Mirrormask (2005) User Reviews

Like Nothing You've Ever Seen

[bobtoombs · 7/10 · 2 February 2005]

I'm another of those who saw this at Sundance, and all the things I enjoy about Gaiman and McKean's graphic novels were on display: the quiet humor, the intelligence, the delightful weirdness, the astounding visual vocabulary. Except that in this case, the words are spoken by good actors, and all those visuals get up off their feet and move.

It's hard to describe the impact of watching a McKean painting move and talk. There might be those who quibble about the movie looking too animated, but of course that's exactly the point: to create a world and make it dance. The end result, visually at least, is like nothing you've ever seen before, and absolutely worth seeing for that reason alone.

Some of the people I talked to after the screening also loved the visuals but felt the story was a bit dull, that they had seen it all before. Well, it's true that the story does wear its influences on its sleeve--a little "Alice in Wonderland" here, a little "Time Bandits" there, a lot of "Wizard of Oz" over here, not to mention a resemblance to Gaiman's own "Coraline." But I'm just as familiar with those stories as anyone else, and the resemblances never interrupted my enjoyment of "MirrorrMask"--after all, it's what you do with a story that determines its success. And from moment to moment, there was enough innovation and cleverness, enough delight and wonder, to make the movie a positive delight.

I can imagine kids sitting in the audience with their eyes agog; and I can imagine their parents sitting next to them, just as agog for a whole different set of reasons. "MirrorMask" may or may not be too wild to be a full-out commercial success; but I predict it's going to have a long, long shelf life. I know I'll be buying the DVD as soon as it's available, so that I can show it to people and say "Wait till you see this."

Fun for the family and the art crowd

[A.P. · 8/10 · 15 October 2005]

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.

Who is this film for?

[Pwyrdan · 6/10 · 23 July 2007]

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.

An Intimate and Wonrous Journey through the Mind

[Fan4562 · 7/10 · 25 February 2006]

It's impossible to deny that we live in the age of McMovies, where 95% of all films that are produced are either remakes, rehashes, sequels, or carbon copies of other movies (which are, most of the time, far superior). That is why when a truly cosmical event such as the planets lining up or a movie like Mirrormask is released one should really stop and pay attention. Simply put, everyone should see this movie. I am well aware that most people will hate it, but it is a monument of everything which the movie industry could be, maybe should be, and isn't: sublime, heartfelt, intimate, and utterly escapist.

I am a fan of Jim Henson. I have seen the Dark Crystal and hadn't really liked it. However, I walked out feeling that it was something I needed to see, I didn't want my time refunded as with most movies I don't genuinely enjoy.

The story of Mirrormask is about a teenage girl who works with her family at the circus. Every kid's dream, right? WRONG. She yearns for a normal life, which is the reason for much dispute between her and her mother. After one particularly nasty fight her mother falls before an illness. As she dwindles between life and death Helena, our heroine, is sent to live with an aunt and gets a taste of the life she so desperately wanted. As she tries to come to grips with all of this she falls into a dream. There she is trapped inside a magical land. The dream world is divided in two, the "light" kingdom which symbolises Helena's idealized version of things, and the "dark" kingdom, that stands for all the aspects of her life she hates. Perhaps by walking through both of them she may come to understand the real world, which lies somewhere in the middle of the two.

Like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did while exploring the murky depths of the human mind, Mirrormask does a sublime job of truly capturing the essence of a dream. The world that Helena walks seems to be without boundaries and undaunted by the laws of the physical world but at the same time it does operate under its own twisted logic and rules. This is where the film's top assets comes in: it's maverick and inspired art direction. Even in the real world there is a surreal edge that hovers over everything dominating our minds. But once you enter the dream world the wonder-bomb truly explodes in an orgy of CGI-madness. I think that every scene in the dream world has digital elements but it never felt overdone (I'm looking at you, Lucas). There's way too much visual flair to capture it all in one viewing, but you're not really meant to. You're meant to move through it, to be surrounded by it, and whatever you retain from your voyage will be more than enough. This pushes the envelope of the wonders that CGI can create. Many will say: it's a kid's movie driven by special effects so it can't be art. Yet art it is.

And that's right, it's a kid's movie. No matter how you cut it that is what it is. But still, it is a great movie that will be entertaining for the kids but provide something for the adults that will fly over the kid's heads. The film is an incredible analysis of the human subconscious. What makes it great is the fact that it is so intimate, everyone can identify themselves with Helena as she comes to experience the duality of her world, in a way it speaks to all of us. The actors are good, not great. But special mention must be done to the fact that most of them act their way through masks and we are still able to understand the emotions behind them.

Yet... the film is not perfect. It falls short on story. That is the one place where Mirrormask does not shine and is not original and unfortunately it is a big one. The story is a retelling of Alice in Wonderland. In addition to not being original, the plot is not exactly brilliant. The ultimate payoff is good and the voyage is a triumph of imagination, but the movement of characters from point A to point B is often without a strong motivation or flimsy reasons. And for anyone that does not bond with Helena the movie, no matter how visually original, will not work. Still, you should not stop these flaws from letting you give a chance to one of the most brave and unique movies of the 21st century.

At the end of the day Mirrormask feels like a good movie who had the potential to be a masterpiece but fell just shy of being great (allow me to clarify, 10=perfect, 9=masterpiece, 8=great, 7=good). It feels like a wondrous painting that had the misfortune of being trapped in a film, where it is still good but is weighed down by the other aspects of the medium, which ultimately muck up its glory. Nevertheless, it is a wild trip and I stand by my conviction that everyone should watch this film although most of the people won't like it. For those who will hate it: At an hour and half it's not a terribly bad waste of your time and at the end of the day you will walk away having seen a truly original piece of film the likes of which you won't likely see for many years. And for those that like it... well sweet dreams to you.

Fantasy gone astray

[vdg · 7/10 · 11 December 2005]

I am a big admirer of Neil Gaiman's stories, but this movie does not do justice to his talent. Although the story is on the same path as you were expecting from Neil's previous works, it left me with a desire to SEE something else.

The music ,for the most part of the movie, is struggling to find a direction, and the acting is leaving a LOT to be expected...

Imagine that you are in the desert, and you are looking desperately for water; somewhere it might be,but when you get closer to it, it vanishes.That's what's happening with the direction in this film: it wanders from perfect to amateur back and forth a few time, that in the end it makes you wander if it's just one director or may...:(

Nevertheless, it's quite original, and it deserves to be seen just for the unique techniques used, but don't expect a masterpiece: this is clearly an artsy movie gone wrong...

Sorry..just a 7 from 10.

Primal and True Fantasy

[Polaris_DiB · 10/10 · 14 February 2006]

The medium of film is--like the medium of writing or other celebrated media--practically limitless in potential for fantastic creations. However, the fantasy (NOT SCI FI) genre is severely underrepresented in it. For every Lord of the Rings, we have ten attempts at The Matrix.

But what better alchemical mix to straight-up fantasy can we have than Neil Gaiman, Dave McKean, and the Henson Company? One thing Henson could do with his puppets that many others never really aspired to do was create fantasy the likes that weren't really done again, and his legacy lives on, using the enriching and creative mind of Gaiman, the celebrated British fantasy writer and comic book artist whose vivid imagination was so perfectly translated into film using practically every chemical for fantasy possible: CGI, animation, painting, set design, split-screen, superimposition, saturated colors, I even think there were moments of stop-motion animation.

The story is about a fifteen-year-old girl named Helena who works for a circus. Her creative and artistic mind keeps her busy from day to day until her mother falls ill and has to go to the hospital. Blaming it on herself for a row she had with her mother, Helena "escapes" into dreamland... or does she? I think what's really refreshing about this film is that, despite what a lot of people say about it, it's NOT that much like Alice and Wonderland. I can't help but think that, despite the fact that this film uses a lot of tropes common to the fantasy genre, it's distinct and original, something to be admired and appreciated. I don't think anything in this film really came off as that clichéd, even though it did come across as familiar. It might even be possible to say that anybody who has a real problem with it is just taking it too seriously, but that argument always goes in the wrong direction so forget about it.

One of the things I think that's important about a film like this is that it's not really a kids movie. Children could watch it, easily, and be fine with it, but it's not directed just to them. It isn't really directed at a target audience in the genre sense. It is simply fantasy for fantasy's sake, going where a lot of filmmakers seem desperate to avoid because "It's just not real enough." That's why, despite the fact that this movie has pretty obvious CGI, it doesn't matter as much as the obvious CGI in The Hulk: it's so fantastic, it helps that it doesn't seem real.

Too bad it just won't get the marketing or the attention it deserves, probably ever. That's why if it's ever considered a classic at all, it'll be a cult classic. Such seems the destination of many things that dare to be what they want and not what others want them to be.

--PolarisDiB

Fall in Love

[tedg · 6 May 2006]

I suppose there are two different types of daters.

There are those, like myself I suppose, who reach deep into life and fall in love each time, or want to. This path strings an alternation of ecstasy and disappointment.

Others may deal with these encounters as if they were mere meals; perhaps some turn into warm companionship and others become memorable. But the expectations are low, as if it were a normal part of life. Traffic crossings.

But not me. I want passion and nourishment. I want an encounter that begins a life. Because I am open to cinematic passions, I can find these experiences frequently. I consider it part of my job here to point you away from the disappointments so you can try some of the deep experiences that are out there, sometimes hiding.

First, the bad news with this date. The story is another one of those Manichaen broken yinyang cosmos things. There's some clever folding in that the world of most of the movie is drawn by the "good" girl, who is a circus performer. It starts out with that strong folding, then devolves into a "beat the clock to save dying mommy" routine. Also, the music is horrible once our heroine leaves her circus world.

You're better off at that point turning the sound off and putting on the richest music you know. For me, it is the early Rubinstein Chopin, so delicate and deep. It matches what is magical in this, and why I want to send you to spend an evening with it.

The visuals are so cinematic, your emotional fluids will be stirred, especially after the wonderful running start at the beginning. That's a Fellini-esquire circus sequence that by itself is engaging. The editing is frantic, and many prior circus movies are quoted, plus the famous Seurat painting. That's when I fell in love. It wasn't the "tumble into risky territory" love you'll find with Tarkovsky where you really are betting your soul.

Its the kind of love where you are turning yourself over to a partner who's been there, who can always pull you out.

After the circus, you enter a synthetic magical universe that -- if you open a bit -- will transport you. It has some deficiencies: I wish they exploited vertical depth like many have recently. An excuse might be that all those known tricks require a frantic swooping that wouldn't fit here. What we have here is languid, dreamy, the tone of our best, meditative Chinese filmmakers.

You remember "Savage Planet," and the best of "Aeon Flux"? You'll have that in undiluted measure here. Some things to appreciate: the absolute consistency that consecutively adds to a coherent world, each curl of smoke and fog and tentacle curls the same way. Each ragged line and edge contributes to the fuzzy physics of the place. Each hue comes from the same sad but accommodating sun.

The other thing is how the space is filled with fog, smoke, tendrils, all sorts of things that place the soul of the thing -- and your soul for a while -- in the pure impressionist mind. Its not objects you see that your eye needs to assemble into a world. It is the essence of the world itself that comes to meet you and blend into the fluid of your eye, out of which you precipitate surfaces which infer objects.

See this, with your own music. Enter this with your own story, the one that's there is a mere placeholder.

See this and fall in love. Safely.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

More of visual creativity than story...

[Enchorde · 6/10 · 5 February 2007]

Recap: Helena, a girl in her teens, live an rather unusual life with her parents which are running a circus. They want Helen to be part of their act, which Helena is not that keen on. To escape her life she draws, mostly with charcoal (?). Anyway, all her paintings are in black and white, with very deep contrasts. After a fight with her mother, her mother falls suddenly ill and is rushed to the hospital. It is not known whether she will live or die. Suddenly Helena finds her self in a very bizarre spot. A dreamlike land with a white city and a black countryside. But the balance is broken, the white Queen has fallen in coma and the shadows from the dark side are invading the city and threatens to destroy the entire land. Helena must find the charm that can restore the balance and take her back to her own world.

Comments: Not a movie with a great intriguing story. In fact, the story is rather weak, but that may be because I'm not really among the intended viewers. This is listed as a Family-movie and the story is very fitting one, even though it could have been better.

The great effort has been put into the visual end of the movie. The new world is totally bizarre compared to our world, but entirely logical when viewed separately. People are wearing masks, mythological and fantastic creatures walk among the streets. Computer graphics has been used to no end. It gives a plastic feeling but is required to bring forth the creativity and vision the director and writers must have had for this new world. In fact it is very hard to describe in details, it must be seen.

And that's the reason, even if you feel you're not in among the target group, to watch this movie. The story will probably bore you a little, it did me, and it is the main reason I can't give the move a higher vote. But visually, this is almost a must see. Very good.

Incredible visuals and great story

[spacemonkey_fg · 10/10 · 22 February 2006]

Title: Mirrormask (2005)

Director: Dave McKean

Cast: Stephanie Leonidas, Gina McKee, Rob Brydon, Jason Barry, Dora Bryan

Review: Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman have partnered up in the past to write some visually astounding children's books. McKean would take care of the artwork and Gaiman would take care of the story. This time around they have joined forces to create a film that very closely resembles their previous colaborations. Only this time around, the images move and actors say the words in this way helping to bring McKeans art and Gaimans words to vibrant life.

The story in Mirrormask is about a young girl called Helena. Her parents run a circus and she has been brought up in the circus environment, but lately shes been feeling like shes not really cut up for circus life. Helena and her mother have a fight about her not wanting to be in the circus anymore and she wishes her mother would die. On that same day, her mother falls ill and ends up in the hospital and Helenas conscience begins to bother her, after all, she did wish her mother was dead. And now she is close to dying. So once Helena falls as sleep thinking about all these things she enters her imaginary dreamworld where everything has a representation of what she knows from real life.

This is a very visual film. McKean fills the screen with his lush imagery. If you've seen McKeans artwork and know how beautiful it is, then you know how incredible it is to see his pictures come to life on this film. This movie is eye candy, and for those of you out there who love art and love films that give their utter most importance to their visual aspect, then you will love this movie. McKean fills the screen with really outlandish, strange, weird and dreamlike situations. Nothing is what you would expect.

Some people might feel that this type of movie is all style and art and no substance simply because its such a visual film. But I sincerely think that this is not the case with Mirrormask. With a writer like Neil Gaiman in charge, well, you can almost tell that the movie is going to have some deep psychological themes going on for it. And it does. Every character, every situation, every word spoken in Helenas dream world means something in Helenas real life. So be on the look out for those comparisons.

The movie has some truly astounding sequences that left me breathless and my jaw was dropping. First there was the giants orbiting sequence with these huge stone giants floating in the air and then there's this sequence in which Helena gets transformed into a dark princess that is simply amazing. They really did a good job of mixing music with visuals in that sequence. You'll just have to wait and see it to understand how beautiful it is.

This movie wears its influences on its sleaves and has no problems in showing that. There's many similarities between this movie and Labyrinth, Legend and most of all The Never Ending Story. Its the only thing I didn't love about this movie. It felt like they remade The Never Ending Story with elements from Labyrinth and Legend. Take all those movies, shake em together, add a little bit of psychological depth and incredible visuals and you've got Mirrormask. So if there's anything bad to say, its that in its narrative, its similar to a few other films. But on a visual level, its a whole other thing, so that sort of balances its self out.

I liked the fact that Helena wasn't a dumb little girl. She was very head strong and very smart. She wasn't a dumb little girl stumbling across a strange landscape. She was quick and witty and she realizes the situation in which she is in quickly and I liked that about her character which was very well played by Stephanie Leonides.

So in conclusion, this film will blow you away with both its visuals and its story. Its a mixed bag of other films you've seen before story wise, but on a visual level the film will be like nothing you've ever seen before.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Nice story, bad visuals

[Superunknovvn · 6/10 · 15 April 2006]

"Mirrormask" is a movie that would have benefited enormously from better special effects. The story itself is a mixture of "Labyrinth", "The Never Ending Story" and "Alice In Wonderland", not really groundbreaking, but it makes for an interesting premise. As soon as the fantasy begins, however, we are presented with awful CGI. I first thought that this had to do with a low budget, but then I learned that this movie was made by Jim Henson's production company, which makes the cheap look absolutely inexcusable. For a TV movie it would be okay, but this is supposed to be watched on the big screen, right? Another huge flaw is the new age-jazz score. It's totally boring and wrong for that kind of story. The cast on the other hand was great, especially Stephanie Leonidas, who saved as much as she could with her enchanting performance. In the end "Mirrormask" doesn't live up to its potential, but it's far from being awful. The lesson learned here is: you can't make a movie that demands special effects and try to save money at the same time.

I thought it was unwatchable.... is there something wrong with me?

[samineson · 3/10 · 8 June 2006]

So many people loved this movie, yet there are a few of us IMDb reviewers who found Mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse-clenchingly boring. I fall into the latter of these two camps, and I will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly.

Firstly, to set the record straight - I like Neil Gaiman's books. I sometimes find his knowing, sarcastic, 'wry asides' humour a little geeky, and I actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone - but, even with his occasional lapses into crap 'dad' gags, I find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special.

Interestingly, one of Gaiman's strongest works is Coraline, a Gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. His latest novel (Anansi Boys) overdoes the funnies, and tends to read at times like Terry Pratchett does the Sisters of Mercy (not the nuns but the band). Mirrormask inhabits similar territory to Coraline, and when I saw the stunning visuals in the trailer, I got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer Gaiman's spectacular vision and imagination to the screen.

In praise of the film, some sequences do look stunning. However, the visual effects are occasionally ruined by CGI animation that looks like a Media Studies student project. Backgrounds and scenery are often incredible, but some of the character animation looks clumsy, amateur and cheap. In an early dream sequence, the spider is animated beautifully, but the book-eating cat-beast looks poorly rendered and very 'computer generated'. Compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as 'The Corpse Bride', Mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. However, in Mirrormask's defence, the budget was tiny for such a grand vision, and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven.

What cannot be forgiven is the stilted, stagy, cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. The actors struggle desperately with the dialogue - and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. Conversation is rendered completely unnatural, the jokes fall flat time and time again, and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer's only method of plot exposition. Combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of 'Phantom Menace') - this renders the film almost unwatchable. In such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed, and in the main they fail terribly. The girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage-school dialogue, and occasionally shows real promise, but it is never enough. The god-awful cod-'Oirish' of the Valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. It appears to be Valentine's job to explain the plot to younger viewers, and to add a bit of light relief. Personally, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter.

What else is wrong with this film? Answer....Rob Brydon. What's annoying (for us Brits, anyway) is we know Rob Brydon can act! We've seen him hold the screen for half-an-hour on his own (doing those 'Marion & Geoff' monologues), and in the first 'real world' bit of the film he is fine. However, stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am-dram-ham I've seen in years. A real shame.

What else is wrong? Answer... the wanky slap-bassing, sub-Courtney Pine saxing and unlistenable, too-high-in-the-mix soundtrack that never shuts up. God, the music is incessant, loud, distracting, irrelevant and, if that isn't enough, has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. It makes the dialogue very hard to hear, but that could be a blessing in disguise.

What else is wrong with it? Answer.... The whistling mime artist. In modern society there should be no place for mime, apart from certain secret places in France. Every moment the camera lingers on the gurning, whistling, moss-juggling, yogurt-weaving idiot, I understand why the Edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when Festival time comes round again.

My final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. Surrealism often is dull – it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike, Zen, accepting state, or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. A story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked, whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping.

Finally, apologies to all those who found depth, meaning and wonder in this film. You have managed to suspend your disbelief, you have seen past the creaky CGI, ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted, and understood the maker's grand, imaginative vision. I wanted to, but I couldn't see past the real-world failings that dragged it down.

I hope Neil Gaiman gets it right next time, if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity.

I thought it was better than Labrynth. I know you don't believe me.

[Pairodox · 9/10 · 3 February 2005]

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.

Drawn Dream

[Cineanalyst · 6/10 · 1 February 2020]

So many movies look so much the same, I suppose it's worth seeing one even if its only redeeming value is a unique design. Such is the case with "Mirrormask." The dreamscape here is a drawn world decorated across the daughter's room. She enters this world, and sees, through windows, her doppelgänger making a mess of the real world. The CGI impressions recall graphic novels, but with a dream logic that has books fluttering and floating in the air--just like the fish, and one would assume potentially, what with their wings, the cats. The lighting and yellow color scheme goes along with the mirror and window motifs, as though sunlight were being refracted through the screen. Just about everyone within this masquerade reality, aptly enough, also wear masks. "Mirrormask" may be a worthwhile picture just to look at; perhaps, it's better if you only look at it rather than follow the story.

That story involves a circus, which is promising enough, but, then, things turn maudlin with the sick mother and the teenager(s) wavering between whimpering and dressing goth to supposedly represent being bad. The dream plot is a standard quest that gets derailed with the slightest of explanations. For instance, I don't know why she gave the key to Valentine when the mask is presumed to be behind one of the keyholes in the room he's wandering away from. The Black Queen episode, in general, seems a needless parroting of the good-and-bad witch plot established by "The Wizard of Oz" (1939), to counteract the comatose White Queen here.

Speaking of ripping off other children's stories, I came to "Mirrormask" because of its reported allusions to Lewis Carroll's Alice books. Unfortunately, what there is of that here is slight. The girl doesn't follow a white rabbit so much as wear two of them as slippers. There's the business of going through mirrors. I also wanted to think that the daughter and mother debating whose dream they were in to be recalling Alice exploring the same quandary with the Red King, but I suppose it just as well could be a coincidence. There's no sustained interplay here with the works of Carroll; the Alice books, rather, seems an easy connection for the filmmakers to briefly make because both involve dreamworlds--ditto the Oz film. Jim Henson, whose work serves a similar purpose here, did likewise with his "Labyrinth" (1986).

Only go for the visuals

[ruth_buchan · 2/10 · 8 March 2006]

I saw "Mirrormask" last night and it was an unsatisfactory experience.

It is a film that is visually rich but with slow direction, poor plot line and 2-dimensional characterisation.

I did, however, know this when I went in. I was willing to trust the two gentleman that I went with (knowledgable comic buffs) that the visuals would be out of the ordinary and so they were. Unfortunately, inexperience of direction meant that scene after scene passed with little in the way of dramatic tension or conflict. Though, this is a comment that could be made of many artists whose work is transferred to screen and who are given charge of direction. The pace of the story is lost as the camera lovingly dwells on the pretty pictures.

I would not have gone at all without that reassurance that the style of the film would be worth seeing. I have tried with Neil Gaiman's work but am always left with the "emperor's new clothes" feeling. I live in hope but last night was no exception.

I do not think I can continue with an analysis of Gaiman's work without losing the will to live. Read the rest of the comments and all his faults are eloquently described. I cannot comprehend, however, how he imagined that he had any understanding of the mind of a fifteen year old girl, Nor that what he had to say added anything to the sum total of human knowledge on growing up and assuming adult responsibility, or the changing relationship that a girl might have with her mother. These are the central themes of the film and they are handled ineptly, stereotypically and with no depth of imagination. All the pretty pictures in the world cannot make up for a piece of work that is flawed at the core.

Horrendous, self-indulgent Henson heir crack fest

[Ripshin · 19 April 2006]

Maybe this is an "art piece," but as a movie, it plays like a Bosch-induced nightmare. Sure, some of the images are intriguing, but the interest wanes quickly, as a murky plot grinds the film to a halt.

Somebody smoked something, and decided to combine "Oz" with "Alice," and pay homage to "Labrynth." And, hell, why not throw in a bit of Stephen King's "Talisman," as well. And then there's that whole Bosch connection.

The budget is listed as only $4 million, so Henson Co. didn't burn off too much cash in the process.

I do NOT recommend this film for younger children, as many images are disturbing. That human/cat in a dirty toilet? Hey, now there's something for the kids!

Highly artistic visually...but rather loose story.....

[iam_usa2006 · 7/10 · 10 April 2006]

(French version) I had been waiting to watch this movie since the project announced and had very high hope for this movie...it certainly possessed the essential elements to become a great Sci-Fi movie but overall, the director and the writer seemingly failed to hold all the loose piece together and present it in an integrated and tight film.

The movie is about a certain young girl Helena(played by S.Leonidas)whom's parents are circus performers and owners. She was a ball juggler and she was not really feeling like to continue to perform in circus. Rebellious against her mom and wishing her to death..her mom fell ill and hospitalized and required an operation. And during that nite, she dreamed...in her journey, she had to conquer the metamorphosed nite Queen and various weird entities..some cat like animal-Sphynx etc..and in order to prevent the nite Queen destroying the world(killing Helena's mom), Helena with the help of another man..Valentine..must find the "Mirror Mask" and reverse the damage(to save her mother!. Eventually, Helena was successful in defeating that nite Queen and in real life..her mom underwent a successful operation and recovered! The director seemed to separate the dream and the reality and thus...the dream part was merely a reflection of her inner psychological stress and subconscious mind.

The idea is not much original...much alike Alice in the Wonderland and I think...a better one "The Cell" by Jenn Lopez...the strong aspect of this movie...Stephanie Leonidas(Helena) though not particularly cute as a teen, has adequate acting performance. The rest of the cast was just OK.

As mentioned earlier, the CGI Visual is the soul of this movie. Much work been done for this however from time to time, one would noticed some inadequacy in the arts work."Inconsistency" , yes...that's the word . The style is rather Gothic and with a tint of Dali style distorted view vision and of course Picasso abstract ism. The color tones is vivid and lean toward golden/yellowish ...(representing Helena's dreamy states...) and contrasted with black/red (representing the anxious and psychological stress of Helena)..

Finally, I liked McKean's work in general..but this visually pleasing film actually did not have a solid story lines...with some great originality. Recommended to watch. Not a big miss if not to watch either.

PS; A much better one with similar style was "the Cell"2000 by Jen Lopez..directed by Tarsem Singh!

A flawed moving image of brilliant artistry

[Mattissimplythebest · 7/10 · 12 February 2006]

Just yesterday I caught a preview screening in the UK of this film at the NFT in London. Dave McKean was there to talk about his film afterwards and in many ways he summed up his feelings about Mirrormask by citing his own pre-occupation with images of masks; in fact he said that "masks not only hide our facial expressions" by using the camera he found that we are forced to consider the expressions of the body.

In many ways the study of mirrormask is the study of these expressions through the comic book style that both Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman have made their own. Differing from Frank Miller's own CGI induced Graphic Movie style in Sin City, Mirrormask gives us the realm of dream without the need to speak to the dream king. In this land of make believe a young girl named Helena has withdrawn from a real world in which her life is confusing and her mother is in mortal peril. Some consider dreams to be the medium by which we as individuals are able to resolve issues that are condensed into the unconscious, and in many ways Mirrormask seems to bring this idea to life as a form of social conscious. What I mean by this is that Helena's problems are shared by us and we therefore align ourselves with her in her plight. Her external reality is in chaos because she believes, rightly or wrongly, that she is in some way responsible for the peril in which her mother now finds herself; this relates to Helena telling her mother that she wishes she was dead. Unknown to Helena when she enters her inner world she is equally in peril for there is inside her a darkness that has used her entrance as a means to get out into the real world. In this way we may find a telling comment on what it is like to be a troubled teenager, to unleash the anger from within that leaves in reality a person that we do not recognise, whilst as observers we convince ourselves that the good person we knew still exists beneath the surface.

Beneath this surface is a world full of richness, so wide, colourful, and full of texture we almost feel that we could reach out to the screen and touch the images. There has never been any doubt about McKean as an artist as so many have looked in wonder at the creations that he has produced over the years, and the CGI of this piece of art can sit proudly alongside other complete fantasy adventures such as The Wizard of Oz, Labrynth, and Dark Crystal. Just as those pictures did Mirrormask is a product of its time period that captures something of the problems of being young and projects them into a world of true fiction, where reality is not required. To balance these overwhelming images the passage of the narrative is full of light hearted moments of comedy that relieve the tension as only a bizarre character from a dream could. Where Mirrormask falls short is surprisingly in the narrative. Under the careful and dominant mind of Neil Gaiman such a thing might seem absurd but the realm of cinema, despite mediating dream at times in its own way is not the realm of the dream king. Time is ever the problem of cinema, unable to give all its soul to a single frame it expands out into the moving image that we know, but just like the photograph with its borders so film has its cuts, and each cut is the source of the movie's flow. At times it seems that there is simply so much that the director would like to show us of the world that he has been forced to compromise and cut too early. As such the flow can become disrupted as we attempt to digest everything that comes to the eye and fail because we are overwhelmed.

The narrative is simple really and I think the film takes the greatest credit from not attempting to unravel a more complex one. However the ending leaves us with a slightly disappointed flavour, where we feel that perhaps it has ended too soon. Without resorting to spoilers all I will say is that the resolution of Helena's problems at the end, whilst they remain moving, become somewhat predictable and therefore lack the edge that could take this movie into the category of classic. Yet a classic is what it should seemingly be, but perhaps and hopefully this is merely a good start on a longer path of film collaboration between Gaiman and McKean. The film is due for distribution in the UK in March 2006 we were told and I can only advise all to go and see it to believe it.

Eye Candy, Cake, Cookies and Pastries

[baho-1 · 9/10 · 31 January 2005]

This is a visually mesmerizing film that takes movie fantasy into new territory. Think Alice in Wonderland meets Wizard of Oz performed by Cirque de Soleil. MirrorMask takes a comic-book approach to Good vs. Evil, with 15-year-old Helena as the protagonist who must find the MirrorMask and save the Light Kingdom.

But the story isn't nearly as important as the fantastic creatures and hallucinatory imagery that parade non-stop through Helena's fantastic journey. Director and writer (and frequent collaborators) Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman leap into the movie business with extraordinary confidence and derring-do. They are both legendary successes and have a devoted fan base from comic books (the Sandman series, for one), novels, short stories, posters, CD art, and much more.

It quickly becomes clear that MirrorMask is the creation of talented and imaginative artists completely unfettered by the bounds of traditional film-making. As a result, it is a bold departure from anything you have ever seen on the screen before. The story is simple enough and the visuals so wondrous that most children should find the movie enjoyable (unless they've become action-oriented adrenaline addicts). Yet the writing is sufficiently deep to satisfy the most thoughtful of adults.

I spoke to both McKean and Gaiman at one of the Sundance screenings and found them both polite, thoughtful and interesting. I told them that MirrorMask was the kind of movie I wanted to see again immediately. It is lovely enough to warrant a second look. And there's enough meat on the bones to go back and catch what you might have missed. The last movie I felt that way about was Memento, one of my all-time favorites.

MIRRORMASK (Dave McKean, 2005) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 10 April 2006]

I hadn't heard of this one before a friend of mine rented the DVD and, reading the synopsis, I was sufficiently intrigued to want to watch it as well.

An imaginative and dazzling visual feast patterned more or less on "Alice In Wonderland" (with the heroine's growth to womanhood being a principal factor behind all the phantasmagoria), but whose extreme weirdness and rather grim detail bring it closer to dystopian sci-fi stuff like "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" than anything else! Still, it's very well done but, also, not really a "kiddie" film - despite the involvement of The Jim Henson Co.; the performances, too, naturalistic and larger-than-life where appropriate, are surprisingly effective.

While highly impressive as a technical achievement and undeniably complex script-wise, the film can still be enjoyed on the surface as pure fantasy and, as such, it should be better known; indeed, with time, it's likely to garner cult status...

Labyrinth for the 21st century

[kerecsen · 9/10 · 29 January 2005]

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 :)

Not there yet

[neil-476 · 6/10 · 8 April 2008]

Gaiman and McKean have worked together a lot in comics with a great deal of success, and a collaboration in film sounds like a good bet.

And you can definitely see the strengths in Mirrormask - if nothing else, McKean's extraordinary design sense (like it or loathe it, you can't ignore it) leaps off the screen from nearly every frame. And Gaiman's passion for myth and the rooting of story in group memory underlies the story.

Which, unfortunately, is the film's main flaw - its sources are a little too obvious, and it sometimes feels as if you're watching Alice in Wonderland / Labyrinth / Wizard of Oz with a new paint job.

But these men are not to be written off. There is far too much talent in them for that. I think, in years to come, Mirrormask will be looked at as an experimental first step into cinema for both of them - an imperfect learning experience and a clear first footstep on the path to greater work.

Incomprehensible. Vaguely sickening.

[TensersFloatingDisk · 2/10 · 22 September 2006]

Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.

But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.

McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.

Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.

Grade: D/D-

Destined to be be one of the most overlooked films of all time

[A_Different_Drummer · 10/10 · 22 November 2013]

Wow. Talk about your one-of-a-kind films that come out of nowhere, make an indelible impression on the viewer, and then disappear back where they came from....? Dave McKean, a Brit producing in Canada, had a vision of a story which, some fans have opined, was as good as or better than the Wizard of Oz. Whereas both stories are about young ladies who have a mystical experience that may or may not be true (depending on the interpretation of the viewer) the unknowns in Mirrormask (Stephanie Leonidas?) deliver and deliver and deliver. Not only great characters, but the special effects are not to be sniffed at either. I revere this film so much that I don't want to give much away, lest I spoil your pleasure, but the notion of a young girl with a sick family member who, under stress, ends up in a place she does not understand -- nicely riffed with the idea of parallel dimensions and characters who look like the people here BUT ARE NOT! -- is nothing short of brilliant. If there was a higher score than 10, I would give it to this film. And the ending in particular is noteworthy because these sorts of films (consider Oz, and the goofy conclusion there) almost never deliver an ending that works. Here the ending not only works, but, if you have been following the subtle nuances of the film, it may even bring a tear to your eye. Brilliant. And lost to an unappreciative public.

roll up roll up be amazed.

[come2whereimfrom · 7/10 · 1 June 2006]

It has been described as an 'Alice in wonderland' type tale and that's not far from the truth. A modern take on a traditional story Mirrormask is a feast for your eyes. Mixing real life with that of a CGI netherworld we follow the story of Helena, a girl who works in a circus and dreams of running away to the real world. When her mother becomes ill she retreats into a world that has come from her own imagination and drawings. This world has two queens, a dark queen and a white queen, and Helena must stop the dark queen from covering the whole world in shadow. Helena is so captivating and really steals the show along with all the crazy creatures that inhabit the mask world from the stone giants to the rainbow cats. Everything is lush to look at and for once this is a proper use of special effects to create something magical and intense. With Helena's drawings subtly overlaying the all the action there is never a dull moment and the viewer is drawn in right up till the end. Top turns from Rob Brydon and Gina McKee also add to the whole, Rob with some laugh out funny one-liners and Gina looking beautiful/menacing playing both queens. A haunting soundtrack and some great noise effects finish off the fantasy. For a children's film this is a step above the rest but it should also appeal to the child in every adult because it is a great story told by great characters and using technology to great effect to create the marvellous mirror world. Roll up roll up and be amazed.

A wild dream that's easily forgotten

[samz_wilson · 4/10 · 8 December 2005]

Wow, what exciting visual effects. I also loved the costumes and artwork, the circus and ethereal feel to the film was sublime. It just required the need for the viewer to worry about the fate of our protagonist. As she is trapped in her imagination, there is never a sense of peril unlike, say, David Lynch's films which haunt every time. This also draws attention to which age group this film is aimed at. Who would this engage?

Mirrormask is obviously going to draw comparisons with Labyrinth with the teen- angst/ fantasy theme, but unfortunately it doesn't really come close to delivering the same Henson essence. The ill mother theme is never fully explained and certainly not something that you care about while lapping up the eye candy.

Not agonisingly awful a la The Cell, nor as engagingly dreamlike as Labyrinth - a forgettable but good-looking fantasy.