Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

[Watashi]

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2843/sweeneytoddzv2.jpg (http://www.canmag.com/images/front/movies20074/toddposter1.jpg)

Trailer (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?sid=45950488&sdm=web&pt=rd)

[MadMan]

I'm not a big fan of musicals, but I think this looks pretty damn good. If anything else the cast is rock solid.

[Biff Justice]

I find it interesting that this trailer doesn't really do much to show that its a musical. Heck, the one bit of a song they do could just be taken as Depp/Burton quirkiness.

[soitgoes...]

Yeah, I wasn't even aware this was a musical. I had to look it up to see if it indeed was. I'm definitely interested.

[Sxottlan]

I can't wait to see this.

However, throats being cut is something that really grosses me out. Really sets my teeth on edge.

I had to look away during that scene in Eastern Promises.

[Doclop]

I don't know if this is the same trailer, but the trailer I saw in theaters gave away too much, which is disappointing. Also, I wasn't crazy about the brief musical scene they did show (Depp singing about vengeance and such), but still, easily one of my most anticipated for the rest of the year.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't know if this is the same trailer, but the trailer I saw in theaters gave away too much, which is disappointing. Also, I wasn't crazy about the brief musical scene they did show (Depp singing about vengeance and such), but still, easily one of my most anticipated for the rest of the year. Yeah, that's the same trailer. And really? Being a fan of the musical, I can honestly tell you the trailer shows you very very very little.

Anyway, I kinda don't like this trailer. Watch this one, it's much better: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Second-Sweeney-Todd-Trailer-6704.html which has an insanely cool, off-rhythm lead-up to the title card.

[Ivan Drago]

I would be looking forward to this, but I'm still not sold on Depp's singing ability.

[Spinal]

When I asked Johnny to do it and he said, 'Yeah, I think I can do it,' I didn't know if he could sing, but I knew him enough to know that if he didn't think he could do it, he wouldn't do it.

...

It's very strange. I didn't plan to do this. Practically everybody in the film is not a singer and it's one of the hardest musicals to do. For me, it gives it another layer that I think is really great. It surprised me. I didn't do it on purpose. It just sort of happened that way, but I'm glad it happened that way.

:|

Link (http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2007/11/podcast-tim-bur.html)

[dreamdead]

Yeah, I'm not sure how this will translate, since I have little desire to hear inferior voices here. I read an interview in NYTimes about how they were reconfiguring Depp's songs to emphasize a punkier version (rather than operatic). I work with a guy who loves the musical, and his apathy toward this project (given the limited songs that have been heard so far) is infiltrating any interest I formerly had...

[Sycophant]

I'm worried about this project.

[Raiders]

:: shrugs ::

All this news is pretty much what I expected from a Tim Burton musical, so it isn't surprising. I'm still very interested in the results.

[Spinal]

I think it's best for me to set my expectations low and assume that this will be a disaster. That way, I might be pleasantly surprised.

[lovejuice]

i generally like burton, depp, and sondheim, but this doesn't seem like a good mix. worse come to worse, sweeney todd will come to LA this season. :)

[Grouchy]

I dunno if I'm wrong about this, but anybody who calls himself a Hollywood actor has to have at least a little bit of singing ability. After all, if you're an actor, period, you gotta be able to project your voice and to change your natural way of speaking all the time. It's not such a stretch to say that any good actor can teach himself to sing.

[Mal]

Not a big Burton fan. Even less of a Depp fan. HOWEVER, I loved Sleepy Hollow... so we'll see.

[lovejuice]

Not a big Burton fan. Even less of a Depp fan. HOWEVER, I loved Sleepy Hollow... so we'll see.

sleepy hollow is very Burtonesque if you ask me. do you just not like his other films, or is there something in his artistic approach that dis-satisfy you?

[Mal]

sleepy hollow is very Burtonesque if you ask me. do you just not like his other films, or is there something in his artistic approach that dis-satisfy you?

It's not the "art"- his movie are just never satisfying for me.

[Sven]

I'm not worried about the singing as much as I am worried about the rating thing. I'm worried that if it was intended to be R-rated, but is being forced into a PG13, it'll wonkify the pacing and uniformity and such.

[Bosco B Thug]

Don't worry, it's officially R now and will stay R. I saw a TV spot (with a little 'A Little Priest')!

[Ezee E]

An R-Rated musical. Sounds like an oxymoron.

[Watashi]

An R-Rated musical. Sounds like an oxymoron.

South Park? All that Jazz? Cabaret?

[Ezee E]

South Park? All that Jazz? Cabaret?
Haven't seen the latter two and didn't know they were R. South Park just passed me.

Touche good man.

[Sven]

South Park? All that Jazz? Cabaret?

Cabaret's only PG, yo. Good call on All That Jazz, though.

[Ezee E]

I've been meaning to see All That Jazz for some time. It'll come sooner now.

[Spinal]

Dancer in the Dark and Hedwig are both R-rated.

[Ivan Drago]

After seeing the trailer for a second time, I noticed something interesting...during the "You sir! Too, sir!" part...it sounds as if Depp is...not singing, but speaking in rhythm.

Now I'm very wary.

[Spinal]

After seeing the trailer for a second time, I noticed something interesting...during the "You sir! Too, sir!" part...it sounds as if Depp is...not singing, but speaking in rhythm.

Now I'm very wary.

That's the way that part of the song is written. It's performed that way in all versions of the musical. Most of the rest of the song is sung.

George Hearn performing the song in question in the stage version. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNy_uhzK2k)

[megladon8]

That's the way that part of the song is written. It's performed that way in all versions of the musical. Most of the rest of the song is sung.

George Hearn performing the song in question in the stage version. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cNy_uhzK2k)


Um...I guess I'm not the best judge since I'm not a huge musical person to begin with...but that song was freaking terrible.

[Watashi]

Um...I guess I'm not the best judge since I'm not a huge musical person to begin with...but that song was freaking terrible.

:crazy:

[megladon8]

:crazy:


I like the strings and the general melody during the "I will have vengeance...I will have salvation" lines.

But the parts at the beginning about everyone in the world deserving to die...it sounded pretty messy to me.

[Henry Gale]

Um...I guess I'm not the best judge since I'm not a huge musical person to begin with...but that song was freaking terrible.

I think it's more in the performance than the song itself. I found something in Hearn's performance there to be very off (at least out of context).

[Bosco B Thug]

Um...I guess I'm not the best judge since I'm not a huge musical person to begin with...but that song was freaking terrible.

Tee-hee, yeah... I loved this video recording of the stage production Spinal posted when I saw it, and I'm sure I would still love it whenever I rewatch it, but watching that scene alone now, yeah... I see the awkwardness a bit. George Hearn really hams it up and the orchestrations are for some reason weirdly different from the original cast recording's, and not a step up, IMO.

I think if you heard the OBC CD recording of this song, you'd feel a little differently. There's a [really bad quality] bootleg video on YouTube of the original Sweeney Len Cariou (a better Sweeney, imo) performing the song with the original orchestrations. It comes off better I'd say, if you're interested:

Len Cariou - Epiphany (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHRsCaFXTA&feature=related)



I'm anxious for trade reviews to start coming in for this one.

[Spinal]

:|

[Spinal]

George Hearn really hams it up

What you have to remember is that Hearn's primary audience is an auditorium full of people. The camera brings our eyes much closer, which is why filmed staged productions can sometimes seem over the top. But he is performing not only for us, but for people in the second balcony.

It is also the emotional high point in a gothic melodrama. Hearn's performance is appropriate.

[Bosco B Thug]

It is also the emotional high point in a gothic melodrama. Hearn's performance is appropriate. So was Johnny Depp getting on his knees and screaming into the heavens in the trailer, and I haven't changed my mind about that yet. :P

Seriously, though, I love Hearn's performance, but looking at the video through the eyes of someone unfamiliar with the music, it's hard to catch on to the melody when he's jumping the octave of the notes willy-nilly and glissandoing like mad. Plus, the (strange sounding) orchestration is barely audible behind the voices, too.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think Burton should have done a non-musical version of this story. It is interesting to see him returning to some of the same ground he already covered in Sleepy Hollow, but that movie was flawed enough. Adding singing to it is not going to help.

[lovejuice]

no fan of sondheim here. except me and spinal? :| i think, that's how his songs are supposed to be. Hearn's of course. i'm still reserved about depp's.

[dreamdead]

I'm a fan of Sondheim but I think Antoine hit the key flaw--Burton's done this terrain before and the only stretch here is the singing. Thus, if the singing is simplified, reworked, or otherwise butchered, it renders the whole affair kinds moot. I think a punkier version of the songs can be interesting, but I'm not confident that it will work. That said, the film will surely be beautifully filmed.

Even Sleepy Hollow, despite wonderful casting decisions, felt like Burton by the numbers to me.

[MadMan]

Sleepy Hollow was great fun, and an excellent homage to Bava and 60s gothic horror. The film's biggest flaw though was the last act, which descended into pure silliness and was annoying. Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman registers an 11 on the 10.0 creepy scale.

[Sven]

no fan of sondheim here. except me and spinal? :| i think, that's how his songs are supposed to be. Hearn's of course. i'm still reserved about depp's.

I've been keeping quiet, mostly, but yes, I, too, am a big Sondheim fan. And I know Horb is as well.

[Sycophant]

I've been keeping quiet, mostly, but yes, I, too, am a big Sondheim fan. And I know Horb is as well.I haven't heard too terribly much of his work, but if "Send in the Clowns" and Into the Woods are any indication, I certainly have the capacity to be a Sondheim fan.

[Wryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SctSvIu3JLQ&feature=related

[Bosco B Thug]

Holy crap, clips galore:

Here at IESB.net (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3789&Itemid=99)

I was weak and watched a few clips (My Friends, The Contest, and Not While I'm Around) and they really didn't impress me at all, any of them. Nothing inspiring about Burton's directing, and My Friends and Not While I'm Around seem awfully stagey and stiff. That said, I realize these are minute long clips out of context so I hope for the best.

BUT THEN I watched the three Featurettes, and those have got me phucking excited, especially the "The Cast" one. I hope I haven't spoiled too much surprises by watching them.

I stopped myself from watching the two "Behind the Scenes" clips, it seems like they give away entire song numbers.

[megladon8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SctSvIu3JLQ&feature=related


It kind of sounds like he's trying a little too hard to do the cockney accent.

It sounds exactly the same as Jack Sparrow.


EDIT: Also, is this story somewhat based on "The Count of Monte Cristo"?

Watching the trailer makes the two stories seem disturbingly similar.

[SpaceOddity]

Christopher Walken as the Headless Horseman registers an 11 on the 10.0 creepy scale.

*covets*

[lovejuice]

please. stay. fresh.

[Doclop]

Saw it last night. Really tough call with this one. It has this great nihilistic streak that I enjoyed and really found quite unusual, but I felt very distant from the story and really was hardly involved at all. It's insanely violent, but so heightened and RED that it hardly registers. The storytelling felt a little too loose to me, ultimately making the character arcs suffer, particularly Sweeney Todd's, which is unfortunate. Still, the greater picture is useful in this case and might provide me with a different experience next time around. I think the one subplot is a throwaway, aside from its direct relation to Todd's arc. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman are predictably good and handle the music fine. Speaking of the music, this really feels like a Broadway play in terms of structure, but certainly not the look. The music is heavy throughout and none of the singing is noteworthy for quality or a lack thereof. Also, is it just me or is the music fairly forgettable?

I was very excited to see this and I wanted to like it so badly, so it's hard for me in retrospect to really nail down how I feel. It's really such a high-concept film and I enjoy the premise so much, but it does feel a little rough and empty, aside from a strictly philosophical reading, which, of course, can brandish quite a fair amount of merit.

[Spinal]

Also, is it just me or is the music fairly forgettable?


Just you.

[Duncan]

Very good initial reviews. I'll see it over Christmas break.

[Doclop]

Just you.
I wonder how the various versions of the soundtrack compare.

[Spinal]

I wonder how the various versions of the soundtrack compare.

The little bit of singing I heard from the film was not impressing me, so I decided to not listen to any more until I heard it in context with the film.

[NickGlass]

Saw it last night. Really tough call with this one. It has this great nihilistic streak that I enjoyed and really found quite unusual, but I felt very distant from the story and really was hardly involved at all.

For the first half, in particular, I agree.


The storytelling felt a little too loose to me, ultimately making the character arcs suffer, particularly Sweeney Todd's, which is unfortunate.

That's Burton for you.


Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman are predictably good and handle the music fine.

Carter and Rickman are "good" and "fine," and Deep is as well; however, Depp should have been more than good and fine--he should have been outstanding. Instead of completely owning the movie, he blends into the background (which, of course, is a very "Depp" thing to do). It's not a very subtle performance, either. He either needed to be spectacular or bring another layer to Todd--and he does neither. As for the singing? It's mostly talking to a tune/rhythm.

The only person to impress me was the kid who plays Mrs. Lovett's shopboy/Pirelli's former assistant Speaking of which, Cohen is absolutely awful as Pirelli. I know he's meant to be a bombastic fool, but Cohen's showboating is so, so irritating.


Speaking of the music, this really feels like a Broadway play in terms of structure, but certainly not the look. The music is heavy throughout and none of the singing is noteworthy for quality or a lack thereof. Also, is it just me or is the music fairly forgettable?

The first half treats the music as if it's a burden. Thankfully, the second half picks up (starting with the song about making the townspeople into pies--which is my favorite scene in the film and the only one that seems to be purely cinematic) and I was quite immersed in the story despite the cartoonish atmosphere and other obstacles which caused distance throughout the beginning. I certainly enjoyed the film's dark charm, but that seemed to be coasting on the strong material.

[Duncan]

Grace is Gone (Strouse): 2.5
Not surprised by this score. That movie looks terrible. I winced just watching the trailer.

[number8]

Not surprised by this score. That movie looks terrible. I winced just watching the trailer.

Geez, I actually legitimately forgot I saw this. Terrible movie. Awful to the bone.

[NickGlass]

Not surprised by this score. That movie looks terrible. I winced just watching the trailer.

What a hypocritical, lazy, and ultimately fascist piece of shit.

[Bosco B Thug]

:eek: Reviews.

I love a lot of Burton's movies, but I've always felt Burton's directing lacking - it's too... rigid, and a sweeping musical should not be rigid and static. I'm hoping for the best here. :confused:

[number8]

Opening sequence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LkM7XgbGO0

[Barty]

It was awesome.

[number8]

Yes, it was.

Burton does Hammer. Genius.

[Rowland]

Yeah, it was very... good.

I want Helena Bonham Carter, as she looks in this movie.

[Ivan Drago]

How's Depp's singing?

[number8]

How's Depp's singing?

I thought the singing was not very good overall. It's less of a "musical" than most musicals, because the actors are just reciting lyrics rather than singing to me.

[Spinal]

... the actors are just reciting lyrics rather than singing to me.

.... hmmmm ... :|

*continues to worry*

[Silencio]

I thought the singing was not very good overall. It's less of a "musical" than most musicals, because the actors are just reciting lyrics rather than singing to me.What do you mean by this? That instead of making it all stagey, the songs are actually incorporated into the story and become part of it itself?

EDIT: Nevermind, I get what you meant. I completely disagree. The characters add just the right amount of emotion and passion into each song; especially Depp who never seemed detached from the lyrics he was singing to me.

[Watashi]

.... hmmmm ... :|

*continues to worry*

I have no idea what the hell 8 is talking about.

I've seen both the stage and Burton's film, and there is very little difference in the tonal deliveries of the songs.

Depp and Rickman's duet of "Pretty Women" is the best song in the film.

[number8]

I've seen both the stage and Burton's film, and there is very little difference in the tonal deliveries of the songs.

Oh. I suppose the songs just suck then.

[Duncan]

Not very good. I don't understand why they would spend all that time on art direction, and then film 3/4 of the film in close up. The only real nice compositions in the whole film are the last two shots, and they're practically photographs, or a couple of dioramas starring dolls. I also didn't find violence very shocking. It's way too cartoonish to be disturbing.

[Watashi]

Who said the violence was shocking? It's suppose to be cartoonish. That's why I love it so much.

[Rowland]

This could have used more floridity. It's immanently entertaining and involving, but I can't say it inspires much passion.

[Duncan]

Who said the violence was shocking? It's suppose to be cartoonish. That's why I love it so much.
I've read a number of reviews claiming that the violence was shocking, and that it was surprising the film was even released in this state. The film is also rated 18A here in Canada, which seems totally unnecessary. Anyway, that's not really important, just an after thought. What's important is that the film is both narratively and aesthetically dull.

[Raiders]

Pretty darn good, but it felt a little flat compared to the wicked emotional, and tense, heights of its origins. Too much of it feels a little cramped, and I agree with Donn there seemed more close-ups than necessary. I think the story kind of needs Sondheim's vigorously gothic, melodramatic music to give it enough dynamicism to really reach its possible heights. Undoubtedly a lot of fun, though I still don't agree that Burton is a perfect match. Sweeney Todd's descent into the moral abyss is a little too muted and eased over, and Depp has been far more dynamic before, but Bonham Carter manages to make her character more complex than I remember.

[Watashi]

The more I think about it, the more I'm loving it. I've bumped it up to four stars. I just couldn't imagine a better play-to-film transition (I disagree with Raiders that Burton isn't a good fit; the source material just screams Burton). I love the last shot. I was immediately reminded of Dead Ringers when it ended.

[ledfloyd]

seeing this tomorrow. can't wait. huge sondheim fan here.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well, then.

Spoilers therein, though I'll keep them vague.

There's lots of problems when bringing a musical like this to the screen. First of all, so much is sung - so much exposition is sung - that I would not blame a person for being lost by not following the lyrics. It's song number after song number. I myself have a problem following lyrics with the visual accompaniment. The film appears cramped and breathless, the characters not allowed much room to breathe outside the songs they sing. But where Atonement's attempt at economy neutered nuance, Sweeney Todd's attempt is part and parcel to its vision as a portrait of people caught up in the whirlwind of delusions conceived of their desires. Songs are intimate and the decision to cut any singing not involving principle characters makes sense. As Tim Burton said in a Making Of video, the film's about a bunch of messed up, destitute (in various ways) people with their own "agendas."

It's strange, because it's true what Burton and co. are saying - this is a reinvented Sweeney Todd. A number of character intepretations are completely different from the stage play. Sweeney Todd is an inconsiderate bastard, not the ineffectual, weary man of constant sorrow of the play. His "Johanna" comes off as forced sentiment and plain dismissal instead of an impassioned goodbye. Mrs. Lovett is, as Sondheim said, an "overripe whore" so desperate for "a life" she's twisted into amorality, not the daffy evil crone of the play. The omission of Kiss Me is, sad to say, the right choice because it relegates Johanna to becoming the lifeless, uncertain porcelain doll that fits perfectly in the film's undercurrent of misogyny. Anthony's "love at first sight" comes off as egregious objectification instead of the "love of mutual purity" of the stage play.

It's absolutely commendable. The film exceeded my expectations because, in its scaling the play down to a small human drama, it becomes an actual film that utilizes subtle glances and events with emotional implications in a way that got me going "Ooooh, ouch" just like the "Oooh, ouch" I mentioned I gave when Midge drives in on Madeleine in that one Hitchcock film. It seems all but natural that Antony would grow to be the biggest thorn in Mrs. Lovett's plans, and it's created here in a dramatically impactful way which does not exist in the stage play. Anthony literally becomes what pushes Todd closer and closer to the judge and farther and farther away from Lovett. New themes pop up, "Sweeney Todd as machination-wrought machine of class-social abuses" giving way for "Sweeney as romantically revenge-obsessed lunkhead," or the 'worthless thing' that the pragmatist Lovett even calls him, lugging his useless self around after his overwrought 'Epiphany'.

The misogynistic streak is beautifully integrated into the film's flaunting of "pretty women" and "caged birds," with its additional dialogue scenes regarding the whores of the world and a rather nasty Fogg and his categorization by hair color. The rather sincere happiness seen in the Judge's face when Sweeney bluffs him in the final sequence about Johanna turning around to him communicates how these iron-fisted male brutes are actually really clueless and knuckleheaded when it comes to them getting what they desire. Anthony is like, "Yeah sure ghosts whatever, wait here, we'll be super!" when we finally hear Johanna exchange words to him. And of course, after all, happy Benjamin Barker seems to always be referred to as "foolish." Finally, Todd's shockingly spontaneous turn-of-action against Pirelli is so effective because we see Todd realizes he's just as foolish now, way over his head in getting his hands on the judge. He realizes he might not even get his chance. His satisfaction (akin to the satisfaction demanded by the male "pastime" of dueling) is threatened. His pride at his ability to gain satisfaction is bruised. The glee of pride when he (himself) comes up with the wig-maker plan communicates a lot about how Depp is playing this character.

As much as it hurts, both the music and showy, over-the-top acting is pushed to the background. As much as I loved this stuff in the stage show, and no matter how much I missed cackles of black comedy glee in "A Little Priest" and no matter how much more beautiful the orchestrations for Todd's "Johanna" is on stage than the movie version, the music and show-stopping performances is not as important here. I hate to say it, but perhaps Bonham-Carter does not deserve a Best Actress nod. Believe it or not, Sweeney Todd seems to have such little screentime because all we see him do is sing and glower. Mrs. Lovett at least actually has expressive dialogue scenes. Sweeney Todd is made into a mere emotional tentpole. Again, he merely expresses through song and slaughters. So perhaps Depp won't be noticed by Awards voters either.

But that's what makes this movie adaptation so awesome. It's a movie and it's nuanced like a movie. Grand acting performances and excessive formal compositions are less important in a film whose vision is so tight. Subtext is composed like a movie. Dramatic continuity at times is sacrificed for that "thematic texture" that I love so much. For example, Todd almost seems to become a background character because he's so dark, impenetrable, and single-minded. The film is adament in portraying him always as opaquely as possible. In that way, I began to see him as being in the same brackett as the Judge - brutish and blockheaded. Also, I love how the film feels so much like a low-budget horror film, scenes that exhibit rather gratuitous horror movie staples instead ending up ad hoc bulwarks to the film's central themes (the Fogg Asylum scene is what's in my head right now - Fogg's fate and its grand guignol luridness reminds me much of old school horror movies about bedlams). Also, it's perfect how Lovett and Todd become true villains by the end ("Toby where are you?").

OF COURSE, though, the film has its flaws. First, being a rather faithful recreation on screen, it's true it doesn't do to much to create its own pace and flow (although it's impressive that despite this, it achieves what it does when it comes to dramatic pacing and continuity - plus I'm hoping a second viewing smooths out its hasty plot transitioning). Second, Burton's directing and blocking remains sort of tentative and stagey and over-produced - the first flashback during Depp's "Barber and His Wife" is sorta stilted, the Judge sentencing the little kid was silly - but I'm still too impressed by the thematic discipline he shows here and the suspense he adds to certain songs ("Pretty Women," notably) to care much about little falters in minutiae. Second, considering how the film reinvents what themes stand at the forefront of the story (moral parable --> human drama), it kind of falters when the film is obligated to impose songs about "Man devouring man" and other such Brechtian sentiments when social injustice is merely a thematic sprinkling instead of the actual text. The meat pies take a back seat here, sort of, although I was so amazingly happy with how God That's Good turned out. A Little Priest, though, you can feel it's minimized importance within the film.

All that said, I am eager to see how this holds up. It's so impressive, not because it's perfect moment by moment (it's not, especially being familiar with the play - there was so many times Bonham Carter sang where I thought, "GRRAARGGH YOU'RE SINGING IT WRONG!"), but because it's dense as a dramatic piece and as a cinematic film.

Finally, I want to mention what things I thought were absolutely perfect. The Johanna (Trio) was perfect. Absurdist comedy shone through as it cut perfectly between Sweeney slicing away and Anthony wandering aimlessly through less proper areas of London. The choreography with the chair peddle and the trundling bodies - awesome. The Judge's final scene - PERFECT. How Todd sends him down is PERFECT. Umm, what else. Mrs. Lovett's final scene - :eek:. Brutal, and pretty perfect. I don't know how, but as seemingly cartoonish the visuals of the opening credits and Mrs. Lovett's big finish are, they seem perfectly at place in the film's demented vision, and I don't know why. I'd like to attribute the shockingness of Lovett's scene to cementing the misogyny of the film, and it certainly doesn't hurt it. Gee, that was quite the freakish image.

Hmm, well, I'll stop there. The film did the unthinkable in making me forget about the original play that I love so much and making me embrace it's whole new vision of it. I can't say I was with the film step by step (the singing did feel out of place to me in the first fifteen minutes or so), but it gave me what I look for in film - a disciplined cinematic vision, a cohesive thematic texture, a rhyme and reason to its scenes and their coexistence, and dramatic/character nuance that isn't afraid to make ambiguous the virtues of its characters. I'll have to watch the film again to see if its surprises (which will no longer be surprises) are diminished or not by the rigidness of the film's strict adherence to the play, its resultantly hurried nature, and the occasional awkwardness and stiltedness and artificiality of Burton's aesthetic, but right now I think Burton has outdone himself and his reputation with this film's emphasized subversive streak, forgoing the play's sad morality tale for something meaner. Which I think is just great.

[Sven]

Damn, Bosco... spot on! And extensive.

I liked it a whole lot for much of what you say: its transformation into cinema and its rationales for what it adds and subtracts. Not much more to add (although I thought the sentencing of the little kid was hilarious), 'cept maybe a nod to the always impressive and, alas, always slighted Timothy Spall, who enunciated better than anyone else in the cast. The last ten minutes of this movie are among Burton's best movements.

There's a lot to say about this one (I'd love to see someone compare/contrast this one to Edward Scissorhands and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), and I'm not sure I'm up to it. I'll satisfy myself with a: highly, highly enjoyable, I was skeptical, and now I am impressed.

[Rowland]

(I'd love to see someone compare/contrast this one to Edward Scissorhands and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)Why Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?

[Sven]

Why Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?

Because it's about a pasty-faced recluse and transformer of the macabre into an enterprise.

[Rowland]

You know, after dwelling on this a bit, I'm starting to believe that this movie's chief failure is the singing. Depp's vocal performance lacks a certain "oomph" that forestalls absolute conviction, and while I like Carter's acting performance a lot, she really butchers some of her songs (especially The Worst Pies in London, which is thankfully a minor number). In fact, I'd venture that the only actor who rises to the occasion vocally is the little boy. I bet the musical at its best fares better in the emotional resonance department.

[Rowland]

"There may be fierce competition for such an honor, but I believe Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd proceeds to the top of the class—for the most numbingly inert movie musical ever made. Bloody and bloody awful, Burton’s direction and John Logan’s rancid screenplay have nothing whatsoever to do with Stephen Sondheim. True, Sondheim’s songs are sung (albeit not very well) but the spirit that infuses the composer-lyricist’s work can’t be found anywhere inside this dead air bubble, a 50-million-dollar piece of rubbish."

http://www.moviesintofilm.com/images/december07.htm

[Watashi]

I can do some critical digging of my own too, Row.

Chaw's review to counterpoint the negativity. (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/sweeneypersepolis.htm)

[Rowland]

I can do some critical digging of my own too, Row.

Chaw's review to counterpoint the negativity. (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/sweeneypersepolis.htm)I've read the Chaw review (boy, is he growing predictable and redundant). I like the movie. I'm just offering a counterpoint to the general positivity. Relax, your appreciation for the movie lies in the majority. No need to feel threatened. :P

[Watashi]

How is Chaw becoming predictable?

[Rowland]

How is Chaw becoming predictable?Have you been keeping up with his reviews as of late? He is constantly praising and referencing movies that share the themes he believes will someday be perceived as defining our cinematic zeitgeist. Mind you, it's interesting... but increasingly predictable, and, ironically, perhaps a bit myopic through trying too hard to be prescient.

[Sven]

I've always felt Chaw was a bit one-note.

[Ezee E]

I've always felt Chaw was a bit one-note.
I've met him, and after hearing his thoughts on The Brown Bunny, I can never take him seriously.

[balmakboor]

I've met him, and after hearing his thoughts on The Brown Bunny, I can never take him seriously.

He must've hated it. I've always found it a very easy film to like.

[Sven]

"There may be fierce competition for such an honor, but I believe Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd proceeds to the top of the class—for the most numbingly inert movie musical ever made. Bloody and bloody awful, Burton’s direction and John Logan’s rancid screenplay have nothing whatsoever to do with Stephen Sondheim. True, Sondheim’s songs are sung (albeit not very well) but the spirit that infuses the composer-lyricist’s work can’t be found anywhere inside this dead air bubble, a 50-million-dollar piece of rubbish."

http://www.moviesintofilm.com/images/december07.htm

Who is this joker? That's one of the worst reviews I've ever read.

[Rowland]

He must've hated it. I've always found it a very easy film to like.Nope, he actually liked it. I imagine it's E who must've disliked it then, or at least Chaw's perspective on the movie.

[Ezee E]

Nope, he actually liked it. I imagine it's E who must've disliked it then, or at least Chaw's perspective on the movie.
The movie is completely mediocre. He liked it, but specifically loved a scene where they showed off a garage door that was red. It was nothing special at all, but he went on for about five minutes (seriously, five minutes) about the greatness of it, and the timing of when it came in.

Vincent Gallo said that it was just that place he could get at the time.

Now, Vincent Gallo, very creepy in person. But still somehow rules.

[Rowland]

The movie is completely mediocre. He liked it, but specifically loved a scene where they showed off a garage door that was red. It was nothing special at all, but he went on for about five minutes (seriously, five minutes) about the greatness of it, and the timing of when it came in.I wasn't there, but that still strikes me as an arbitrary excuse to dismiss him as a critic. After all, I imagine that most filmgoers have idiosyncratic elements they admire in the movies they love, stuff that the filmmakers themselves would shrug off as happenstance.

[Ezee E]

I wasn't there, but that still strikes me as an arbitrary excuse to dismiss him as a critic. After all, I imagine that most filmgoers have idiosyncratic elements they admire in the movies they love, stuff that the filmmakers themselves would shrug off as happenstance.
That is what I remember the most from him. The entire time he talked I remember just rolling my eyes and hoping he'd just let Vincent Gallo talk.

[dreamdead]

I thought Sweeney was really good. Not great, but really good. Carter's voice is too thin and occasionally too unexpressive in her songs, which dampens some of the affect. Likewise, Depp felt a little too much like a machination for vengeance rather than a fully formed character in parts; Hearn and others seem to have just a bit more variation in their expression.

Otherwise, beyond a little too much emphasis on close-up, it was quite enjoyable. The ending is just as devastating here, and perhaps a bit more so with its macabre influences emphasized through the closing shots. Equally, the most cinematic song, "Down by the Sea," is the best song here (as well as simultaneously the most disorienting because of its shift in color pallete and mood). Yet the tonal change here works precisely because it renders visible a cinematic vision of the song impossible on stage. Cohen is fun, Rickman and Spall own, the young boy is wonderful, and the young lovers (despite looking like Burton caricatures) are quite good.

I kinda want to rewatch those last ten minutes, as there's some fascinating shifts from the stage that (I think) work, specifically the final close-ups on Carter. And the last tracking shot back is haunting.

[Bosco B Thug]

Damn, Bosco... spot on! And extensive.

I liked it a whole lot for much of what you say: its transformation into cinema and its rationales for what it adds and subtracts. Not much more to add (although I thought the sentencing of the little kid was hilarious), 'cept maybe a nod to the always impressive and, alas, always slighted Timothy Spall, who enunciated better than anyone else in the cast. The last ten minutes of this movie are among Burton's best movements. Spall was great! I loved the scene when Todd offers to "pamper" him. :lol: And it's true, if I have to criticize the singing in any way, it'll be enunciation. I felt sorry for people who didn't already know the lyrics.

[Ivan Drago]

What the hell? This movie was playing on Christmas night at the theaters near me but apparently now...it's not. It's not even playing this coming weekend. What the fuck happened?

[ledfloyd]

burton's made a film i love for the first time since ed wood. and like ed wood i'd have to say it's really really good but not quite great. but oh so loveable. despite carter and depp being owned by the songs rather than owning them. they are both great in their respective roles. and their singing isn't distractingly bad. it's adequate. just not eyecatching. spall, cohen, and rickman are also great casting decisions. the kids on the other hand own the songs, i'd imagine they were cast for their voices and not their acting chops. i agree with whoever said todd's spiral into abyss was somewhat glossed over. not as powerful as it is in the play. still, despite the flaws, it's one of the best musicals i've seen since the heyday of astaire and gene kelly.

[Teecee]

Was I the only one who found Sweeney Todd to be limited and hermetic?

The locations and settings are kept to a minimum and there is little sense of a living, breathing world beyond the walls of the barbershop/bakery.

Most performances, although effective, are compact and seem calibrated to one or two main emotions (nihilistic vengeance for Depp, unhinged longing for Carter and Rickman...). The most interesting character/performance, Toby, is given little screen time.

Burton's is mostly static and restrained. There are flashes of expressive brilliance (the final shot, the frenetic peek into London squalor early on) but they come too seldom.

Given the above, I found much of the film tedious and felt it took too long to arrive at a predictable climax. Maybe it's due to not knowing the source material, but it seems to me that a different approach to the story would be much more interesting. Taking out the songs, bringing in more realism and expanding the focus of the film (to the social situation of London, to an investigation of Todd's crimes, even to the point of view of a character like Toby) would add layers of intrigue and interest.

As it stands, an effective film for what it is, but due to its limited focus, something of a missed chance.

[Duncan]

Was I the only one who found Sweeney Todd to be limited and hermetic?

The locations and settings are kept to a minimum and there is little sense of a living, breathing world beyond the walls of the barbershop/bakery.

Most performances, although effective, are compact and seem calibrated to one or two main emotions (nihilistic vengeance for Depp, unhinged longing for Carter and Rickman...). The most interesting character/performance, Toby, is given little screen time.

Burton's is mostly static and restrained. There are flashes of expressive brilliance (the final shot, the frenetic peek into London squalor early on) but they come too seldom.

Given the above, I found much of the film tedious and felt it took too long to arrive at a predictable climax. Maybe it's due to not knowing the source material, but it seems to me that a different approach to the story would be much more interesting. Taking out the songs, bringing in more realism and expanding the focus of the film (to the social situation of London, to an investigation of Todd's crimes, even to the point of view of a character like Toby) would add layers of intrigue and interest.

As it stands, an effective film for what it is, but due to its limited focus, something of a missed chance.

I agree the film feels hermetic, and static. But if you take out the songs you might as well abandon the source material all together, and just adapt another Dickens novel.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit, aside from the somewhat clunky beginnings. I just kinda wished it was darker, more fleshed out... I don't know, I thought they could have pushed the characters a little further, given them more flesh or even made them more slimy.

[Teecee]

I enjoyed the film quite a bit, aside from the somewhat clunky beginnings. I just kinda wished it was darker, more fleshed out... I don't know, I thought they could have pushed the characters a little further, given them more flesh or even made them more slimy.

Spot-on.

[Wryan]

"Sondheim often has three great songs cooking at once, organs pounding and violins swooping. It's like being attacked by a bear and a pterodactyl at the same time, or like Bach and Bernard Herrmann hurling axes at each other in hell." - Kyle Smith of New York Post

I liked the film. :)

[lovejuice]

I agree the film feels hermetic, and static. But if you take out the songs you might as well abandon the source material all together, and just adapt another Dickens novel.

i believe though there is actually a non-musical sweeney todd play. then again, this is sondheim we're talking about! i actually think burton's doing a good job trying not to be burton, and making this movie more sondheim.

[monolith94]

The plot itself was pretty bare-bones, melodramatic broadway piffle. The scene where Todd's young wife is taken to the ball is a "Labyrinth" rehash. You could see things coming - too many elements were telegraphed in advance. Who wouldn't -

Recognize Barker's wife under that silly makeup? It was sooo obvious.

But all in all, despite some flaws, it was pretty darn good. Entertaining film, mostly. I suspect that the story is easier to take on broadway because the distance from spectator to stage allows for a distance from the murderous act itself. The young boy was a VERY good actor; the young man who played Anthony was unimpressive. Also, looked like a girl.

[Watashi]

I thought the old lady being Barker's wife was suppose to be obvious to the audience. I think it's the same way in the stage play too. This makes Todd's killing of his wife much more meaningful considering he has been so caught up in his vengeance, he never bothered to look or take her seriously.

[monolith94]

I fail to see how us knowing it's his wife in advance makes his accidental murder of her more meaningful. It's dramatic irony, but strikes me as purposeless. Plus, that whole reversal strikes me as a bit cliche - the story of the revenger having his own vengeance turned upon him and all that rot.

Also, I thought it was amazing how quickly her (leprosy?) makeup seemed to dissapear once she had actually died.

[Bosco B Thug]

I suspect that the story is easier to take on broadway because the distance from spectator to stage allows for a distance from the murderous act itself. Haha, yeah, it's true. When I watched the film, a number of logical quandaries came to me that never came while watching the play: police investigations, any? Why exactly does he start wanting to kill everyone?? Meat pies, eh? It's a silly story. I guess I could fault the film for not adapting the story smartly, working with the logic of the outlandish tale by, perhaps, emphasizing allegory for corrupt opportunism and irresponsible business practices... instead of working against it and trying to make a small human drama... but nah.

I'm itching to see this again and see if my emotions weren't just being swayed and if it'll hold up.

[Wryan]

Frankly, y'all are jaded. I genuinely didn't think the old woman was Barker's wife until a few seconds before (when the camera peaked at her face). It was a definite shock for me and for most of the audience I was with, too. Maybe I was just in the moment of the film and caught up with it. I don't think it was too telegraphed, to be honest, and I usually catch things like that pretty easy.

The two young men had great voices, but only the young boy delivered a good perf.

[Rowland]

I suspected that it was her almost immediately, and I didn't even know the movie had a twist, so I wasn't looking for one. *shrug*

[monolith94]

Things that worked:
"By The Sea" - hilarious
Ed Sanders as Toby
Burton goes all Jim Henson on us with the masked ball scene.
Helena B-C's acting perf.
Make-up. Set design.
Alan Rickman's marvelous nose. Rest of him wasn't so bad either.
Cinematography, mostly. Framing a bit conventional.

Things that didn't work:
Anthony, the boy-girl of London.
Extreme proximity to the murders themselves.
Helena B-C's singing voice.
Telegraphed plot turns.
Beggar-woman's obviousness. Dur.
Plot a bit tired.

[Wryan]

K, there's a difference between you being o-so-smart that you realized or suspected it was her ... and the film itself actually telegraphing the reveal. Hers is a trite, stock character, meddling old beggar hag/quasi comic relief. That's all she was until the last few seconds of her life. The early moment when Lovett describes her death is done flatly, without a hint of Mrs. Lovett being secretive or being shown as subtly lying. The delivery of the line about the poison is done so matter-of-factly, you'd have to believe she's the best actress in the city to think she was hiding anything within the line.

IMO: the movie itself didn't telegraph much at all about Barker's wife. Anything else is what you brought to the film, not what the film itself delivered.

:)

[Duncan]

K, there's a difference between you being o-so-smart that you realized or suspected it was her ... and the film itself actually telegraphing the reveal. Hers is a trite, stock character, meddling old beggar hag/quasi comic relief. That's all she was until the last few seconds of her life. The early moment when Lovett describes her death is done flatly, without a hint of Mrs. Lovett being secretive or being shown as subtly lying. The delivery of the line about the poison is done so matter-of-factly, you'd have to believe she's the best actress in the city to think she was hiding anything within the line.

IMO: the movie itself didn't telegraph much at all about Barker's wife. Anything else is what you brought to the film, not what the film itself delivered.

:) I think the film does a lot to telegraph the reveal. Whenever a director goes to obvious lengths to hide a character's face it almost always means the character has some significance beyond his/her immediate value. ie. She's not going to turn out to be just a crazy old lady. Hiding a character's face also almost always means that we have been previously introduced to the character. Otherwise, why hide her face at all? This, to me, left only one plausible possibility - she's his wife. There is also her interaction with Bonham Carter, which is at least more subtle, but still a pretty big giveaway.

[Duncan]

i believe though there is actually a non-musical sweeney todd play. then again, this is sondheim we're talking about! i actually think burton's doing a good job trying not to be burton, and making this movie more sondheim.
Really? I can't imagine this working nearly as well without that layer of artifice. The story on its own is just a preposterous spin on a tired premise.

[number8]

Comcast is showing the Ben Kingsley version On Demand.

I think I'll go watch it.

[Wryan]

I think the film does a lot to telegraph the reveal. Whenever a director goes to obvious lengths to hide a character's face it almost always means the character has some significance beyond his/her immediate value. ie. She's not going to turn out to be just a crazy old lady. Hiding a character's face also almost always means that we have been previously introduced to the character. Otherwise, why hide her face at all? This, to me, left only one plausible possibility - she's his wife. There is also her interaction with Bonham Carter, which is at least more subtle, but still a pretty big giveaway.

It was established that she was gross. End of story. :lol:

[Sven]

It was established that she was gross. End of story. :lol:

Just admit it -- this one slipped past you. It's a really obvious development. Anyone with an understanding of the science of narrative (conservation of character and all that) should've seen it. To an effect, it also suits my position that there is no big "reveal" moment, considering that we see her face (and her recognition) long before Todd makes the connection. If we're to be left in the dark along with Sweeney, we wouldn't see that it was his wife until he did, which wasn't the case.

[Rowland]

To an effect, it also suits my position that there is no big "reveal" moment, considering that we see her face (and her recognition) long before Todd makes the connection. If we're to be left in the dark along with Sweeney, we wouldn't see that it was his wife until he did, which wasn't the case.This is what I figured as well. Sure, they don't outright tell us until the very end, but they had to know that most people would figure it out. Knowing who she is certainly adds gravitas to the scene where Sweeney just dismissively slashes her throat and drops her down the hole like a pesky fly to be indifferently swatted.

[Wryan]

Just admit it -- this one slipped past you. It's a really obvious development. Anyone with an understanding of the science of narrative (conservation of character and all that) should've seen it. To an effect, it also suits my position that there is no big "reveal" moment, considering that we see her face (and her recognition) long before Todd makes the connection. If we're to be left in the dark along with Sweeney, we wouldn't see that it was his wife until he did, which wasn't the case.

Again, I think that has more to do with what you are bringing to the film (Should I have made a speech before the film began to clue everyone in the audience into the "science of narrative" so they could enjoy the film more?). We recognize her "long before" Todd does? Where exactly does this take place?

Having one side of this argument say the filmmakers are taking thunderingly obvious pains to hide her and having the other side say we see her clearly long before the end of the film seems a bit strange, yes? Especially since both of those positions are ultimately arguing the same thing.

Yes I admit it "slipped past" me, but I also maintain it wasn't done with the head-smacking, Chris Columbus-level duhhhhhh that others here do. I say it slipped past me cause it was meant to. /shrug We just see it differently.

[Sycophant]

The film's biggest flaw is decidedly its singing. Depp never wore his singing voice consistently or confidently, and it isn't that good. Carter really can't sing. Spall's number is embarrassing. However, they wear their roles well, so it works out. Personally, I thrilled to every moment Cohen was on screen. This man continually impresses me. Ultimately I was very impressed with the film, and was happy to see that Burton can still make films I like.

[Wryan]

The film's biggest flaw is decidedly its singing. Depp never wore his singing voice consistently or confidently, and it isn't that good. Carter really can't sing. Spall's number is embarrassing. However, they wear their roles well, so it works out. Personally, I thrilled to every moment Cohen was on screen. This man continually impresses me. Ultimately I was very impressed with the film, and was happy to see that Burton can still make films I like.

But the kind of songs here seemed to me to be more character- and narrative-driven than soaring vocal anthems that send chills down your spine. I'm listening to some of the tracks right now via YouTube. Honestly, I kinda love how the singing and voices are just a wee bit left of center. And I liked Spall in this movie entirely, perf and unctuous song and all. :D

[Watashi]

Yeah, Spall was awesome.

[Sven]

Spall's number is perfectly enunciated and fluid in tone. It's a little bit of a lark, sure, but Spall sells it with the aura of a man well-timed in musical theatre. Alas, poor Rickman's voice wishes it could fare as well.

Call me weird, but I liked Bonham-Carter's voice. It's a little muddy and not very forceful, but it gave sweetness to the Seaside number (one of the film's best) and gives her a more helpless tone overall, which to all purposes gives the character's fate even more of a stab-through-the-bleeding-heart feeling.

[Ezee E]

i've tried writing about this movie many a times, but can't really get articulate enough to explain my thoughts about the movie.

Basically, the movie just felt like it was on auto-pilot the whole time after Sasha Cohen's character left. The music didn't change too much, and it all felt rather repetive. Other then seeing Jack Sparrow sing, it felt like your average Tim Burton movie that we've seen already. Luckily Helena Bonham Carter is used well here, and is my favorite character of the movie. Plus, she gets the yearly Best Cleavage Award I think. Spinal?

[Cult]

Johnny Depp was really unimpressive in this movie. I don't just mean the singing, either. He was totally dead from beginning to end. Other than that, it was alright, mostly kept afloat by Helena Bonham Carter. (Yay for original opinions!)

[Sycophant]

Other than that, it was alright, mostly kept afloat by Helena Bonham Carter.


Plus, she gets the yearly Best Cleavage Award I think.I think we can all agree that she certainly was buoyant.

[Rowland]

I think we can all agree that she certainly was buoyant.She was a babe. I've always had a thing for her.

[Ezee E]

Johnny Depp was really unimpressive in this movie. I don't just mean the singing, either. He was totally dead from beginning to end. Other than that, it was alright, mostly kept afloat by Helena Bonham Carter. (Yay for original opinions!)
WRONG! One post up.

[Cult]

WRONG! One post up.

What's wrong, exactly?

[Spinal]

Plus, she gets the yearly Best Cleavage Award I think. Spinal?

I look forward to making an official proclamation once I have seen the film.

[Spinal]

She was a babe. I've always had a thing for her.

Wings of the Dove ... if you haven't already seen it.

[Spinal]

The main problem with watching a Burton Sweeney Todd is that it is all too easy to imagine a Burton Sweeney Todd before you walk through the door. Gloomy melodrama will become quirky goth. Add a little kink. Add a few gags. Lots and lots of facial pallor and dark eye shadow.

And there you go.

There are moments that I really like (particularly "By the Sea", Cohen's take on Pirelli, Spall and Rickman), but overall, the film strikes me as a big 'so what'. Burton doesn't seem to have any purpose other than to hit the same notes his fans and executive backers have come to expect - this time set to music. Far from an embarrassment, but nothing to inspire chills. Solid, but kinda predictable.

[monolith94]

But didn't that kid do an awfully good job, Spinal?

[Spinal]

But didn't that kid do an awfully good job, Spinal?

Toby? Good voice. Not a very good actor, in my estimation.

I did enjoy the kid who played Anthony.

[monolith94]

Ugh, I thought the kid who did Anthony, the boy-girl of London, was awful. Hamfisted.

[Wryan]

Actually, I think the Anthony performance, in another film, would have been fine, but it's just that it wasn't tuned very well into Burton's world. Depp and HBC obviously were, and Spall and Cohen and Rickman in their ways were, but his wasn't really hitting the right mark. Again, in another film, it probably would have been alright.

This is a side note completely, but why are so many people ragging on his slightly femmy features? Is it the idea that he shouldn't be that "pretty" at this time and in this place or . . . ? He's the teen romance hero after all, practically standard issue for them to cast someone "attractive" in that sense. I myself thought he looked a little bugfaced in some shots. Kinda...funny looking, a little weird.

[Spinal]

Ugh, I thought the kid who did Anthony, the boy-girl of London, was awful. Hamfisted.

I don't understand this critique. He was somewhat androgynous? So what. Hamfisted? You mean he was awkward? Appropriate for the character.

I thought he was a refreshing splash of earnestness amid the rest of the heavily mannered characterizations.

[Bosco B Thug]

I thought he was a refreshing splash of earnestness amid the rest of the heavily mannered characterizations. Yeah, I didn't think any of the kids were anything exceptional, but they were very effective as contrast.

Sucks you didn't like it more, Spinal. Yes, Burton's aesthetic is probably what anyone would expect - I wish he'd drop his penchant for heavy make-up and flattering costuming - but I was certain we'd be fed a tragically dashing anti-hero in Sweeney and the film instead gave us a scheming, manipulative cad. I think that's pretty representative of why this film worked for me overall so much.

[Spinal]

I was certain we'd be fed a tragically dashing anti-hero in Sweeney and the film instead gave us a scheming, manipulative cad.

I wish I was able to see Depp's Sweeney with the memory of Jack Sparrow erased from my mind. I mean, I like Jack Sparrow, but I found it difficult to settle into who Depp's Sweeney really was. I eventually got used to Carter's Mrs. Lovett and grew to appreciate her more sedate take on the character, but, boy, I felt that she was overmatched by her first musical number.

[Winston*]

I look forward to making an official proclamation once I have seen the film.

*taps foot*

[Spinal]

*taps foot*

Decent, but a far cry from last year's formidable duo of Penelope Cruz (Volver) and Gong Li (Curse of the Golden Flower). Maybe my expectations were too high.

[Henry Gale]

I saw it today and absolutely adored it. It helps that I love almost all of Burton's work and a good musical whenever I happen to come by one, but this one particularly just struck such a chord with me. First with its atmosphere and visuals, then building upon that with the music, then with the actors and then later on with his oh-so-dark-and-twisted turns and so on.

It's kind of hard to explain, but the whole thing was almost like when there's a movie that I'm looking forward to seeing is on my mind (like this one was) and I'll for whatever reason dream a surreal and awe-inspiring version of it one night before I see the real thing and then not know what any of it was the next morning. Except this time it was real, still surreal and awe-inspiring but I can hold onto this one and I'll be able go back to it any time I want.

One of my favourite films of the year.

[Ezee E]

Decent, but a far cry from last year's formidable duo of Penelope Cruz (Volver) and Gong Li (Curse of the Golden Flower). Maybe my expectations were too high.
Well yeah. But it's pretty tough to compare to Cruz's in Volver. Hers is quite possibly the best of the decade.

[Ivan Drago]

Well yeah. But it's pretty tough to compare to Cruz's in Volver. Hers is quite possibly the best of the decade.

Yeah - I was surprised Cruz's singing was so good in fact.

And hopefully this'll be playing next weekend when I go back to Carbondale, and if it is, I'll be seeing it for sure.

[Ezee E]

Yeah - I was surprised Cruz's singing was so good in fact.

And hopefully this'll be playing next weekend when I go back to Carbondale, and if it is, I'll be seeing it for sure.
Yes... It's Cruz's singing that I was raving about. Her acting. Yep. That was it.

::shifty eyes::

[Mr. Valentine]

so far my biggest disappointment of the year. Burton has made some films i really love (Big Fish, Ed Wood, Corpse Bride, Edward Scissorhands) and it looked to contain everything i love about his films but most of the songs were bland to me and overly repetitive.

[Spinal]

If the songs were bland, it was because of the limited range of the singers involved.

[Watashi]

I really, really like the songs. :confused:

I wish they included Christopher Lee's "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" in the final cut. That would have been awesome.

[Spinal]

I really, really like the songs. :confused:

I wish they included Christopher Lee's "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" in the final cut. That would have been awesome.

The exclusion of "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" is really, really unfortunate, though I suppose I get why they did it. It's one of the musicals best numbers and it just doesn't feel the same without it.

[Silencio]

Not really sure what you mean by the songs are repetitive. Yeah, some of them are used more than once and integrated into other songs...on purpose to achieve a specific effect.

I also don't get the hate for the singing. It was fine, and certainly not bad enough to be deemed the biggest flaw of the movie. In fact, the only questionable singing I could see in the film came from Depp, Carter, and Rickman (who has two short numbers). And none of their numbers are meant to be pretty or perfectly tuned.

[Spinal]

I also don't get the hate for the singing. It was fine, and certainly not bad enough to be deemed the biggest flaw of the movie. In fact, the only questionable singing I could see in the film came from Depp, Carter, and Rickman (who has two short numbers). And none of their numbers are meant to be pretty or perfectly tuned.

It's not that they are bad. It's that they are limited. Pitch is not the issue. It's dynamics. Depp's "Epiphany" doesn't sound much different than any of his other songs, when it is supposed to be an explosion. Carter's "Worst Pies in London" misses out on a lot of potential humor because it is all sung in the same soft, detached tone. The difficult sections of Spall's "Ladies in Their Sensitivities" were cut altogether.

[Silencio]

It's not that they are bad. It's that they are limited. Pitch is not the issue. It's dynamics. Depp's "Epiphany" doesn't sound much different than any of his other songs, when it is supposed to be an explosion. Carter's "Worst Pies in London" misses out on a lot of potential humor because it is all sung in the same soft, detached tone. The difficult sections of Spall's "Ladies in Their Sensitivities" were cut altogether.I respectfully disagree. He might not aggressively or yell-sing his lines like Len Cariou did, but his voice is appropriately soft, malicious and in line with Burton's interpretation of the songs and play. I found "Epiphany" to be pretty terrifying, and his singing is completely different during "Pretty Women" and the "Johanna Trio". Unlike the play, the singing doesn't take much center-stage either. It's as much visual as it is musical, so I didn't mind if some of the singing was, like you say, limited.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm itching to see this again and see if my emotions weren't just being swayed and if it'll hold up. Nope, wasn't my emotions being swayed.

Got to see this again today. I'll be strategic and leave this short and punchy: the film's brilliant. Everything I felt made it awesome the first time around is still there and still pronounced. There Will Be Blood ha! Daniel Plainview wishes he were the meanie that Todd is! :P