so many people loved this movie and yet there are a few of us imdb reviewers who found mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse clenchingly boring. i fall into the latter of these two camps and and i will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly. firstly and to set the record straight  i like neil gaiman books. i sometimes find his knowing and sarcastic and wry asides humour a little geeky and and i actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone  but and even with his occasional lapses into crap wouldad gags and i find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special. interestingly and one of gaiman strongest works is coraline and a gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. his latest novel (anansi boys) overdoes the funnies and and tends to read at times like terry pratchett does the sisters of mercy (not the nuns but the band). mirrormask inhabits similar territory to coraline and and when i saw the stunning visuals in the trailer and i got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer gaiman spectacular vision and imagination to the screen. in praise of the film and some sequences do look stunning. however and the visual effects are occasionally ruined by cgi animation that looks like a media studies student project. backgrounds and scenery are often incredible and but some of the character animation looks clumsy and amateur and cheap. in an early dream sequence and the spider is animated beautifully and but the book eating cat beast looks poorly rendered and very computer generated. compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as the corpse bride and mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. however and in mirrormask defence and the budget was tiny for such a grand vision and and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven. what cannot be forgiven is the stilted and stagy and cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. the actors struggle desperately with the dialogue  and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. conversation is rendered completely unnatural and the jokes fall flat time and time again and and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer only method of plot exposition. combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of phantom menace)  this renders the film almost unwatchable. in such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed and and in the main they fail terribly. the girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage school dialogue and and occasionally shows real promise and but it is never enough. the god awful cod oirish of the valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. it appears to be valentine job to explain the plot to younger viewers and and to add a bit of light relief. personally and i do not want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter. what else is wrong with this film. answer. rob brydon. what annoying (for us brits and anyway) is we know rob brydon can act. we have seen him hold the screen for half an hour on his own (doing those marion and geoff monologues) and and in the first real world bit of the film he is fine. however and stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am dram ham i have seen in years. a real shame. what else is wrong. answer. the wanky slap bassing and sub courtney pine saxing and unlistenable and too high in the mix soundtrack that never shuts up. god and the music is incessant and loud and distracting and irrelevant and and if that isn not enough and has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. it makes the dialogue very hard to hear and but that could be a blessing in disguise. what else is wrong with it. answer. the whistling mime artist. in modern society there should be no place for mime and apart from certain secret places in france. every moment the camera lingers on the gurning and whistling and moss juggling and yogurt weaving idiot and i understand why the edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when festival time comes round again. my final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. surrealism often is dull  it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike and zen and accepting state and or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. a story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked and whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping. finally and apologies to all those who found depth and meaning and wonder in this film. you have managed to suspend your disbelief and you have seen past the creaky cgi and ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted and and understood the maker grand and imaginative vision. i wanted to and but i couldn not see past the real world failings that dragged it down. i hope neil gaiman gets it right next time and if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity. 
so many people loved this movie and yet there are a few of us imdb reviewers who found mirrormask excruciatingly uncomfortable to watch and arse clenchingly boring. i fall into the latter of these two camps and and i will try to explain what it was that made my toenails curl so unpleasantly. firstly and to set the record straight  i like neil gaiman books. i sometimes find his knowing and sarcastic and wry asides humour a little geeky and and i actually prefer his work when he is playing it straight and leaving the jokes alone  but and even with his occasional lapses into crap wouldad gags and i find his creativity and imagination to be something a bit special. interestingly and one of gaiman strongest works is coraline and a gothic fairy story for kids that is very low on jokes and high on tension and creepiness. his latest novel (anansi boys) overdoes the funnies and and tends to read at times like terry pratchett does the sisters of mercy (not the nuns but the band). mirrormask inhabits similar territory to coraline and and when i saw the stunning visuals in the trailer and i got a bit excited that somebody had managed to transfer gaiman spectacular vision and imagination to the screen. in praise of the film and some sequences do look stunning. however and the visual effects are occasionally ruined by cgi animation that looks like a media studies student project. backgrounds and scenery are often incredible and but some of the character animation looks clumsy and amateur and cheap. in an early dream sequence and the spider is animated beautifully and but the book eating cat beast looks poorly rendered and very computer generated. compared with the standard of animation found in productions such as the corpse bride and mirrormask occasionally looks very amateur indeed. however and in mirrormask defence and the budget was tiny for such a grand vision and and a few creaks in the effects can be understood and forgiven. what cannot be forgiven is the stilted and stagy and cringeworthy and pretentious dialogue. the actors struggle desperately with the dialogue  and there is so much of it that they are constantly hampered and stumbling over it. conversation is rendered completely unnatural and the jokes fall flat time and time again and and the turgid speeches appear to be the writer only method of plot exposition. combined with the fact that the actors are working against a blue screen (which always adds an element of phantom menace)  this renders the film almost unwatchable. in such an unreal setting the actors need to work twice as hard to be believed and and in the main they fail terribly. the girl who plays the lead role puts in a valiant struggle against the impossible stage school dialogue and and occasionally shows real promise and but it is never enough. the god awful cod oirish of the valentine character (with whom she is forced to spend an inordinate amount of screen time) puts paid to any chance of this young actress rising above the material. it appears to be valentine job to explain the plot to younger viewers and and to add a bit of light relief. personally and i do not want him anywhere near my 15 year old daughter. what else is wrong with this film. answer. rob brydon. what annoying (for us brits and anyway) is we know rob brydon can act. we have seen him hold the screen for half an hour on his own (doing those marion and geoff monologues) and and in the first real world bit of the film he is fine. however and stick him in front of a blue screen and he loses all sense of character and turns into the worst am dram ham i have seen in years. a real shame. what else is wrong. answer. the wanky slap bassing and sub courtney pine saxing and unlistenable and too high in the mix soundtrack that never shuts up. god and the music is incessant and loud and distracting and irrelevant and and if that isn not enough and has wanky slap bass wanking all over it. it makes the dialogue very hard to hear and but that could be a blessing in disguise. what else is wrong with it. answer. the whistling mime artist. in modern society there should be no place for mime and apart from certain secret places in france. every moment the camera lingers on the gurning and whistling and moss juggling and yogurt weaving idiot and i understand why the edinburgh locals get a bit anxious and fractious when festival time comes round again. my final criticism is that the film is pretty dull. surrealism often is dull  it either requires its audience to slip into a dreamlike and zen and accepting state and or for the audience be constantly wowed by bigger and grander surprises. a story with a bit of pace involving characters that we could believe in and care about would have gone a long way to giving this film the emotional centre that it sadly lacked and whilst stopping the eyelids from drooping. finally and apologies to all those who found depth and meaning and wonder in this film. you have managed to suspend your disbelief and you have seen past the creaky cgi and ignored the crappy dialogue and the abysmal performances that resulted and and understood the maker grand and imaginative vision. i wanted to and but i couldn not see past the real world failings that dragged it down. i hope neil gaiman gets it right next time and if he gets (or even wants) the opportunity. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
