I am so there! Glad to hear this movie works, I wondered how it would do when I heard they were making it.

As a casual fantasy fan, I really do take issue with this distinction outlined in the introduction where you say that this movie feels more organic because it has one foot set in the real world, one in the imaginary. Personally, I had always seen it the other way. The "average Joe from our world gets transported into a craaaazy world that's nothing like ours!" has been done to death, from movies like Martin Lawrence's Black Knight to 'books' like that insufferable Harry Popper fellow that all the people who watch American Idol and read the Davinci code are blathering about. To me it's a tired schtick and is usually used as a lazy shorthand to avoid actually creating a complex and detailed self-contained fantasy world as Tolkien did (the fact that it's different from our world and has a few cliched fantasy staples thrown in seems to be enough for most people). Now, in the hands of a skilled writer like Gaiman, this schtick is used to create something worthwhile in the tradition of classic faerie tales and literature like Gulliver's Travels or A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. But all of the above are good precisely because they put so much work into fleshing out the fantasy world that you almost forget about the real one. I don't read fantasy for escapism, because a good fantasy writer can explore serious literary and philosophical themes, as George R.R. Martin does, within any setting they choose. So yea, basically, I don't know what your friend's problem is :-)

...a chick-flick fantasy film. I predict it will bomb, big-time.

I noticed this in Zacharek's review of The Bourne Ultimatum, too. There she wrote:

Greengrass knows how to use a movie frame so we know where to look every instant

which was almost word-for-word from any number of Kael reviews. And here we have:

"Stardust" is imaginative and intricate, but it's also joyfully casual, maybe to the point of being a little messy in places.

Plus the constant reference to how a movie "feels," as if it were a pair of shoes or a sweater we were slipping into.

This is pure Kael vocabulary. It's hers. When asked what she thought about critics imitating her style, she said "It creeps me out." If you love her as much as I sense, don't gross her out beyond the grave.

Please, Stephanie Zacharek, stick to your own voice and style. I often enjoy your reviews when you do, and think you have some good insights (I disagree with you about Heathers, but so what?).

After the soul-numbing waste of time that was Mirrormask, I'm afraid to try any movie that has Gaiman's name on it. I can't find a Salon review of Mirrormask; did they love it too?

Excellent information to have. After the previews, I'd been hoping that it would have the sort of atmosphere that I always picture when reading Gaiman's work, and I'm glad to see that this seems to be the case. I look forward to seeing it!

Stardust, the book upon which the new movie is based, was originally an illustrated novel created in collaboration between Neil Gaiman and Charles Vess, not by Neil Gaiman solo. A publisher did later release Mr. Gaiman's text without Mr. Vess's enchanting illustrations (for reasons I entirely fail to understand), but Mr. Gaiman, in person, when I've seen him speak on the matter, never fails to refer to the creation of the "Stardust" world as a collaboration. I mean no disrespect to the extremely talented Mr. Gaiman by wanting to also pay tribute to the remarkable artist he teamed up with on this project.

"Fantasty"? Is that the opposite of "fanflavorless"? :D

An interesting coinage!

...now let's hope they haven't butchered his book like the SciFi Network butchered Earthsea.

Being a semi-rabid Gaiman fan, I can say that you really do see Charles Vess' hand in Stardust. It's much gentler and dreamier than most of Gaiman's work. The story, even the un-illustrated version, has the soft lines and tints of a Charles Vess image.

Mirrormask, by the way, was a collaboration between Gaiman and Dave McKean. In my opinion, that film was much heavier on the McKean than the Gaiman. Not to say I didn't like it, but I can see how it wouldn't be to everyone's taste.

I'm eager to see a pure Gaiman work in a movie version. You would think the popularity of _American Gods_ (much more adaptable to film than Gaiman's masterwork, _Sandman_) would have spawned a movie. What about the BBC version of _Neverwhere_, you say? Well, the crappy low-budget production values of that one ruined it for me.

Now, where's this _Death_ film I've been hearing rumors about for at least five years?

I saw Stardust at a sneak preview, I loved Princess Bride and couldn't wait to get sucked into another fun fantasy story. I figured since they had a great cast, what could go wrong?

This movie never swept me away. Perhaps the characters were too shallow? I dunno, but I didn't care about any of them.

Peter O'Toole came on the screen, and I thought - yeah, let's go... and ok, it was a funny bit, but I ended up not caring about his character or anyone in that scene.

Michelle Pfeiffer came on the screen, and I thought - yeah, let's go... eh, I spent my time thinking about special effects make-up.

Robert DeNiro came on the screen, and I thought - yeah, let's go... I felt like I was watching him have a cameo on Sesame Street. He was like a (raging) bull in a yarn shop (tho yarn tends to have more gravitas than these characters did). He was good, but he didn't fit in.

Ricky Gervais came on the screen, and I thought - 'Ricky, please save this film' and then the witch took his voice away. That was the moment I gave up hope for this movie's salvation.

There were a few funny parts that made me chuckle, but nope, I didn't get to go anywhere. I left the theater completely unmoved and disappointed.

Maybe it's meant for little kids (?) I can see 10 year olds getting a kick out of it. Anyone else should wait for dvd.