Win/Lose
Stardust vs. Inkheart
By Ryan O'Neill
July 30, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
One of the fascinating aspects of film is to compare two movies that are analogous in tone or genre, but not equivalent in their entertainment value. The theme of this column will be to review one production that I thoroughly enjoyed and then reflect upon a similar movie that I found dreadful. If the two were directly competing for an audience's satisfaction, one would win easily and the other would lose severely.
This week I wish to look at two films in the fantasy genre. One was an outstanding achievement in cinema while the other became a chore just to finish watching.
Stardust
Sometimes a film sneaks up on its viewer and takes him or her completely by surprise with its quality. If I had to list the movies that surpassed my expectations over the last several years, Stardust would probably be at the top. I saw the film's trailer several times in the summer of 2007, and I was not impressed. The marketing made Stardust appear to be a silly fantasy movie with cheap action and lame jokes. Considering its domestic box office of $38.6 million, I'm guessing that an awful lot of people were equally misled. Fortunately, the international gross was nearly $97 million, which helped it recover somewhat, but a lot of people like myself ended up missing a fantastic movie at the theaters.
In the film, Tristan, played by Charlie Cox, is a young man with low self-esteem who is infatuated with Sienna Miller's character, Victoria. The two live in the village of Wall; a small community that came upon its name due to an extremely long stone wall that separates the village from a magical kingdom called Stormhold. One night, a falling star crashes in Stormhold and Tristan vows to retrieve it in order to gain the appreciation of the woman he loves. What Tristan will soon learn is that the falling star is in fact alive and in the shape of Claire Danes. However, there is more than one party in search of the star, including a trio of witches who need to eat the star's heart in order to regain their beauty and a murderous prince who wishes to become king. Before Tristan's adventure is over, he will encounter a band of pirates, have to deal with numerous magical spells, find the mother he never knew, and discover that love is unpredictable and not always what it first seems.
Everything in Stardust clicks as magical as its premise. Fine acting, a thrilling score by Ilan Eshkeri, a wonderful story, humor, phenomenal cinematography, special effects, and directing all add up to a movie with endless replay value.
The film manages to mix its many comedic scenes and rousing action set pieces with ease. It is based on a four-issue prestige format comic book by Neil Gaiman who also wrote the screenplay for Beowulf, the novella Coraline, and is best known for the Sandman comic series.
There were two occasions where I feared Stardust was about to fall apart. One involved an ongoing gag where the King's sons would return after their deaths as ghosts and follow their remaining brother's quest to be king. That's a tricky concept which walks a tightrope between humorous and idiotic. Luckily, things never get too silly, and the ghosts actually have several hilarious lines while commentating on the proceedings. The second potential catastrophe was the head pirate, Captain Shakespeare, portrayed by none other than Robert De Niro. He just happens to be gay and a cross-dresser. This is very dangerous territory that could have quickly become a parody, but somehow the film and De Niro's skill never falter. Other comedic highlights include a quite funny cameo appearance by Ricky Gervais and an old kung fu geezer who guards the breach in the wall to Stormhold.
The standout performance in the project belongs to Michelle Pfeiffer. She manages to be both beautiful and terrifying at the same time. Stardust is the rare film that actually showcases how evil a witch can really be. Pfeiffer's character, Lamia, is one nasty bitch who has no hesitation vaporizing anyone who gets in her way with magic. Mark Strong, who is best known as Guy Ritchie's designated bad guy, also gives a memorable performance as Prince Septimus; an unscrupulous man who desperately wants to be king.
Finally, the directing of Matthew Vaughn is what takes Stardust to the next level of entertainment. This was only his second film and he already shows incredible skill with the camera. I have never seen Layer Cake, and I had only heard of Vaughn in the past because he was the guy who dropped out of X-Men 3 two weeks before it began filming. This led to the hiring of Brett Ratner and a fairly poor superhero movie. I can only imagine how badass the X-Men would have been after witnessing the way Matthew handled witches. I'm looking forward to his handling of the upcoming Kick-Ass movie which is based on a psychotic comic book and may be very difficult to adapt successfully.
The cinematography in Stardust is breathtaking, and the director uses several swooping shots from a helicopter to show off the landscape of Scotland and Iceland while horses and carriages swiftly progress on their journey below to a rousing score. The beauty of these shots is comparable to the New Zealand cinematography in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. When he is not taking advantage of his scenery, Vaughn is using flawless CGI techniques to sweep the camera across a magical kingdom, into telescopes, around flying pirate ships, and through a castle ceiling. My absolute favorite shot in the film involves Septimus throwing in slow-motion several domino-like bones, which help to foresee the future, up into the air only to have the bones land in the hands of Lamia who also owns a similar tool. This is a dazzling edit that I could watch a hundred times.
I cannot recommend Stardust highly enough to anyone who has not had the pleasure of watching it. This was also the last film that I saw with my father, so it is an emotional memory for me as well.
Inkheart
It is more difficult to criticize a movie when there is nothing particularly offensive about it. Inkheart moves from point A to point Z fluently enough. The problem is that there is absolutely nothing noteworthy about the film. It is a flat, humdrum affair that might as well be background noise while you go about completing your daily chores.
I can name only two aspects of Inkheart that were even the least bit interesting. There is a very brief shot near the end that was a semi-impressive CGI effect of The Shadow monster and the performance of Andy Serkis. It is always nice to see Gollum causing havoc without the motion-capture suit. I'm a fan of Serkis, and I usually enjoy his acting. Unfortunately, he seems to appear in a lot of mediocre movies.
I have seen two other movies by the director of Inkheart, Iain Softley. Those were The Skeleton Key and K-Pax. Both were average films that were saved somewhat by a decent ending and the always entertaining Kevin Spacey. Softley has no signature style whatsoever. I did not see one attention-grabbing camera angle, the score was completely unnoticeable, and there were more thrilling special effects in the trailers for this summer's movies then there were in the entire runtime of Inkheart.
Brendan Fraser, who is sleepwalking through the entire production, plays Mo Folchart, a Silvertongue who has the ability to make characters from novels appear in the real world by reading aloud. This extraordinary skill leads to the release of a band of thugs from the novel Inkheart, led by Capricorn (Andy Serkis). For nine years, Capricorn has been brooding in a castle while searching for Mo in order to use his gift as a tool to get rich, rule the world, and unleash his pet beast, The Shadow. Another subplot involves Folchart's wife, who is first stranded inside Inkheart before being rescued by a stuttering Silvertongue. This leaves her with a speaking disability and as a captive of Capricorn. A third storyline involves Paul Bettany's character, Dustfinger, the cowardly juggler who can breathe fire. He has also been sucked out of Inkheart, and all he wants to do is go back into the book to be reunited with his wife, played by Bettany's real spouse, Jennifer Connelly. Finally, Folchart's daughter, Meggie, conveniently gains the power of a silvertongue in the middle of the movie so Capricorn can use her as his pawn instead. By the end of the film, everybody seems to have been captured and rescued at least twice and the blink-or-you'll-miss-it climax involves Meggie writing on her hand and reading aloud for thirty seconds. If what you just read sounds convoluted and boring, well, that's Inkheart.
The film does try to skip the standard 20 minutes of setup that is used in most fantasies and goes straight into the action. I normally appreciate it when a movie leaves its viewer slightly confused until offering an explanation at the halfway point. The director, however, ends up jamming too many things together in the beginning and loses the coherency of the story. Mo Folchart's ability to read words into reality is explained in the first scene while he reads to his baby girl and wife. Five minutes later, the focus shifts to Mo and his now young teenage daughter searching for an unknown book, and his wife is nowhere to be seen. Folchart enters a dusty room and suddenly, all the books start speaking to him. He finds the novel that he is looking for, Inkheart, opens it to a picture of a ferret, and the ferret materializes immediately outside to his daughter. The scene returns to Brendan Fraser flipping pages, and the camera focuses on a picture of a long-haired juggler. Like magic, Paul Bettany also appears. It is explained later on that these characters were released from the book nine years ago and have been following the Silvertongue ever since, but the movie is edited so poorly, it seems as if Folchart has the ability to bring characters to life just by looking at their picture. Why the books are speaking to him is another baffling question. So, Inkheart loses its audience within ten minutes. It is never a good idea to start a film on such a bad note. Personally, if I dislike the beginning of a film, it has to work twice as hard to recapture my attention. It has been done on occasion, but Inkheart is so lacking in excitement that my initial confusion soon changed to boredom, and it remained there until the credits began to roll.
I would also like to point out the complete waste of Helen Mirren in Inkheart. I read that she enjoyed being able to relax from her normal dramatic roles while acting in National Treasure 2 and playing a more physical role. Apparently, she didn't get the action bug out of her system, which is the only explanation for her participation in this movie. Here, her entire role was to whine profusely and leave the heroes alone to deal with their problems before changing her mind at the train station, which is a cliché that a ten-year-old could write. Off to the rescue, she rides a horse back to the castle where everyone is captured and opens a bunch of cages that hold magical animals so they can cause a distraction. In other words, her entire character could cease to exist without any impact whatsoever on the outcome. That's how you employ an Oscar winner.
Inkheart loses to Stardust in every category imaginable. Its lousy score, lack of action and effects, tedious plot, paint-by-numbers directing, and bland acting only serve to highlight how Stardust is superior in every way.