Movie: "Sweeny Todd"
Dec. 30th, 2007 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockWell that was splishy-splashy.
Was it good? In its own way, as a piece of cinematic art, it was wonderful. But you have to be really into that kind of thing to have said it was enjoyable.
I knew what I was getting into. I knew it was a stage play and would be almost entirely performed in song. I'd read numerous reviews talking about how bloody it was. I figured there would be a high body count.
The problem is that I went with my mother. And my mother, bless her glorious heart, is a lot like my father in her view of movies (it's no wonder they're married): both like to go to the movies to escape and to be entertained in a happy, uplifting way. They appreciate dramatic and gory cinema like The Departed if it has redeeming entertainment values: high levels of excitement, intellectual involvement on the part of the audience. They do not tend to like niche movies that are dark, gory, and ghoulish in the name of high art. Artistic blood splashes don't differ much from regular blood splashes, when it comes to my parent's movie-going tastes.
In that vein, Sweeney Todd is comparable in my mind to two films in recent years that also had very splashy artistic design: 300, and Kill Bill. In order to watch all of these and enjoy them you have to be able to look past all the blood and see the artistic set design and cinematic framing being put in front of you. The difference is that with two of these films it's worth it, and with one it's painfully not. The disappointing one, is of course, 300. I won't belabor you all with what I think of that movie.
Should you see it? Yes and no. If you're a musical theater fan or a cinema fan, if you like bloody movies or if you like dark cult movies, if you want to see Anthony Stewart Head (Giles!) for three seconds in period costume... then yeah, you will enjoy it. But if you're like my family, and you want to go to the movies for a good time and two hours of people getting their throat cuts sounds a little too much work, then you shouldn't go. Because while it may be funny, it may be arty, it may be exceedingly well-made and well-written, in the end this movie is about murder, murder, and murder, and if you find that tiresome or uncomfortable then you won't enjoy this story.
p.s. my favorite scenes were Mrs. Lovitt's flights of fance. Helena Bonham Carter is a treasure box of fine performances.
Was it good? In its own way, as a piece of cinematic art, it was wonderful. But you have to be really into that kind of thing to have said it was enjoyable.
I knew what I was getting into. I knew it was a stage play and would be almost entirely performed in song. I'd read numerous reviews talking about how bloody it was. I figured there would be a high body count.
The problem is that I went with my mother. And my mother, bless her glorious heart, is a lot like my father in her view of movies (it's no wonder they're married): both like to go to the movies to escape and to be entertained in a happy, uplifting way. They appreciate dramatic and gory cinema like The Departed if it has redeeming entertainment values: high levels of excitement, intellectual involvement on the part of the audience. They do not tend to like niche movies that are dark, gory, and ghoulish in the name of high art. Artistic blood splashes don't differ much from regular blood splashes, when it comes to my parent's movie-going tastes.
In that vein, Sweeney Todd is comparable in my mind to two films in recent years that also had very splashy artistic design: 300, and Kill Bill. In order to watch all of these and enjoy them you have to be able to look past all the blood and see the artistic set design and cinematic framing being put in front of you. The difference is that with two of these films it's worth it, and with one it's painfully not. The disappointing one, is of course, 300. I won't belabor you all with what I think of that movie.
Should you see it? Yes and no. If you're a musical theater fan or a cinema fan, if you like bloody movies or if you like dark cult movies, if you want to see Anthony Stewart Head (Giles!) for three seconds in period costume... then yeah, you will enjoy it. But if you're like my family, and you want to go to the movies for a good time and two hours of people getting their throat cuts sounds a little too much work, then you shouldn't go. Because while it may be funny, it may be arty, it may be exceedingly well-made and well-written, in the end this movie is about murder, murder, and murder, and if you find that tiresome or uncomfortable then you won't enjoy this story.
p.s. my favorite scenes were Mrs. Lovitt's flights of fance. Helena Bonham Carter is a treasure box of fine performances.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-02 04:46 am (UTC)The music was great! It was one of the high points of the film for me. Depp doesn't have a traditional voice but he can do menacing very well, and menacing is very hard to achieve in song, so I got a kick out of him. His singing was very much a part of his acting, he was batshit crazy and Very Angry and all of that went well in his song numbers. Helena Carter was also amazing-- her voice was better than Depps, very high and, mmmmmmmmm, sonorous. She had the best song in the movie, a hilarious bit where she dreams of Happily Ever After. Alan Rickman had a very pleasant voice, though he didn't sing much. There's a young boy in the film who does a fantastic job, acting and singing-- he was clearly cast for voice talent moreso than the leading actors were. The young sailor also has a beautiful voice-- and a very striking, pretty face that gets one's attention, even if his looks are too feminine for me personally.