Sweeney Todd Movie Review Thread- Page 2

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 2:50pm

No movie gets cross the board raves, and there are a couple of major reviews that have been filed for publication next week that aren't as favorable as these early ones, but its exciting that SWEENEY TODD is striking a chord and has the potential to find a wide audience! Whether or not the film is an Awards contender, I think, will really depend on its box office and its ability to become a "pop culture" phenom.

I personally don't really think its going to be a major contender for Best Picture at the Oscars (and as others have said, it hardly matters). I do think it will get a lot of nominations particularly in the tech catagories and I think Depp will be a real favorite for Best Actor. The man deserves an Oscar and has made many an executive filthy rich. This could definitely be his year!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 2:53pm

"I personally don't really think its going to be a major contender for Best Picture at the Oscars..."


Have you seen the movie, MB? Or is that just a hunch?

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 2:55pm

Making executives rich got Helen Hunt her oscar, no?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 3:17pm

Best12 - that thought doesn't really have anything to do with my opinion of the film or the quality of the movie itself, more that in watching it,it just doesn't *feel* like an overt Oscar winner. And that is taking in account a lot of factors - the blood, the fact that AMPAS goes for important over entertaining (most times), etc.

Some movies you watch and they *feel* like Oscar winners, you know watching them that they are going to have the appeal that will garner a mainstream award: CHICAGO, A BEAUTIFUL MIND, AMADEUS.

Other movies don't feel like Oscar winners but develop such a passionate enough following, they break through - SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, CRASH etc.

I do think there is the potential for SWEENEY to have that kind of following. There is every chance for it to be so talked about, so loved and so much a part of the year 2008 that it can't be ignored. But I think its really going to have to have find that pop culture status to be a major player for Best Picture.

[robbiej]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 3:23pm

"The fact that some people think John Doyle's production was the way Sweeney has always been staged isn't John Doyle's fault."

Dial it down, Reactionary Rhoda!

My problem is, of course, with the reviewer...not Doyle.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 3:28pm

Reactionary Rhoda:

"You're not with it...you're without it...now go upstairs and get it!!"

(to Ida, who just claimed she was "with it" since she wasnt wearing a bra.)

[Broadwaywest2]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 3:31pm

To the dude who said that films don't get great review across the board. I have to disagree, there were a couple films this year that got great reviews across the board. Away from Her and No Country for Old Man, pretty much got tremendous reviews from everyone.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 3:33pm

Ah, sorry, I didn't mean for that to come off like a reactionary snap. You got exactly what I meant, though -- the problem is with the reviewer's POV. It's not Doyle's fault people think his production is the touchstone; it's their own for paying history little mind. And that's an issue separate of whether you liked his approach or not. Sorry again.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 3:59pm

I'm thinking there are very few people for whom Doyle's version is the be and all. Sweeney Todd was there before he ever laid hands on it and it will go down as a peculiar footnote in the history of the show people with special interests--there is, after all, a video document of the original production (almost) and apparently a very fine movie adaptation almost available.

I think Crash was a made to order Oscar movie. Sweeney Todd has potential to either be a snob hit or pick up a cult following, hopefully both. Add to that the fact the cast and that there aren't a whole lot of other high profile contenders (although Atonement looks awesome). I think it has every chance of at least being nominated, blood be damned. No Country for Old Men is gratuitous as well.

I think the real thing it has going against it is that it's a musical. After Dreamgirls I'm starting to feel as though musicals get nominated just for being made relatively well rather than for the actual quality of the material. I must not be the only person who felt that way.

[luvtheEmcee]

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

Right, yeah. See, what I don't get is, with the original production so readily available on DVD, people can who claim such love can be so ignorant of the show's history. People can still certainly be of the opinion that Doyle's production was the definitive Sweeney Todd (not saying that I am; I can't make a claim like that) -- but in order to make such a bold assertion, you've got to know what came before. That could, arguably, have worked as the first interpretation of the show; I don't think it HAD to be done the way it was first in order to breed the scaled-down production. But with the way history did turn out, you can't reinvent something that wasn't there in the first place.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 4:59pm

The original taping of Sweeney has only been readily available for what, three years now? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think it was the easiest VHS to aquire before it was recently released on DVD. I know I never saw it until it came out on DVD.

I don't think that would have worked as an initial interpretation at all. It would have been bewildering. The action was disengaged from what was being said. An original production of this nature would have been mostly useless.

The powerful drama of Sweeney Todd is what brings it to life. The internal logic of Doyle's production relies on redirecting the original energy and drama to try to cast the material in a new light. One thing has to mutate from something else, you can't begin with the mutation.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 5:57pm

It is opening in Denver on the 21st.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 6:32pm

Doyle said something about how the original production was the right way for those people at that time to tell the story. And I agree. But I do think that Marat/Sade-esque (I know he wasn't aware of the Brook Marat/Sade, but that's not the point) interpretation could have been the way the story was told originally. I'm not talking about the instruments, because really, at the end of the day, that is NOT what Doyle's approach is about. It's just not. I'm saying that I think the original telling of the story could, in theory, have been very overtly taking place in an asylum, etc. That's an interpretation that could, in my opinion, come straight from the text -- it doesn't require something more traditionally musical theater coming before it. The internal logic of Doyle's direction relies on getting back to the basics and to the story before it does to redirecting what came before; if that means stripping down elements of previous incarnations, then so be it -- but he's done new work, too, and approached it with the same intention.

Anyway, I don't think the fact that the DVD hasn't been available for very long and that before that the VHS was scarce really excuses people who assert knowledgeability thinking that the Doyle production was how it's always been. If it is in fact only three years old, it had been readily available for what, a year, when the revival opened in New York? I mean, it's possible that people could think that if the revival was their first exposure to Sweeney Todd, but... is it so much to ask that people -- theater people especially -- pay attention to what they're saying and demonstrate just a tiny bit of awareness? I know it's nitpicky, but I think it's just irresponsible to be publishing opinions based on a completely false assumption, and since the DVD IS so readily available, there's no excuse for that.

[jpbran]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 7:15pm

The VHS was released by RKO Video (I think) in the late 90s, and I actually bought it at a Sam Goody type store in Nashville back then. Not too hard to find...

And all Crash showed is that ANY movie can win Best Picture, no matter how bludgeon-ingly unsubtle and cartoonish its characters are.

[LionessInWinter]

Posted: 12/4/07 at 11:13pm

I saw it tonight at a screening. Incredible! The darker it got, the more I loved it.
I'd *love* to see it at the Ziegfeld with the big, big screen and great sound. I'd go again tomorrow (or later this week to another screening) if I could, but I'll probably wait until it opens.

[bk]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 1:05am

I'm very much looking forward to it - but the fact that Treachout says that prior to this that the best adaptation of a B'way musical to film was Cabaret tells me all I need to know about him. Whatever one thinks of Cabaret (and I like it), it is not a faithful adaptation of the show AT ALL.

I'd choose both West Side Story and The Music Man long before Cabaret.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 1:13am

You have to keep in mind, though, that sometimes being as faithful as possible is not the way to go -- and that, I think, heavily depends on the show. People have been saying that the Sweeney movie is NOT just a film of the show. It is its own entity, an entirely different animal -- and to many of them, that is what makes it great. You must adapt, not just transfer. You do what's right for telling that story on film, as opposed to just transplanting it into another medium. And if that means making changes, then so be it.

Updated On: 12/5/07 at 01:13 AM

[bk]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 3:12am

West Side Story is a GREAT adaptation of a B'way show to film. It is NOT slavishly faithful to the show, but captures the spirit of the show while making it work for film. The Music Man IS almost entirely faithful to the show, but it also works as a film, which is why it was a hit. Cabaret does not capture the B'way show at all - by deleting all of its book songs it became something wholly other and while it may work as a piece of cinema it is not what I would call a great B'way to film transfer, because it's a whole other beast.

I will reserve judgment on Sweeney until I see it.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 3:17am

I must shamefully admit I've still never seen the Cabaret film in full. I've tried several times to watch parts of it, but... I guess I'm far, far too in love with the version I saw on stage. So that wasn't about Cabaret, it was just a general comment that faithfulness doesn't always denote success, and vice versa.

[TomMonster]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 3:23am

luvtheEmcee, you are correct! However, this film adaptation is more closely tied to the original than, even I, expected. Yet, as you wrote, is completely it's own animal. In every good way!!

SS is truly thrilled with this film. The material that has been cut is not truly missed in the this film. The camera and orchestra make up for many moments we might miss!

Any fan of the show will not be disappointed. Of course, people will nit-pick, but the film works. And the score is there. With a 70 piece orchestra!

The opening chords from the organ are so frightening and brilliant! And sets the tone. The opening credits are the best I've ever seen for a film.

Bernard Hermann fans (and Steve based this score on his music) will NOT be disappointed!

Scary, bloody (VERY bloody)and funny. Everything we love about the original show. And this TOBY being a true 12 year old only adds to the horror. His version of "Not While I'm Around" is so touching, sweet and disarming...it sets up the most frightening iconic moment on film that I have ever seen.

Remember this film (as was the musical), was always intended to be a tribute to the great horror movies of the 30's/40's/50's. The "Hammer" films.

As for Oscar gold: SILENCE OF THE LAMBS won, even with the blood and cannibalism!!!

We'll see. (It's a shoo-in for winning the Golden Globe for best "Comedy/Musical")

Oscar is for Depp on this one. It's his time and due. And he is BRILLIANT in this movie. (I've been listening to the soundtrack all day and it's a wonderful addition to the SWEENEY canon of recordings.)

I wish everyone on this board could see this film NOW!! We all know what a great work of art the material is. NOW LET'S SELL IT TO THE REST OF AMERICA (AND THE WORLD!!!)

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 8:00am

What is the story with the opening for this film?

In some places I'm seeing nationwide 12/21, others I am seeing limited 12/21 with nationwide 1/8.

Which is it?

Updated On: 12/5/07 at 08:00 AM

[pab]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 9:01am

" . . . . . Add to all this is the Sondheim score that resonates throughout, and Burton's 'Sweeney Todd' is a movie unlike any to emerge this year. In short, this is a dark, uncompromising, compelling, stunningly stylish masterwork, that is both hauntingly seductive and consistently entertaining and original. This is no doubt Burton's best film in a decade and one of the best movies of the year. "
moviehole.net review

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 12:14pm

I think TomMonster (grar!) put it best. The original Sweeney Todd comes from a British penny dreadful, grand guignol theatrical tradition. It's supposed to pay homage to classic horror movies. For the show to have begun its life in that Marat/Sade style would be an entirely different show than what the authors set out to write.

Not to mention that Sweeney Todd is adapted from Christopher Bond's play. Also that in the time Sweeney Todd came out, it probably would have been sort of cliche and imitative to do it in the Marat/Sade style. Also puzzling to musical theater audiences of the era and maybe all around a bit pretentious.

Either way the movie looks awesome!

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 12:27pm

I'm saying it could, have in theory, been interpreted that way. Not that it should have, or would have been the best thing to do. I know where Sweeney Todd comes from, but I'm saying this in artistic terms, and I do think it's possible to have put the story on stage that way without doing it the "traditional" way first. That's all I'm saying, and I feel like you're misreading me. In other words, I'm saying that that reading, to me, could be inherently present in the text, as opposed to being an effort of, "oh, let's take what was originally done and flip it around."

And for the record, it is on record that Sondheim had originally intended for Sweeney to be a "small" show. I'm not saying that means he intended it to be done like the Brook Marat/Sade, but it IS interesting nonetheless.

I do agree with you about the time, though. And that's part of where I was coming from when I paraphrased about the whole "right way at the time" idea. A lot of it had to do with the stylistic era, absolutely. But all of that being said, that is exactly where I'm coming from with the belief that it's inherently possible just given the text, as opposed to a branch off of the production that had already been done. That's just not the way Doyle works. And I've studied his work a lot.

I don't mean to sound like I'm repeating myself for the sake of being a broken record or changing opposing opinions, but I would like to feel as though I'm at least making sense to those who disagree.

Anyway, with regard to the movie, I'm thrilled that its style seems to be harking back to classic horror films. I think that's very right.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 12/5/07 at 12:32pm

Isn't it opeing in NY & LA on 12/21 and then nationally Xmas Day?

And Emcee you need to see the film of CABARET. It works phenomenally well on its own terms. It is necessarily (and thankfully) different from the original Prince staging (which is brilliant in its own way, but wouldn't have made nearly as good a film). Even if you're used to and love the Mendes staging, it's remarkable how well this material adapts to so many different interpretations -- as the original Isherwood BERLIN STORIES, as the non-musical play and film I AM A CAMERA with Julie Harris, the Prince staging of the musical, the Mendes staging of the musical, the Fosse film of the musical -- all of which work terrifically well on one level or another.