Oh, I liked both the book and movie, I just wasn't, you know, overwhelmed. And when I'm not overwhelmed I tend to be over critical. Perhaps it's because I want to be a writer, to make movies, and if something isn't stunningly awesome I wonder why these other people are succeeding when I'm not. Really, I haven't a leg to stand on as I've never FINISHED anything so I CAN get rejected.

I do think Gaiman wrote Stardust for kicks, and I don't think he needs any more purpose than that. But if that kind of story happens to NOT hit my kinks, instead of digging deep into the characters and theme and whatnot, I start digging into the author. I start wondering why he had to tell this story, what was it in him that made this particular thing well up? It's almost more a psychological question than a literal one. And when other people like it, it becomes a social question--why are other people more entertained by it than I am?

I think they took a big risk with the movie, too, which is part of why I'm so interested

It is weird that the one thing you didn't like in the movie was the only thing I really LOVED. I can see why you thought it was campy, but for me, the humorous stuff worked in this movie while a lot of the other elements kinda flopped for me (the wonder and magic of the book, for instance.)