Sweeney Todd is Bloody Good! — Page 4

SPOILERS (WE'RE ALL A'SPOILIN')

Actually, Burton played both characters as having karmic deaths, final ends in tone and substance on par with their sins-slash-crimes. It is brutal, but the ugly images are "earned" in the ugly universe of these deeds. Still... I must say, that ultimate image of Mrs. Lovett has disturbed me in ways the blood-letting did not. It is even repeated, cruelly. When I see the film again, as I posted above, it's the one place I plan to shut my eyes. It's torturous the way Burton lingers on the image. It's also, I believe, a strange sort of necessary denouement. These are monstrous people, no matter how much we parse their motives, thier psychological journeys, their rationales. They end up hoist on their own dark petards, and it's devastating but again, not shock for shock sake; they chart their destiny, and Burton illustrates it.

---

Without being glib, as in my previous post, I remember the first time I saw the show on stage I was overwhelmed by Mrs. Lovett's end - I couldn't believe what I had just seen. I had pretty much the same reaction to the film's rendition - it is absolutely horrifying. And yet, it is all of a piece with Burton's vision for the whole film. As gruesome as it is, had Burton not filmed it that way it would have seemed like he was cheating. With all of the other gruesome bits and pieces, how could he shy away from showing that just as graphically?

---

It's landed in 5th place for the weekend, with 9.3 million, but at least a 7 thousand plus per screen. Not bad, but disastrous for a Depp picture. Still, it likely has some legs, though DREAMGIRLS numbers seem elusive. There are multiple reports of walkouts everywhere with people leaving as soon as the singing begins. Forget the idiocy of missing out -- do they read?

---

Answer to Auggie's question: No, they don't read. Some of them CAN'T read.

But they're the ticket buyers. And I said all along (to some ludicrous resistance) that the ad campaign, particularly that "whimsical" 3rd trailer was a huge mistake and would backfire on them.

And I was right.

The word-of-mouth overall on this film is going to be mixed at best. "An acquired taste." People who try to describe the movie to their "average" friends are only going to dig themselves deeper into the "dismissed" column.

I predict this movie will gross somewhere between $40 million and $50 million, tops.

I also predict that, in time, it will gain respect and be regarded as a successful curiosity. But it's never going to be The Sound of Music, West Side Story or even Hairspray.

More likely it will find its own "Bladerunner" type of following. Nothing wrong with that.

I doubt the studio execs. would share that sentiment with me, however.

---

Updated On: 12/23/07 at 03:36 PM

Sueleen--I agree with your comments as well. Until Pirelli and Tobias showed up the film was slow, to put it mildly. Unless you already know what's coming later on, I wouldn't be surprised if several members of the audience packed up and left during the first 45 minutes. Whether they generally enjoy musicals or horror movies or not.

And to that pacing/content issue, I will say that perhaps they should not have cut the Ballad and all of its taunting verses. If for no other reason, it tells us that something BIGGER than what we are seeing is happening. This dreadful legend is going to GET YOU! Attend the tale...

Without the Greek Chorus helping "sell" the intensity and tell us "something is in the air," you just have a very basic, mildly engrossing, creepy plot... until Sweeney actually ventures out into the streets of London with his plan to become an established barber again.

Auggie--you're right. If they even hoped to grab the "Saw" audiences, they should have severed off Anthony's head in the first five minutes. You can't go 45 minutes into a film before your first murder happens with today's crowd.

I'm thinking if they'd worked on having mutilated corpses or unfortunates rise up and sing the Ballad... as either ghosts, zombies or disfigured, homeless Londoners, or Fogg's Asylum inmates... or better yet, ALL of the above... they would have kept the "gross out" fans in their seats longer.

---

Updated On: 12/23/07 at 03:51 PM

There is singing right after the opening credits. Choral or not, the jig is up right away.

---

I think that generally the film works without the ballad.

But we need some kind of added propulsion through the first part of the film that (mostly) isn't there for people who don't know the story already. The plot isn't gripping enough without the Ballad "telling" us it is... just to have Sweeney walk into Lovett's and learn about his past. And to watch Anthony fall in "love at first stalk" with Johanna.

Once he starts out into the busy streets, we know (Ballad or not) that something is "finally" going to happen, besides backstory.

---

'eh, screw 'em!!

---

I like Spall but he pretty much always plays that character; in fact he gave essentially the same portrayal in Enchanted.

You can always argue casting - with different casting - the movie would have been better - worse - different. I like the cast just fine for this vision of the material. Not all of it would have been my vision for the material, mind you, but I liked it just fine for what it was. It works.

"Big bucks?" Do you think they got much for Sweeney? I don't know, but I'm doubting it.

With a musical film today, most of the money goes into the physical production and the heavy-duty marketing.

All the actors worked for scale (or close to it) in Dreamgirls.

---

Potter? Not scale. Sweeney... probably not a great paycheck, except for Depp and Burton, and I'll bet they took a small up-front amount and got "points" based on the box office. So it probably won't amount to anything fabulous.

Eddie Murphy (who gets millions, okay don't ask me why) continues to bitch over his Dreamgirls paycheck. Beyonce couldn't care less. She didn't do it for the money. But they all got low salaries.

Oh! And I didn't answer your question "posed to the masses." I LOVED Spall... and I thought Rickman was great, but I had one minor quibble. They made him look too attractive as the judge. He LOOKED like a ladies man, particularly compared to any other males in the film. He should have been wigged, or given a more age-appropriate hairdo. His hair was tossed, feathered, "period inappropriate" and suggested a man who was anything but repressed or warped sexually.

A judge who looked like that, with his job, in that time period, could have had his pick of the ladies.

They should have "uglied" him up a bit.

---

Updated On: 12/23/07 at 07:36 PM

I want a creepy judge!



If Sweeney and Lovett can look like the offspring of Frankenstein and Dracula and still walk down the street like "normal people," I don't want Judge Turpin to look like the most eligible bachelor in town.


EDIT: And show me a photo of ANYONE from 1846 who has hair like that. Most guys back then looked like they hadn't bathed in months. Even the rich, reputable citizens looked "homeless" by today's standards. Rickman looked like he'd just come from Fantastic Sam's, at the very least.

---

Updated On: 12/23/07 at 07:54 PM