Mirrormask

In general, I agree with all of the reviews - both the good and the bad. It's an amazing film, but definitely not for everyone. In fact, who is it for? I grew up on movies like The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Legend and The Neverending Story, but I didn't enjoy MirrorMask, for two reasons.

It seemed that the writers decided to rewrite well-traveled children's film territory while just adding some new ideas. Since it was meant to be a children's movie, some viewers will forgive the familiar scenes, but it is a strike against it for all of us who were jarred out of our suspension of disbelief by what seemed more like borrowed ideas than an homage. I just couldn't get into it. The Neverending Story, Labyrinth and Legend in particular seemed almost to be sources for the story. I was disappointed, because I am a big Gaiman fan - except for Coraline, which also creeped me out. He is usually a very original writer.

But I would still have enjoyed the film if it weren't for the aesthetics. Artistically and creatively, it's impressive, and I can understand why it has the beginnings of a cult following: Mirror Mask is better than Labyrinth (a similar Jim Henson Company movie) in a lot of ways. It's more mature, with a better heroine, a decent plot and thoughtful underlying themes. But to me, DM's art seemed bizarre and disturbing - not for children. This is not a light-hearted, pretty movie. I doubt it would appeal to most fans of the familiar fantasy genre. The script was thoughtful and sometimes fun, but the visuals were insane and scary. I'm surprised I didn't have nightmares after watching it.

So it's not mature enough for most adults, but too old for most kids. Who is going to love this movie? Probably mostly artists and film students. Just my opinion.

This is my first review, so pardon me for any clumsiness in its composition. As such I am nervously avoiding any discussion of the plot, lest I spoil anything.

This is a continuation of the tradition of fantastical films about the adolescent transition of young women. Other films in this vein are "Alice in Wonderland", "Paperhouse",and "Labrynth." The film was produced by Henson Studios, and is presented like their other features, but rather than puppets and elaborate sets, animation replaces those elements.

Visually I found it stunning. I am familiar with McKean's work, and I found this to be amongst his best. It was distinctly McKean's style. The use of color was phenomenal, as well as surreal composition. I was enthralled seeing his creations in literal motion, rather than the usual implied motion. I personally thought there were a number of visual references to other great films, but I'll leave that to your opinion. I thought the direction clearly demonstrated his grasp of composition.

The writing was true to Gaiman's tradition of off-beat fairy tales. The pacing was dreamlike, flowing between slow moments of beauty and exposition to frenetic moments of fierce action. Humor, dark and otherwise, punctuated the film. The dialogue was very strong.

I was also very fond of the use of sound. One scene is a frightening and beautiful music video, that can be lifted out of the film completely and carry itself. It fits better in the film, but doesn't need to.

The film fits extremely well with all of the previous Henson Productions. I suggest having seen "Dark Crystal", "Labrynth", and "Jim Henson's The Storyteller" before viewing this. The piece fits very well with these.

The audience that showed up for the Sundance premiere of this gem was quite diverse. Some came for Neil Gaiman, some for Dave McKean and the rest for the Jim Henson legacy. Based on my informal polls conducted in waiting list lines around Salt Lake City, everyone got what they wanted.

The visuals -- as you would expect from a move involving Henson's company -- are simply stunning. Most of the movie is blue-screen, which is quite unbelievable for a movie made for a mere $4 million. The human actors blend into the gorgeous painting-like backgrounds (google McKean's art and you will understand that this is quite a feat), and do an outstanding job of interacting with the digital characters.

Only 17 people -- all freshly graduated students -- worked on the animation, but the result looks like 170 professionals did. It should be noted however that Dave McKean spent 18 months in post-production, pretty much 24/7.

The weakest part of the movie is the story. Dave and Neil came up with the outline over 3 days, and worked out the details as they filmed. The end result is a run-of-the-mill Alice in Wonderland rip-off, with some elements from Labyrinth and other familiar children's tales.

I have to give extra credit to Stephanie Leonidas, who does a great job bringing Helena, a girl who ends up lost in the world of her Dali-meets-Picasso-meets-McKean drawings, to life.

I hope this movie will get picked up for theater distribution, because it deserves to be seen on the big-screen. In any case, McKean fans will be happy to hear that a Mirrormask picture book is in the works that will contain the 1700 drawings produced for the movie...

If you get a chance, go see this movie. It should be fun for children of all ages. If it comes to theaters, I will go see it again, and will give it an A again :)

I have just returned from seeing this wonderful little film. From the summary, it is obvious to most that not only is this, for the most part, a children's film, but it borrows from the classic "girl trapped in another world as a metaphor for growing up". We're even treated to a brief shot of a man juggling glass balls a la David Bowie in "Labirynth". The obvious "Alice in Wonderland-esquire" story makes things a bit predictable since we've seen it several times, but if one were to sit back and enjoy the magic and the characters, then enjoyment is practically guaranteed. It is a very family-friendly movie because of this.

At the same time, the art crowd will instantly recognize the names of Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean. Gaiman is the author of such novels as "American Gods" and "Neverwhere" and also is a comic writer that reached fame with his metaphysical masterpiece series "The Sandman". McKean, likewise, is a famed graphic designer and also worked with Gaiman on "Sandman". They have both collaborated on children's books as well. McKean's brilliant design work and Gaiman's delightful characters are evident throughout. Those seeking more cerebral movies will not be displeased.

The only negatives of this movie is that it slows a bit in some places and the effects are sometimes "too pretty" and might be a distraction. These are only two small drawbacks in what is otherwise a great film. I know I will not be the only one hopeful that this will be the first in many movies that will be involved in the Jim Henson Company's comeback.

I went into this film with high expectations and it didn't disappoint!

Dave McKean is a genius! He has created a film which is an unparalleled amalgam of live action, puppetry, classical and computer generated animation. This is the kind of movie that makes me want to be a filmmaker. McKean is constantly aware of the camera and how best to use it to draw the audience into the world he and Neil Gaiman have created.

The story is a fascinating examination of the self and issues of duality through the lens of the carnivalesque. The film references the mythologies of various cultures to create one of its own. There are some clear links back to Lewis Carroll and Alice's Adventures In Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass and it shares the dark, twisted sense of humour seen in earlier Henson Company films like Labyrinth and Dark Crystal.

The whole film is captivating and visually gorgeous. Within each frame there is so much to see, that, I would guess, even upon dozens of viewings, you'd be seeing new things. The visuals alone would have been enough to make this film nearly perfect but coupled with the frenetic and wacky music it's made even more amazing.

Kudos to McKean and Gaiman for creating a masterpiece that will stand the test of filmic history.