Synopses of movies I haven’t seen yet, based solely on their posters: Stardust

click for larger view.

Somewhere in a far-away magic place, Robert DeNiro is worried. And a little sad. I don’t know what’s worrying him, but it must be something pretty bad, because he’s Robert Freaking DeNiro.  What would worry Vito Corleone, Travis Bickle or Max Cady?  It must be some great big monster or something.

Maybe the big monster or something is endangering the boat he’s driving — he’s worried, but his crew is struck with abject horror.  I don’t think they’re horrified by the lightning storm behind them — presumably when Robert DeNiro picked a crew for his sea-going vessel, he made sure that his men wouldn’t be scared by lightning storms.

Whatever it is, if Robert DeNiro is worried and a little sad about it, I’m worried about it too and more than a little sad.

But look! Michelle Pfeiffer isn’t worried or sad at all! No, over on her side of the poster, where the light is sunnier, she’s not worried or sad one bit. Know why? She’s got a secret! And she’s not telling Robert DeNiro. It must be a pretty big secret, she’s doing the villain finger-steeple trick while she contemplates it.  O delicious secret, let me make a steeple of my own fingers while I contemplate you, too!

I’m guessing Michelle Pfeiffer’s delicious secret impacts most strongly on the young couple in the middle of the blazing, misty sunset. This couple may be deeply in love, but they are headed for endsville, you can tell, because the Tall, Dark, Handsome Guy (TDHG) with the sword has just been startled by some life-threatening thing behind him (maybe the same big scary monster that worries Robert DeNiro).

But wait!  Claire Danes, TDHG’s girlfriend, has a secret too! Whatever just snuck up on this young couple, TDHG just got caught unawares, but Claire Danes knew about it the whole time. In fact, I’d say that Claire Danes set up her boyfriend! She’s Mata Hari!  But wait!  She’s Claire Danes, she can’t be that evil.  Maybe there’s merely been some kind of misunderstanding.  Maybe it turns out that the Big Scary Thing isn’t big or scary after all.

What do Guy With Pipe (GWP) and Older Guy With Sword (OGWS) think about all this brouhaha?

GWP is skeptical — he’s seen it all, GWP has, maybe he’s tangled with Secretive Michelle Pfeiffer before, maybe he knows something about Possibly Duplicitous Claire Danes, but mostly GWP has kept to himself over the years, leaning back, smoking his pipe by the firelight and thinking about the wild adventures of his youth, when bulky felt hats were all the rage.

OGWS, on the other hand, isn’t ready to settle down — he’s got somebody to fight! With a sword!  Is the the Big Scary Thing?  I don’t know, but responsibility hangs heavy on the brow of OGWS, and confusion.

Why is he confused? Maybe because his left arm doesn’t quite match up with the sword he’s carrying. No, it looks like his left arm is about six inches higher than his sword, and furthermore, seems to be carrying some sort of ill-defined blunderbuss (which, as any gun expert will tell you, is the worst kind). So either OGWS has dislocated his left forearm, or someone else is sneaking up behind him, or else the sword is maybe acting on its own accord. Any one of these things would be enough to worry me, especially if I were not famous enough to get my name on a poster.

In summation: the men greatly outnumber the women in this faraway magic place, but that’s okay because the women have secrets.

UPDATE: It appears that Mr. Neil Gaiman has stumbled upon this post. Greetings, Mr. Gaiman and his fans! I mean no disrespect and greatly look forward to seeing your movie.

hit counter html code


27 Responses to “Synopses of movies I haven’t seen yet, based solely on their posters: Stardust”
  1. greyaenigma says:

    And the women rule. I’m very much looking forward to this. Oddly, I feel like I’ve already gotten some spoilers, even though I read the original story. Of course, that was when it first came out, probably over a decade ago.

    Tristan has a sword? Huh.

    • Todd says:

      He’d better have a sword — it wouldn’t be much of a “sword-and-sorcery epic” without swords, would it? That would be just a “sorcery epic,” and that would make Robert DeNiro even more confused and sad.

      • greyaenigma says:

        If I’m counting DeNiro’s crew correctly, I think I have some idea why he’s unhappy. If he’s who I think. It’s kind of more of a shopping epic. A lot of the story involves commerce. (I have a huge poster at home of the marketplace scene at home.) Always keep your receipt when buying faerie goods.

        I guess there’s magic and mystery, too. Now I’m torn between re-reading the original or letting myself be surprised. I suspect there’s enough new stuff I’d be surprised anyway.

  2. planettom says:

    I read the Neil Gaiman novel this is based on a few years back. While I don’t remember a whole lot about it, I do remember that when I saw the trailer for this a couple of months back, it took me a moment to realize this was based on the book I’d read. The movie seems a whole lot more special-effects laden than the book did.

    • Todd says:

      I don’t doubt that they changed everything for the movie. You can’t just have a movie with Guys in it any more, kids these days have seen it all. You need to have Guys With Pipes.

    • greyaenigma says:

      It’s actually based on a graphic novel, and there is quite a bit of fantastic stuff going on. I also know that Gaiman himself has been extensively involved in the production, and he seems pretty happy with it. (He’s been giving updates on his journal for what seems like a few years now.)

      • planettom says:

        Strange. The 1999 paperback is what I read (no illustrations). Wikipedia claims that the text is the same as the 1997 comic-books/1998 graphic novel, although it seems a bit wordy to have fit into four comic-books. I have to wonder if Gaiman didn’t expand the text for the text-only version.

        • greyaenigma says:

          Yeah, the text-only novel did seem oddly thick when I saw it. And probably the original is actually more of an illustrated novel than graphic novel, so I think it’s more text-heavy. OK, sounds like I am going to have to dig that up and re-read it.

          • The actual text of the text-only version is just the same, but L A R G E R, so that it takes up more space. Really. It does, however, have some small extra bits in the back. (About The Author, “Wall: A Prologue”, and the preface to said.) I know this ’cause I have both versions. (Long story involving a move, and something thought lost that turned up again in another move.)

            • kikimodo says:

              there’s a graphic novel version? really? this is intriguing, i always just thought people were confused and thought that Gaiman did nothing but comics because of sandman when they said that…

    • megabitch says:

      The special effects in books are always better.

  3. popebuck1 says:

    For what it’s worth, Robert de Niro plays a pirate who is even gayer than Captain Jack Sparrow – if you can believe that.

    I’m another Gaiman fan who read the graphic novel a long time ago, and I’ve been itching to see this one ever since! It looks like it’s going to be spectacular!

    (Keep your eyes open also for the R-rated sword and sorcery flick Beowulf, scripted by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, coming this winter. It hasn’t gotten much press so far, but I have a friend who works at Paramount and has seen advance footage, and he says it’s gonna blow everyone away come Christmastime.)

  4. dougo says:

    I still miss Craig Kilborn, dammit.

  5. greyaenigma says:

    Hey, he didn’t just stumble upon it, my old CompuServe buddy sent it to him!

  6. imagine_bgp says:

    Very amusing! Thanks

  7. teamwak says:

    Good stuff!

    Cant wait to finally watch this. Although, your movie sounds just as good!

  8. Ha ha ha ha ha!

    I have seen this movie, and your synopsis is EXACTLY RIGHT.



  9. ghostgecko says:

    They made THAT boring book into a movie?! Jeez.

    • kayjkay says:

      You really ought to check out the re-print of the graphic novel that just came out… Charles Vess did an absolutely wonderful job of creating Neil’s world and characters.

      • ghostgecko says:

        Why would I do that? It was Neil’s “world and characters” that I disliked, and I’m not fond of Vess’s watered-down, lazy, golden-age mimicking artwork either. Gaiman did a good job with Sandman but everything he’s done since has been the same schtick repeated ad infinitum, ad absurdum.

        • kayjkay says:

          Hey, to each their own… I’m not here to start anything, just that some folks did indeed feel that the novel was vastly different from the graphic novel and did not know that the graphic novel actually existed.

  10. That was really funny. Just sayin’.