Sweeney Todd is Bloody Good!- Page 4

[D2]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 2:40pm

Yeah, wasn't that cool!?!

It's Tim Burton - what would you expect?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:01pm

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.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:05pm

Bonham Carter's performance is the revelation, and its nice to see so many here appreciate it. I think its fascinating that most of the criticism of her performance both here and on ATC are from people who somehow feel they *know* how these characters are supposed to be played (one poster on ATC even went so far as to say it was a shame that the "author's intentions" were so ignored. What author? Sondheim? He worked on the movie...)

Anyway. Carter's performance is the one that deserves the Oscar nomination (so naturally it probably won't happen). Depp may still sneak in there and of course there will be tech nods all around.

Since I saw the film a couple of months ago, I've been saying that I don't really think the movie is Best Picture material, and that's just fine. As its own entity, I think its a great time at the movies, and if Burton missed some opportunities with the material, the final twenty minutes of the movie are about as good as I think you could do with the material.

In terms of the Oscar race, I think its increasingly likely THERE WILL BE BLOOD will be nominated and NO COUNTRY FOR GOOD MEN wil win.

Everything else is just filler. I don't think ATONEMENT should be nominated either, but it seems to be the safest choice for all the people polarized by the other more intense and controversial movies this year.

We'll see.

[D2]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:10pm

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?

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:10pm

I totally agree with MB, regarding Carter's performance. She was brilliant. Her singing was a good fit for her Lovett and for the film in general. People are still having strange fantasies that a music-hall Lovett would have worked for this film. People need to get over it. Updated On: 12/23/07 at 03:10 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:20pm

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?

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:34pm

I find it really interesting how polarizing Carter's performance is. I am sure there are those who were desperate for the Landsbury/Lupone antics, I am not one of them. When it was announced Carter was cast I thought, "Well, not how I would have cast it, but she might work." I was extremely moved by parts of her performance, most notably in Not While I'm Around and the scenes surrounding it. I just wanted more LAYERS. Layers of fear, joy, excitement, hope and finally, desperation. The walking dead tone throughout just kind of bored me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:36pm

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

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:50pm

I agree with everything Best12 just wrote. For a Dreamworks holiday release with Depp, this is bad news. I'd read they hoped for 14 million this weekend. With tomorrow off for many, they may do a decent Sunday night, and end up closer to 10 million. But Best12's on the money here -- the word of mouth will be complex at best, especially in the hinterlands, with "they start singing right at the start and sing all the way through!" I read at the other board that people yelled at the screen when the songs began. Walkout will be ubitquitous. It's disheartening, but Best12 called it when he explicated the silly ad campaign (the MAMA MIA trailer is now doing a version the same thing -- pitching a Meryl Streep musical as a teen story). Tricking people into attending material they thought very different only pisses them off. The SAW crowd expects fresher spins on violence -- not Hammer classic faux effects -- and this isn't their cup of blood.

If the Academy at least honors its artistry, we'll see some industry backlash against the disastrous ad campaggn and resulting indifferent box office. Yet if the film drops 50% this next week -- and with Christmas, not the day to see this in many towns it just might -- its going to be sad.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:51pm

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

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:55pm

Tim Burton did not want any choral singing in the movie. If they started the movie with the BALLAD, I really think that would've made people run out of the Theater!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 3:59pm

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

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 4:02pm

All I know is, John Logan has said why the Ballad would never have worked in the film - and I totally agree with him. I'm grateful we have an incredible instrumental of it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 4:11pm

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.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 4:38pm

There was an older couple that walked out about 30 minutes into it when I saw it.

[Pippin]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 4:41pm

'eh, screw 'em!!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 4:58pm

Changing the subject just a tad (but I didn't want to start yet ANOTHER Sweeney thread.):

Was anyone bothered in the least by the casing of Spall and Rickman?

Now, I thought both were brilliant and extremely well cast. HOWEVER, after the Potter films where they kind of play the same characters (Snape, the totally evil (?) man in charge and Pettigrew, the second banana who sucks up to his master.)? If I had never seen the Potter films this would never have occurred to me, of course, but I kept thinking about it.


(Also off topic: Am I wrong in thinking that Spall is one of the most underrated actors working consistently? If you have not seen his performances in Secrets and Lies or Topsy-Turvy you MUST. I just saw on IMDB that he plays Fagin in a 2007 BBC Miniseries of Oliver Twist! When can we see THAT?)

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 6:05pm

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.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 7:14pm

It is hard to blame him for going for some big bucks in his later years. He has done great work in small films for so long, he deserves a break.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 7:26pm

"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.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 7:29pm

Yea, I am pretty sure he is not working for scale in these films. Potter? Tim Burton/Johnny Depp? Disney? No, I would be surprised if ANYONE worked for scale on these films.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 7:36pm

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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 7:42pm

That hair though is actually pretty period appropriate. I don't actually have a problem with the judge being attractive. The point that he *could* have any lady in London and still wants his teenage daughter just makes him all the creepier...

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 7:54pm

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

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/23/07 at 8:16pm

Honey, pull out a twenty dollar bill and you'll see that exact hairstyle from 1850!