Customer Reviews
Arty and boring British film - By: flingthecow, 11 Jun 2008 
I don't mind arty films if there's decent writing too..but this film was just producation design & creative CGI. Very original looking, but not enough to hold your attention past half an hour, which is when I gave up. I think art & film students would get something from it, but that's it.
Disappointed.
Intriguing If Too Abstract - By: B. Quincy, 20 Apr 2008 
Having watched Stardust & finding it okay, I found that one of my suitemates had left his copy of Mirrormask in the dormitory for spring break.
Being a newcomer to Gaiman/McKean, I watched the extras of the DVD before watching the actual feature. So I was aware that the film had a limited budget & was very much an "independent" film.
Knowing that, the film still did not start off very promising. Tensions ensue between Helena & her mother Joanna, both members of a family-owned circus. Helena & Joanna quarrel--Helena being tired of circus life--and the row ends with Helena essentiallly having told her mother to die. Unfortunately, Joanna suffers an attack of sorts during the circus performance & is rushed to hospital. On top of this, Helena's father is under financial strain with regard to the circus; & the family live in a dingy flat in Brighton. With no boyfriend or any real friends (apart from her fellow circus performers) Helena's outlet is drawing (alll McKean's work). Her room is papered with drawings of a city, & even the dingy terrace of the flat is decorated with many of her sketched windows & suns.
One night, Helena's sleep is disturbed when she hears a violin. Leaving the flat, she follows the sound to two men in masks playing a violin. Suddenly, a sort of CGI gangrene starts swalllowing up the architecture. Helena escapes with one of the masked men, Valentine, through a door. From then on, everything is done is a very stylized CGI.
Essentiallly, Helena has ended up in a world that resembles her drawings. Whenever she looks through one of the windows in the imaginary world, she can see into her bedroom, where there is another darker version of herself supposedly wreaking havoc. This other Helena is the Shadow Princess, who resembles Helena in the alternate world, which explains why Helena is constantly being mistaken for her. The crisis of the drawing world is that the Shadow Queen is desperate to reclaim her daughter & so encroaches with her shadow upon the other side of this world which is pure light. The problem, however, is that the Queen of Light is in a deep sleep & so can't defend the city. Therefore, Helena volunteers to track down the MirrorMask, which will supposedly restore everything to normal.
Yeah. It sounds dense but it's actuallly very simple. The light/dark dichotomy is fairly obvious as Helena has been usurped by her doppelganger & must find the MirrorMask to restore the balance.
I'd say that the simplicity of the story is the film's weakness. It feels like Gaiman pulled down a Literary Theory textbook & found Lacan's work on the mirror stage of development & Freud's work on the uncanny & crossed them with Alice in Wonderland & Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde. Not that I don't like Alice or Dr.J.&Mr.H., but the film runs primarily on inconsistent & inexplicable dream logic; & the ending is rather open-ended as to whether or not it is a dream. Which is fine if you don't require closure.
That being said, I felt the film picked up quite a bit when Helena officiallly meets the Shadow Queen & undergoes that eerily seductive transformation when the wind-up balllerinas sing "Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear?"
It's certainly a weird film, but it's worth the viewing. I can't praise the film as a whole, but there certainly is a lot to like here.
a refreshing film - By: H. K. Stanley, 29 Feb 2008 
a brillant film for those who love a fairy tale with a dark side. it has a simple storyline wich is a definate positive in this film although it could be slightly better, the ending could have been more. it has an obvoious link with alice in wonderland & is thick with subtle comments on society & intercations of people. the cgi is refeshing as it used to create a dream world not an alternate reality with its mistic surealism. for those who are a fan of dave mckean as an artist this film is a must see essential. you can tell this is a film directed by an artist yet it is not a hardcore 'arty' film. there are brilliant performances from the actors & actresses who give real & belivable perfomances. overalll a thourallly enjoyable flm & i hope to see dave mckean directing more fims in the future!
So bad I couldn't finish it. - By: genejoke, 29 Feb 2008 
Considering the talent attached I reallly thought this would at least be interesting. however the reality is that it is even cheaper than neverwhere & without the character. The production is amateur hour the acting third rate. I wonder if those who gave it good reviews even saw the same film I did.
Weird but I think I like it - By: R-B, 28 Dec 2007 
I have seen a few CGI films such as Spirits Within & Advent Children before, which I assumed this would be simalar to. But, instead this film uses both CGI combined with Live Acting & also pure live acting scenes, making it a quite unique watch. The film is very artistic, with nice use of colours & surrealist landscapes, even if at times they do appear slightly poor in terms of graphics. But still, if you watch it with mind that its meant to look like a drawing/painting rather than a realistic landscape, then it alll works. The plot itself is good & the acting is superb, featuring talent such as Rob Brydon, Stephen Fry, Lenny Henry, Gina Mckee aswell as a great lead delivered by Stephanie Leonidas. The music featured is OK but at times it just doesn't work & sounds a little corny, it could've been done better in my opinion. Overalll its a reallly great & unusual film, definately worth a watch.
Visuals: 9/10
Plot: 8/10
Cast/Acting: 9/10
Soundtrack: 7/10
