November 23rd, 2005
|10:58 am - Mirrormask|
Yesterday afternoon I took my sister and her boyfriend James to see a matinee showing of Mirrormask, which had been recommended to me by inle_the_rabbit. I think you would all love it, but that's a moot point for the moment since last night was its final night played in Madison. It doesn't come out on DVD until the end of December which means that I can't badger anybody into buying it for me as a Decemberween present, but it's one I'd like to own. It's more a triumph of visual effects than anything else. The plot which is a rather bland pastiche of Labyrinth and Alice in Wonderland (with character designs by Hieronymus Bosch). Neil Gaiman wrote the screenplay and is certainly capable of better, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that even on the drawing board, the story was meant to take a backseat to the visuals. This probably sounds like a negative review, but it's not. On a production level, it's beautiful, imaginative, stimulating, and one of the most original (looking) films I've ever seen. That's enough to make it worthwhile.
On a different topic, my coworkers rock for having brought in all kinds of food today, but I wish that whomever had brought in the bagels had either gotten a few that weren't sticky and sweet, or had not brought in sun-dried tomato cream cheese to go with them. That's just mean.
Current Mood: indifferent
Current Music: Iced Earth -- Burnin' For You
|Date:||November 23rd, 2005 05:48 pm (UTC)|| |
Wendy and I saw it last Wednsesday. I've never actually read a Neil Gaiman graphic novel, but I'm familiar with his artwork, so it was weird to see his drawings move. Plotwise, it really reminded me of Neverending Story, which is to say that grade schoolers a)can appreciate and understand it, though b) it will give them nightmares. Front to back, the imagery in this movie, even the City of Light, struck me as good old-fashioned nightmare fuel.
Though I liked it, I'd place it as one of those films that's not worth seeing in a first run theater but definitely to be seen in 2nd run because it's so visual...which is sad because I doubt it'll ever show up in the cheap seats. Hell, the movie's copyright says 2004, and we're only seeing it here in November 2005. Still worth renting, though.
I can agree with that assessment, but I think it was worth a matinee showing, and I think (despite its foibles) that I'll eventually pick it up on DVD. I think I'd also like to check out more of Gaiman's work, which I'm pretty unfamiliar with.
This is what you people keep telling me to do. My only real experience with Neil Gaiman is Good Omens and a book called Don't Panic! Don't Panic! is about the evolution of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy from concept to cult phenomenon, but mine is a first edition British copy, so you can't borrow it.
You're Dave McKean's.
No, wait. Let me try that again.
Your mom is Dave McKean's.
Wait. Hold on.
I'll Dave your McKean.
Oh, never mind. I'm not very good at this whole insult thing.
|Date:||November 26th, 2005 05:41 am (UTC)|| |
"I'll Dave your McKean."
That's not an insult. That's a come-on.
Depends on how you say it. "I'll Dave your McKean!" is threatening and insulting. Slap "Why don't we go upstairs and" in front of it, and it becomes a come-on.
|Date:||November 27th, 2005 01:04 am (UTC)|| |
It's all in the italicization. Anything of a "I'll (verb) your (noun)" structure is a come-on if the "your" is stressed.
I'm sure kids would absorb the minutiae of grammar much more effectively if we gave them examples like this.
Oh year? I'll absorb the minutae of your kids' gra--
Oh, never mind.
|Date:||November 27th, 2005 06:10 pm (UTC)|| |
You didn't italicize! How are we ever going to think you're a combination pedophile/linguophile if you don't italicize?!?