I just finished reading Stardust last night and i didn't love it. Neverwhere is one of my favourite books ever and i was hoping that Stardust would be just as good if not better... but it wasn't. It seemed rushed as if Neil had a deadline he had to meet and just ploughed through it.

Did you read the novel or the illustrated version? I haven't read the novel, I'm very unwilling to do so, coz the story was, after all, conceived as an illustrated story and it works beautifully with Vess's pictures. Without them, I imagine you can't help expect to read a novel, and be cheated that you got a little tale.
But with the pictures it's like when you read picture books as a kid, only withan adult twist.

So I recommend checking out the illustrated version. That said, you don't have to love everything

OK
I am posting way after the fact but I agree with cloverheart.
I have also avoided the novel. I can't imagine the piece without Charles Vess's art.
The story and illustrations work very well together.

I loved the Vess illustrations.

I'm not a huge fan of the film, though. I'm possibly not the target demographic, but it felt to me that in aiming for that PG-13 crowd it was too adult for kids and too juvenile for adults. By splitting the difference I think they lost both. The movie grossed just about half of its budget domestically (US) without counting M&A spend. The rest of the world gross did very little to offset this shortcoming, as did home video.
I also thought that Claire Danes was perhaps a little too old, or (forgive me) not-quite-attractive-enough to be convincing in that role. I loved her in "My So Called Life" and "Romeo & Juliette" and if this film had been made in 1996, she would have been perfect but I think if they were going to surf in her age range now they might have hired Marly Shelton instead, who would have been a better foil for Sienna Miller.