I had a longer thing here, but ultimately this movie isn't worth that many words. It can be summed up in just a few, actually: Matthew Vaughn, longtime producer, directed the movie "Layer Cake." Nice debut.
For some reason, afterwards, he decided he was a screenwriter too. He isn't.
His screen writing partner is someone with no writing to her credit, and according to the IMDb seems to be little more than a TV personality. Their screenplay is awful, trite, simplistic and condescending, but you can still see the starlight of a brilliant book (which I have not read) shining through.
The actors mostly bring their A-game. Claire Danes is passable, but isn't a star (either within or outside the movie), and has a horrible British accent. Robert Deniro doesn't even attempt an accent, so at least he's playing to his strengths (sort of). Name actors are given very little to do, and no-name actors are given huge parts to play. The results are mixed.
I did enjoy the movie while I was watching it, but afterwards I had time to ask questions. Questions like "why the heck was there only one guard on the wall 24-hours a day? didn't he have back-up?" or, "Why the heck did they cast three younger actresses to play the old witches, and only one (Michelle Pfeiffer) is ever seen as herself? Why not just cast 2 older actresses and save on the wrinkled latex?" It's incredibly sloppy construction, but Vaughn wanted to add to his audition reel, I guess, and hung his fancy suburban home (er, flat) on the blueprints of a Beverly Hills mansion. This is a C-minus movie that should have been an A+.
Just because you can direct a film does not mean you can write a screenplay. See also "Spider-Man 3." In the case of "Stardust," I heard the book was phenomenal, and the Neil Gaiman I've read defies description.
This movie doesn't. It's just pretty okay. See you at the library.
For some reason, afterwards, he decided he was a screenwriter too. He isn't.
His screen writing partner is someone with no writing to her credit, and according to the IMDb seems to be little more than a TV personality. Their screenplay is awful, trite, simplistic and condescending, but you can still see the starlight of a brilliant book (which I have not read) shining through.
The actors mostly bring their A-game. Claire Danes is passable, but isn't a star (either within or outside the movie), and has a horrible British accent. Robert Deniro doesn't even attempt an accent, so at least he's playing to his strengths (sort of). Name actors are given very little to do, and no-name actors are given huge parts to play. The results are mixed.
I did enjoy the movie while I was watching it, but afterwards I had time to ask questions. Questions like "why the heck was there only one guard on the wall 24-hours a day? didn't he have back-up?" or, "Why the heck did they cast three younger actresses to play the old witches, and only one (Michelle Pfeiffer) is ever seen as herself? Why not just cast 2 older actresses and save on the wrinkled latex?" It's incredibly sloppy construction, but Vaughn wanted to add to his audition reel, I guess, and hung his fancy suburban home (er, flat) on the blueprints of a Beverly Hills mansion. This is a C-minus movie that should have been an A+.
Just because you can direct a film does not mean you can write a screenplay. See also "Spider-Man 3." In the case of "Stardust," I heard the book was phenomenal, and the Neil Gaiman I've read defies description.
This movie doesn't. It's just pretty okay. See you at the library.