be a little unique, a little <i>odd</i>. There's nothing geniunely odd in Stardust. We hear tell of all kinds of fabulous weirdness - a Wall that sets two worlds apart, stars that watch the Earth, captive princesses and immortal witches - but what actually <i>happens</i> is a very dull romance accompanied by a very dull Race To The Girl. In a real fantasy movie, the kids get caught up in the mechanics of the world; It has Its way with Them, not vice versa. For there is nothing so dreamlike as to be not completely in control of the situation! But in Stardust nothing really gets in our Young Lovers' way except their own stupid quibbles and foibles. Take the characters out of their LARP garb and you're watching another tedious chick flick, complete with colorful gay sidekicks and jealous hags who hate Twoo Wub, with a wedding at the end and everything. Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that, just because The Hero rubs his success in his former crush's face, you're watching anything but a Lifetime movie sponsored by Wizards Of The Coast? I hate this movie more now that you've made me think so precisely about what was wrong with it. When I had only vague lists of pros and cons, I didn't care very much about it either way.[/quote]