eric262003 "MirrorMask" tells the tale of an adolescent named Helen Campbell (Stephanie Leonidas) who has just been hit by the spell of teenage rebellion. Her parents run a successful circus and when her mother (Gina McKee)becomes terminally ill, she feels she is herself to blame all because she just wants to live the life like other girls. The night that her mother undergoes surgery, Helena gets transported into a mysterious dream world based on her drawings. In this world, lives mythological creatures, disappointing books and a queen who has been under a coma and the only way she could be regained of her power is through a charm or else this mysterious world will be overtaken by shadow."MirrorMask" is in conjunction with Jim Henson's Creature Shop and in under the helm of comic book legends Dave McKean and Neil Gaiman who directed and wrote the film. The movie itself is predominately laden was computer enhanced graphics. The majority of the sets are digitally dependent, even the performers seems to be digitally enhanced, now before you can utter the words "Sin City", you are out on a limb. In this movie, the faces of the characters are only partially utilized. For example, Stephen Fry who plays the Librarian the only part of his face that is not computer digitally enhanced was his mouth. The rest of the ensemble seem to be either sporting masks or their facial features are digitally saturated. There is no denial that "MirrorMask" is one of the most visually stunning film I have seen a very long time. And the beauty of this film will surely leave a sparkle in your eyes once the end credits roll. But under all those vibrant colours, leaves a story of near emptiness with a rather narrow plot behind all the surrealism. So all these decadent visuals are nothing but mere distractions between a rather non- existent story and after a while these visuals popping start to become quite tiresome and redundant. I am especially disappointed that Neil Gaiman the co-writer of "Good Omens" wrote the script I was having my expectations really high, instead he only wrote a script that was half-baked. Gaiman, where did you go wrong here?Also the performances did not really strike a positive note here. It's pretty clear that Stephanie Leonidas who plays Helena was only cast for her looks and nothing more. Her acting is flatter than a singular pancake and her one-dimensional emotions knowing the situation that she is in can be just as annoying as the overuse of CGI and visuals. The worst of it all is that her face is the only one that's not digitally dependent. This movie inspired me want to see Zang Yimou's "Hero" again because like "MirrorMask", the film was once again a visual sugar treat. The only difference was that "Hero" also had a great story behind the stunning visuals. "MirrorMask" had a contrasting impact on me. I thought with all those visuals, we could have seen a film taken in the same vein as any film "Terry Gilliam" could have directed, but in the end there was really nothing going for it in fact it gets very annoying and nonsensical. After the first hour I was looking patiently at the clock hoping that this film would end sooner than expected almost to the point where I didn't care about the direction of the film or even the characters for that matter. It's all about the too much style and very little substance.And while "Hero" had a more relaxing atmosphere in it visuals and storytelling that had left me satisfied, "MirrorMask" left me unsettled and I walked out of the theatre almost wanting me to drop my hat on the ground and stomp on it to help calm me down. The visual were too much and the story was too minimal. This film a had a lot of good things going for it to make it something refreshing, vibrant and compelling, instead we get something that's overblown, frustrating and pointless.

leoperu Having read a review or two I finally decided to give "MirrorMask" a chance - but in my eyes the movie failed principally. Visuals are unquestionably great in their existential-postmodern derivative glamour. If you're ready to rise above the fact that the imagery of this kind often comes close to the aesthetics of TV commercials, you can feast your eyes on a very stylish universe where Henson meets the Quay brothers, among countless others : eerie landscapes and interiors, and above all bizarre creatures including mini-sphinxes with human masks, hybrids of gorillas and seagulls (and snowmen ?), and a librarian (with mouth and voice of Stephen Fry) who is pure Arcimboldo revised by a cubist sculptor ... (My personal favourite may be a charming something called Small Hairy and played by the director himself.)Yet the makers of "MirrorMask" were obviously so deep in love with their gimmicks that they ditched virtually everything else : narrative dynamics, interesting characters, emotive score, worthwhile ending + message .... Here clearly form triumphs over substance, making me wish once again : If only modern movie makers quarried anywhere but in the realms of CGI, animation, optical mutation, and comics !

Anna N. I just came across this movie not that long ago. Well to be more precise I just seen this movie not long ago. I had seen it on a shelf before and had wanted to see it but kept forgetting to look it up.I now own it and it's one of my favorite movies. I absolutely love the visuals, the characters, and just really everything about this movie. Also like how it keeps me guessing in a good way. Not many people seem to know about this movie and most of the ones that do only have good things to say about it. One things for sure, I'm glad I'm one of the ones that has seen it. Even though it's in the kids movie section I'm not sure if that's where I would put it. I think it mostly has to do with being represented by the Jim Henson company but I can't be sure.I know this movie isn't for all people but Id definitely recommend it. I'll go on a limb and call it a family movie. Although some images might scare little ones. Most do call it a family movie though and with it being in the kids section who am I to disagree.

Billy_Crash MirrorMask had a great look and tons of potential, but the story just didn't hold up - especially in the all important second act.Gaiman, a solid and profound writer, created an excellent visual landscape, but his fantasy tale lacked conflict and excessive hardships for the characters. Yes, the characters were tested, but it was completely manageable.The actor's certainly shined in the eclectic atmosphere, but there were certain elements missing from each to drive the theme home and make the movie solid.If more time had been spent on a faster moving, cohesive and definitive story instead of CGI and puppetry, this would have been phenomenal.