Movies I've Seen: Stardust

Does Stardust count as a movie adapted from a graphic novel? The credits read "based on the novel by Neil Gaiman and illustrated by Charles Vess", which sounds kind of weird. But Stardust was unusual when it was published, a piece of prose with full page illustrations released by a graphic novel publisher. Of course, this is back before Neil Gaiman made his mark in the world of fantasy fiction (or, as I like to think of it, one step closer to the real world then comics). Gaiman would have undoubtably released Stardust without Vertigo and Vess had he broken out of the comics ghetto, so I suppose it's their good forturne.

Anyway, Stardust is pretty good. It's a lot better than the last movie I saw that Gaiman was involved with, Mirrormask, and looks loads better than the upcoming Beowolf, which Gaiman has a screenplay credit for. It seems to have really toned down the fantasy elements, from what I remember; here the magical kingdom is the somewhat generic Stormhold, rather than the more tradition- laden Faerie. And there aren't a lot of twists and turns to the plot, which to it's credit never tries to pretend is particularly fresh and original. Gaiman has always been a writer deeply indebted to tradition, looking to place new spins on old motifs. Frankly, this is not his best trait. Gaiman often seems to be reveling in his own cleverness; his pages practically scream "look how smart I am!" Neil, we get it already!

But no one can deny that Gaiman has fantastic facility for fantasy. Of course, this doesn't have seen to have made much of a difference to movie audiences, as Stardust only pulled in $9 million this weekend. It must feel even worse for all involved to see that Rush Hour 3 pulled in five times as much. Perhaps the post- Lord of the Rings fantasy demand isn't quite as strong as expected, eh?