there are plenty of things this film did really well. i know the director's
past work and his collaboration with the writer has been a long and
fruitful one. neil gaiman was one of my favourite authors for a long
time but many of his books tickled me the wrong way. the sandman is
a masterpiece that could stand up against any prized literary works
of fiction. and dave mckean's illustrations, paintings and digital
works have been an ongoing inspiration for me for a looooong time.
i was super excited to hear that he and gaiman were collaborating once
again on a feature film, an avenue that i'm looking forward to get
into. and as i was watching this film, i got so many really cool ideas
for my own film. for the most part the film was what i was expecting,
mckean's paintings and illustration in motion and that's where this
film truly shines. his unique drawing style is everywhere and reaches
every corner of the film, from masks character wear, drawings posted
on helena's wall, puppets helena use, decors of the sets, etc. everything
oozes mckean's touch.

TRAILER(via apple.com)

i was completely thrown into this film in the first half of the film
but at midway through i started to loose interest. there is a reason
why i dislike fantasy films and books and why i found neil gaiman's
latest works rather shallow. i was thinking about it after the movie
and figured this out. fantasy is convenient. quite simple
right? fantasy is a world created by someone's imagination. the creators
usually start with a set of rules that they must obey and most often
these rules aren't very clear to the audience and are left dangling
and causes confusion and much irritation in my case. the thing that
i hate about fantasy is that i'm never sure the extend of these rules
and films do not have enough time to go through every one of them.
for example, if they're using magic, i'm always asking, 'how much good
or bad does it do?' 'how come it can affect one thing but not the other?'
'how much of a magic reservoir does the character have?' 'how can you tell
the character doesn't have any more power to use these magic?' 'where does
his power come from?' 'what's the limitation of his power?' 'can it run
out for good?'.... it's endless. when i'm watching a movie i shouldn't
ask these questions and distract me from the content and take me out of
the world these ppl created. when a movie is based in reality, i don't
have to ask these questions because i know the ground rules already, i
live by them. so what do i mean by fantasy is convenient? since the entire
world is created by someone, they can easily solve problems by adding new
things that we're not aware of. 'well, looks like this is a sticky situation,
i guess i'll just use my magic to get us out of it.' this is why
i find neil gaiman's work shallow(not the sandman). his novels
run some 300 pages. it's not alot of space to fill if you ask me for
a fantasy novel considering everything i mentioned above.

neil gaiman(standing) and dave mckean.

he would often introduce characters or subplots but never go into them fully.
and there are always reasons why they were introduced, to bail protagonists
when they fall into plot pits. he'll mention something in his fantasy
world in the beginning and take advantage of it later on. for example,
in mirrormask the sidekick mentions that he lives in a big tower but
he cannot show it to helena. he finally admits that the tower flew
away. at the very end of the film when they're about to get devoured
by the shadow or whatever, the sidekick shouts an apology to his tower and
it comes to rescue them. the tower doesn't have anything to do with main
focus of the film but it's conveniently placed to be used by the protagonists
when all fails. gaiman is trying to establish a rule here but not a good
one. he doesn't want tower to come in all of sudden without being mentioned
before but we do not see the importance it has on the characters before
the final rescue, so he plants a dialogue in the beginning to let the
audience know that there is this flying tower but he can't show it to us
just yet. in chcaracter-driven films subplots are congtigent, meaning
the character create many subplots or are introduced to many other
characters and most are never reintroduced or used by the protagonist. but
that's more close to our reality. we meet ppl on daily basis and hear about
various stories that we don't use later on in the day. we filter
information and most aren't relative. but in gaiman's world there is
a reason for everything, reasons why such and such are there. that's the
shallow part. there's no depth to these plot devices. i felt this way about
american gods, good omen and his other post-sandman projects.

ok enough rant about fantasy. another thing this film did not do well is
the story, which feels like a modern interpretation of alice in wonderland
and wizard of oz. here's one thing that bothered me more than anything.
i've learned that in plot-driven films characters go through a change.
it can be an emotional change, spiritual change or physical change.
some kind of transformation that character go through in the course
of the movie. this is important because the audience is going on a
journey of this character and witness the things that cause the change,
thus making more emotional bond between the audience and character. when
mirrormask starts, helena is seen as more or less irresponsible and obnoxious
brat who's sick of helping her family business. you can already imagine what
kind of change she'll go through by the end of the film. BUT, she changes
even before the main portion of the film begins. her mother faints and goes
to the hospital. helena realizes her wrong and confesses her love for
her mother and feels guilty about all the things she did to her. in
the first 10 minutes she already grew up and carries that sentiment until
the end. sure i made connection with the character as she went through this
hardship of seeing her mother in the hospital but that connection wasn't
fortified in the main portion because there wasn't anything more that could
be added to our relationship and it tore apart, getting me to care less and
less about helena. and that, to me, is a big flaw in story department.
she was suppose to be thrown into the fantasy world as a brat but through
the course of her journey she gains appreciation for her family and comes
back as a loving daughter.

another flaw is its formula, which isn't new. it's a typical fantasy about
a young girl who goes into a fantasy world in order to save someone and goes
on a long journey to find the answer. it has tons of exposition in the beginning
in order to establish the story and rules, which is always a stressful thing
and i got lost. she gets backstabbed by her sidekick on the way who comes
back to save her back. ending is very abrupt and feels like you're missing
something.

i'll end this with a positive note. the 3d effects in this movie is to die
for, especially in the first half. the credit sequence is in the beginning
is orgasmic with mckean's trademark design shown completely in 3d. many of
the sets employ textural handwritings that are absolutely breathtaking to
look at and add alot to the atmosphere. in the second half sets are less
inspirating because they're quite bland. the two characters walk down the
street or path and there are blocks of buildings in straight line. that's
it. in contrast, there is a bridge scene in the beeginning where the world
comes alive with various characters crossing the bridge, schools of fish
swimming everywhere, books flying, etc. it feels like an interactive world
that characters can live and breath in. later on you can see the distinction
between background set and foreground characters and there's no interaction.