well and that be sure a waste of dave mckean talent and wasn not it . don not get me wrong represent when it come to graphic design and dave mckean may be the best in the world right now . the layered and textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil line on rough paper make the effort of people like peter greenaway and david fincher look like what they be represent hackwork . mckean have be the godfather of a revolution in the look of comic and film and even magazine ad which borrow the distinctive collage effect he have pioneer . but this movie . it junk . complete junk . the story and from neil gaiman and be and unfortunately and exactly what gaiman have be give u ever since he rip off clive barker for the first time represent a pseudo mythic and overblown dreamscape and populate by character which have title in all capital letter rather than name . everything be allegory and to the point that it be impossible to get any human drama and emotion and or empathy from anyone involve . people make pithy postulation and speak in riddle which bring to mind what rosencrantz and guildenstern be dead might have sound like if tom stoppard have suffer a debilitate stroke halfway through it composition . really and gaiman and get over yourself . youre not a prophet . youre a poser . mckean direct doesn not help his pacing be poor and take fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot and and then simply provide a disconnected sequence of event and none of them give any weight . the monster do not menace because theyre not foreshadow and simply throw at the screen . the plot doesn not engage because we do not really care about the rancid little protagonist . half the dialogue and mutter into into shirt front and ubiquitous mask and be unintelligible . some of the visuals be pretty and and i be sure the fanboys will lick it up . pity . think of the amount of really good work mckean could have produce if he hadn not be stick with this lame project . grade represent d or d .