Stardust

Cover of Stardust (Full Screen Edition)A lot of the one star or negative reviews of Stardust make valid points, mainly stating the film is poor compared to the book. Fair enough, that's hardly uncommon though. But what the hell. Anyway, I enjoyed the film well enough, and wouldn't say I regretted the time I spent watching it. Sure, I wouldn't marry the disk or anything, but that's probably not legal anyway. However, it seems I was once again wrong. This film isn't just - to some people - a boring or poorly-adapted tale. It is the anti-Christ, digitalised:

Amazon.com:

Nothing wrong with this DVD (Really, nothing? Edges not too sharp?), but I could not believe that Robert de Niro or Michelle Pfeiffer would stoop so low as to do a children's movie (Children's movies are, of course, the lowly stooping point of the world. Frankly, I'd shoot all children if I had the power, just so no actors would have to be in films aimed at pre-teens), without warning the purchaser(What, personally? They're very busy people I imagine. Or should there have been a public service announcement?) that it should be intended for pre-teens, even though the movie is PG-13 (Erm. Ok. I think the point of this was that the movie wasn't actually aimed at pre-teens.), which baffles me totally. (Strange. I pictured you as being totally unflappable.) 

Amazon.com:

All said,Stardust is a film that is perhaps for those who are embarrassed to be fans of such material (Carroll,Tolkien,Lewis,Barrie, according to an earlier point. I'm not entirely sure what this means. Is anyone embarrassed to be a fan of Lord of the Rings? I gathered it was rather popular. But clearly, this is the film for you Tolkien-hating bastards! ).And please stop saying Deniro is a great actor,hes now difficult to watch as he's always kind limited and off in his performances. (Firstly, there's a space in De Niro. You could at least do him the courtesy of spelling his name right, before you insult the man. And yes, he's just terrible. I remember when I was watching the Godfather, part II. I thought to myself, "Who the hell is that little man? Hes difficult to watch as he's always a little limited and off in his performances." Then I dropped some more acid and went back to lactating. But seriously, good for you! Take a stand against all those critics and his peers and the general public for the last 40 years! You're probably right, after all. I mean, what do they know? Compared to you. And your linguistic prowess. [Yea, you guessed it; I'm a De Niro fan.]

But these reviews pale in comparison to this review, which at last exposed the evils of Stardust to me!

Christian Spotlight:

This movie is on my top “personal worst movies that I have ever seen.”(Ok, before I even dissect the idiocy of that statement, I'll point out it's not a complete sentence. That's ok, you probably just missed the word "list" or something off the end. But seriously, don't see Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom. You may die.) This movie was “good” or interesting for about 6 minutes (Well, how good? Were you captivated in rapturous joy? I imagine so, you don't seem to go in for half measures). This quickly turned around when the main character's father has an intimate relationship with someone who he just meet (Met. And what a cad! Stone him! Stone them both!). This also happens later on with the main character himself and I personally found this to be offensive and just plain unnecessary. (Well, since this morally repulsive act of two people doing something perfectly natural without hurting others was necessary for the main character to be born, I would say it was pretty necessary. Although I'm interested by your idea of a film where the central character was never born.)

In addition to this, this “magical”(Is that a quote? Why do you keep doing that?) kingdom is run by a “noble” (Are you trying to imply they're not noble. Because what they do is pretty common with historical nobility) family that delights in the slaughter of fellow family members and they don't mind bringing innocent victims into the mix (Yes. They are the villains of the piece. You're not meant to like them, or want to take them home to meet your mother). The really sick thing was that they wished for the viewer to find this funny as well (We have a different interpretation of sick. I would say the really sick thing would be if they ate a baby. But it seems we're from two different worlds)… which I personally find disgusting. (Me too. I puked on a dog, so repulsed was I by people not being nice)

Apart from the movie promoting moral atrocities (The only moral atrocity you mention is murder. And I don't think the film promoted it. As for sexual freedom, even promiscuity, that's a personal issue, and inadvisable only on the grounds of safety. Ooh, look at me striking a blow for classic liberalism!), the movie itself was just plain awful (Well, spank me blue and call me Susan. If you like. I'm willing to pay competitive rates. Not really.). It becomes very apparent that they people who wrote this story started with specific fairy tale objects and simply wrote a story around it (Really? Was this story based on pre-existing fairytale ideas? I hadn't noticed)… for example the unicorn… (That isn't how you use ellipses. Or indeed, how you use many forms of grammar) it was not needed and was introduced to help direct the plot (Hmm, I'll give you that, a little. But Unicorns are cool. So there...) … and very poorly at that. This movie also brings in characters from other TV shows, such as the merchant who gets skewered by a man from the “noble” family. This is the same character as the British comedy show “The Office.” This clearly shows the creative ability of the writers for this movie… (Ok. Let's examine this. Your basic point is that Ricky Gervais is what, identical in both? Except, of course, he isn't managing an office in a mock-documentary thing here. If you mean he sounds the same, then yes. That's what he sounds like. He's got a really annoying laugh in real life as well. But that's besides the point. Perhaps it lacked creativity on the part of the writers to not make his character an Irish Zebra, just in case he was too similar to another role he played.) FYI when the merchant was stabbed everyone laughed at that as well since he could only make one sound… very sick. (Do you understand humour? People don't laugh because they actually want these things to happen to, say, their grandmother. They laugh because the predicament of the character is one that we do not envy, so we are relieved. The situation provides irony, as he is trying to express his desire not to be stabbed. They laugh because everyone has a subconscious desire to kill Ricky Gervais. And so on. It's not hilarious, and it's not Operatic, but it's also not very sick. It's just a bit stupid.)

I could personally write a whole book on how horrible this movie is (Really? Go on then. I want to see this book. Who are you thinking of getting to publish it?) but I'll leave it at that.(No! I need more of your wisdom! DON'T LEAVE ME!) Overall, I would not suggest watching this movie (Really? I thought you liked it); it's neither worth the time nor the mental stress that this movie consumes or causes.(You seem to have confused Stardust with the Holocaust. You should avoid this mistake, as it is rather embarrassing at best. You see, one is an enjoyable enough film, and the other is a tragedy on a scale we can barely imagine. I worry you can't tell which is which.)

So, there we have it. Stardust is actually the work of Satan. And, as a final note, despite what many of you say, cross-dressing is not intrinsically homosexual. You can be heterosexual and enjoy cross-dressing. I mean, not you gentle reader, because you're probably bigoted and just an all-round awful human being. So please don't talk out of ignorance, and similarly, don't review films.
At all.