Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

The Gothic style of the movie capture the viewers interest because it gives them a unique idea...In the first impression you were thought the movie is weird having that outfit and style which in very rare in reality...

10/10...maybe not but it was a fantastic movie. I went into the theater expecting exactly what I got. A pretty funny (the scene with the miricle hair restore is priceless) and satisfying film. I was suprised how well the cast fit together. Im not a huge TB fan, but next to Beetlejuice I think this tops his resume. Thats just what I think though...

__________________
Check out my DVDs
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity" -George Carlin (RIP good sir)

Havent seen it yet.

I thought it was great. Was a bit worried by the first 15 minutes being pretty much non stop singing even though i knew it was a musical. but after they started talking a bit, i really enjoyed it....it made a change at least!

Can't wait for the DVD release tomorrow. Fantastic movie - not quite the masterwork ED WOOD is, but an extraordinary achievement.

__________________
Reporter: What would you call that hairstyle you're wearing?

George: Arthur.

Sweeny Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Finally saw this last night, time to dazzle everyone with my thoughts and my power of persuasion.

First off I haven't seen the play and knew virtually nothing about the story. Which to me is a pretty good way to go in if you're about to experience something new. Which is what this is, in my ever so humble opinion.

It really takes some courage to make a film like this. We as a society really need to put labels and tags on everything we come into contact with. Every once in awhile something comes along that dares you to try and put it into a box and then label it accordingly. I believe this film is a good example of that. "It's a musical!" Yeah sort of. "It's horror!" True. "It's a comedy!" At times. "It's a Love story!" That too. What it is, (here comes my label) is brilliant. At times when watching a film like this I just let it soak into my pores. I realize I'm seeing something new and I try to appreciate all the little details. I tend to miss things when I do that but I still come away with a very satisfied feeling when it's over.

Here's our in depth reaction after the movie came to a close. We looked at each other (my wife and I) and paused and I said: "Well." and she said: "Yeah." I tell you this not to impress you with my lack of a vocabulary but to show you that I didn't have the words at the time to describe what I had just seen. To me that's a very good thing.


The performances were all very interesting and riveting at the same time. I admit I wasn't sure if Depp would be able to sing. Turns out he is talented and it didn't hurt my ears at all. I really enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter as well, I've read a few semi shots at her in this thread for mumbling and such and I couldn't disagree more. That's how they talk. You just have to listen closer is all. Sacha Baron Cohen was also very entertaining and I have to admit I've liked him in every part I've seen him play so I no longer have any real excuse not to pick up Borat the next time I see it. I'll probably enjoy it immensely and Holden might even say "I told ya so" but thats ok.

One of the most interesting things to me was the formula for the "musical numbers" if you will. Most of the musicals I've seen have songs that the characters perform as part of the overall story arc but in this film they spent a good deal of the time just singing, what to me seemed like should be just regular spoken dialog. I again thought that was brilliant and perhaps that's the way it is in the play as well and if so, then I'm sure the play is a real treat to watch.

I haven't really talked about the blood and I feel I should at least mention it. The studio was really leaning on Tim to take most of it out and tone this film down to a PG-13 rating. I would just like to take a moment to Thank Tim Burton for sticking to his guns and not "caving in". While a few times I thought the throwback to the old 60's and 70's splatter films was a bit over the top. It was just a part of the movie and it would have made a big difference if it hadn't been there. So Kudos to you Mr. Burton.

Overall I really enjoyed the film, it wasn't perfect but it was pretty darn close.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Love the review, PW. Gave you a big thumbs up. One minor nit, though: I think most of us picking on Carter were thinking of her singing, not necessarily her speaking (which was, of course, spot on). But there is no excuse to mumble through lyrics, especially from a character whose lyrics are almost essential to understanding what's going on. Plus, they're simply marvelous lyrics. Any time I listen to the stage soundtrack I marvel all over again at the beauty and cleverness of the lyrics. Brilliant.

And, having seen it on stage twice now, I can tell you that both actresses I saw performing it live mumbled less than Carter does in a highly edited motion picture. On screen there is no excuse for not being able to hear every single word she's singing. That's my take on that, anyway.

If you can't see a "traditional" production of Sweeney near you, I urge you to rent the Angela Lansbury/George Hearn production, which is available on DVD. It uses the classic "rotating box" set that I love so much. The new reimagined staging of today is, well, icky and stupid. ... And it made the story much harder to follow for my companions who'd never seen the show before. Even I, who knew the story well, had trouble with a few spots figuring out what the odd stage prop meant (because everything was symbolic instead of real).

I loved all the elements you brought up -- the comedy was funny, the horror was horrific, the music was brilliant, the acting and casting were superb. I would have preferred my Mrs. Lovett to be more comical and less depressed, but that's okay. As long as she can enunciate a little better next time.

Glad you liked it -- I certainly did!

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page

Fair enough and thanks for the thumbs up. I guess I just didn't get that as much, (the mumbling) some of it moved along rather quickly but I still understood almost every word.

Really? Wow, because I KNOW all the words and STILL didn't hear all the words!

Also, yes, the stage play is as much singing (more, actually -- they cut a few songs for the movie), and yet it has an organic, flowing quality that keeps it from being some sort of sick mock opera.

Gosh, I love this show.

First time I saw the film I was baffled by the heavy accents - watching it with english subtitles made my day. As for this movie ever being PG-13 : I don't think that would be possible ever.

__________________

Finally saw Sweeney Todd over the weekend and was very disappointed to discover that the film is only based on the award-winning play, which is Hollywood shorthand for they changed several scenes and cut several of the show’s original tunes including The Ballad of Sweeney Todd and its reprises, which to me is like cutting Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina and its reprises from Evita. One of the best things in the PBS broadcast of the play some years ago was a duet between George Hearn as Todd and Angela Lansbury as Nellie Lovett about the nutritional and taste characteristics of the different classes who went into their pies—the clergy, Royal Marine, rear admiral, etc. It was one of the few touches of black humor that saved Sweeney Todd from becoming Nightmare on Fleet Street. But that Have a Little Priest number apparently was among those eliminated.

Moreover, Helena Bonham Carter inability to fill Lansbury’s shoes is the worst example of Hollywood nepotism since Clint Eastwood tried to manufacture a move career for girlfriend Sondra Locke. It didn’t help that she and Johnny Depp were made up like cast members of Nightmare Before Christmas or The Corpse Bride. Now we know how Edward Scissorhands would have looked if Vincent Price had a plethora of razors rather than scissors.

Even usually creative Alan Rickman lacked luster in his one-note role as Turpin.

Worst of all, Burton went overboard with the gore on this one: It was enough to see Lovett flung into a furnace that looked like it was designed and fired for a steel mill instead of a bakery; I didn’t care to see her burst into flames, too. I also didn’t need the “realism” of blood-like paint squirted through high-pressure hoses. I go to the movies for entertainment; if I wanted realism, I’d still be on the police beat.

I'd wager I've seen more real blood and more real gore than most of this forum put together. At the time, I put on my big boy pants and dealt with it. But it's made me somewhat unappreciative of those whose only exposure to death was grannie's funeral who say, as did mgonz to whom I was responding, "the blood and gore was too good to miss." It's likely the same "if you only knew" feeling that a veteran sewer worker gets when he sees small children happily spashing in the toilet.

Well...I had to chuckle at this one, Ruf. A lot of the comments I have seen you post on other films come down on the film makers for lack of realism... So...Are ya looking for realism, or no?

I remember you coming down pretty heavily on some film for its depiction of a gatling gun that had a certain mechanical piece on it that hadn't been invented in the year the film took place in or something like that. I would think one searching for a couple of hours of escapism at the cinema might perhaps overlook the construction of a gatling gun in favor of the story being told...

Not trying to split hairs here...just noticing a bit of an inconsistency in some of the viewpoints...

__________________

The song "A Little Priest" is in the film, and is one of the highlights, I don't see how you missed it.

rufnek, I agree with the cutting of part of the A Little Priest song, but the basics of the song were there. They just cut the funny lines in between where he's guessing what kind of pie it is. I mentioned to Yoda at the time that that song was a lot funnier in the stage play, but that they'd cut some of the best bits of that song.

I don't know why they played Mrs Lovett as so depressed rather than comic. She's really the underpinning of why things happen the way they do, and she's just too brooding and dark in the movie.

A few of us here have also seen a lot of blood and gore in there lives, and yes we deal with it i thought the blood in this used as a caricature of blood so it didn't upset me at all

I envy those people, I don't think everyone should see as much blood. gore and death as i have seen

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I wont be watching this. Looks horrible.

__________________

I see your point, Sedai. You're right, that does seem inconsistent if one equates realism to accuracy. I don't recall what I said in those earlier post and maybe I didn't accurately differentiate between the two, so I'll try to explain. I like to see period plays and movies in which the details are accurate. Don't want to see a 1940s car in a 1930s setting, or a dirigible flying over Victorian London, for example. And if the movie is about a crackerjack soldier, then the actor should wear the uniform and salute properly. That's a particular burr under my saddle because it's so easy to get it right and looks so good when they do. I'm impressed when an actor or a director takes the extra time and effort to get those little details correct.

However, it's one thing if a street person on the screen looks accurately dirty; I don't insist that he realisticly smell bad or that he realisticly coughs up mucus or sprays spittle when he speaks or performs any other realisticaly disgusting bodily functions. I've never cared for the realistic look of plastic vomit or dog do on the carpet or for realistic recreations of gunshot wounds. Bruce Willis in a bloody shirt in that ghost story was sufficient for me--I didn't need to see the open wound or the spraying blood to convince me that he was playing a man with a fatal wound. And thank God, he felt no need to show me. There is a whole genre of splatter films for people who enjoy that sort of thing and that I don't have to watch. That arrangement has worked well so far. So I don't see the need to make a musical into a splatter film by spraying paint through pressure hoses. I just have a problem with that--I don't throw up or run screaming from the theater, but it does remind me of crime scenes I ran, and it just strikes me as too cavalier about the serious subjects of death and mayhem. If you've ever seen a dead body before the funeral home cleans it up and applies makeup and arranges it for public display, you'll have some idea of what I mean.

As for my earlier gripe about the Gatling gun in the 3:10 to Yuma remake, my primary objection wasn't because of the inaccurate lack or inclusion of some "mechanical piece" but because it was a direct steal from The War Wagon for no particular purpose that I could see. Did that brief scene of the Gatling gun firing add anything of significance to that movie? Would it have been missed had it not been included? I've seen other movies besides those two that featured Gatling guns, although it's not the type of weapon that 19th century civilians ever had access to. If that had been the only thing I didn't like about the 3:10 remake, I still could sit through it. But the director packed that film with characters, things, and events that just struck me as silly. I know I'm the only one in this forum with that viewpoint; it's just my opinion, and I expressed it for better or worse, in the interest of stimulating conversation. I'm happy that the rest of you enjoyed those films.

If they only had the woman singing her part, that must be why I missed it, since I often had trouble understanding her. It's been a long time since I saw the play, but remembered it as a fairly long piece, featured as one of the main tunes, but few of the numbers seemed to stand out in the film, except of the opening bit about London and By the Sea. I still can't figure why they they eliminated the Ballard of Sweeney Todd, which is the musical centerpiece of the play.

I agree that they needed a lighter Mrs. Lovett in place of the dismal Corpse Bride. That's why Angela Lansbury was so good in the Broadway version, because she could lighten up even the murderous Sweeney.

Sounds to me like you've got a healthy way of dealing with it. Yeah, I know it's just paint shooting through a pressure hose and not real. It doesn't make me upchuck or give me nightmares.I can't explain why it bothers me so much, except that there's now so much of that sort of stuff in the movies that directors seem to think they have to keep pushing the envelope, and I think that has a numbing effect on our social sensibilities. I'd feel awful if my grandkids ever said they "can't get enough" of scenes like that.

If a group of actors can create a whole imaginary town with just a couple of ladders on stage in My Town, why do they need to spray fake blood to provide "realsim?"