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 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.

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."

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

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.