Pajiba

At least it's R rated, the actors are top notch, even Prof. Snape, is in it, I'm in.

I just, I don't know, is it me or is Burton/Depp making the same movie over and over again?

I've been anxiously waiting for this review! And, now my fears are confirmed, so I'm a bit disappointed. As I said, I feared that there wouldn't be much to this, but I was still holding out hope for an enjoyable Johnny Depp fest. Damn. Well...maybe still passable for a rental.

Being a recent convert to the musical theatre world, I've heard much about "Sweeney Todd", one of Sondheim's most popular pieces. The opinion seems to be split, people seem to either absolutely love ir or absolutely hate it. I've never actually seen the production but I remember listening to the CD and feeling pretty disappointed at what I heard. Those who see it live however seem to agree that recent productions are good so it might be one of those cases where stage action that is compelling doesn't translate to the screen. Sondheim himself said that he wrote the play in order to see if he could write a horror story for the stage. Musically speaking, listen to "Company" and "Into the Woods" and you can see why he's considered a musical genius.

As for Tim Burton, he's been making "Edward Scissorhands" over and over for the past two decades. I can't take anything he does seriously. Which is why I was disappointed when I heard he was the one doing this film because I knew it would just become an overly stylized caricature rather than the dark comedy/ghost story it could have been.

Wow...now i know what it feels like to be a fan of this page reading a review that the I COMPLETELY disagree with. This movie was great from beginning to end.

"How and why Todd becomes a maniacal killer is a thin story, and the lack of plot or character development ultimately dooms the movie to boredom."

Thin???? WTF? It's perfect. He was happy, successful, deeply in love with his wife and his new daughter, and then, because an old man had a hard-on, locked away in prison for 15 years. (and prison back then was a tad more harsh than it is now...no such thing as minimum security, or prisoner's rights) When he gets out of prison and returns home, hoping to find, even if only, a shell of his wife...but no. He's led to believe she was driven mad to the point of killing herself and his duaghter is now being held prisoner by the very same hard-on-bearing old douchebag who started the whole mess...except now he's developed a taste for younger snizz. Guess what....I'D CUT A MOTHERFUCKER TOO!!!

Thin. This is all revealed in the first 10 minutes for a reason. This is a story of revenge. Not a story of a man growing over 15 years to come home and start a business blah blah blah. A classic tale of revenge needs very little in the way of character developement. It's the steps the main character takes to GET the revenge that drive the story. And all these steps fit together in a nice, 2 hour long row.
The only difference between this and another classic revenge tale called 'The Count of Monte Cristo' is that we don't spend the 15 years in jail. And that's the only reason, YOU the critic were bored by this movie. There was character developement...you were just too busy fucking with your glow-in-the-dark pen to catch it.
This whole story is absurdist revenge at it's purest. It's exactly bloody enough to be horrific and outlandish enough to be fun. This is the best 10 dollars a person can spend at the movies right now when you look at what has come out in the last 3 weeks and with what is coming out within the next week. Haven't seen Charlie Wilson's or Juno yet...but those are on my plate for before the week is out.

To anyone who reads this...spare me the "this review gets me disappointed...blahblahblah shit." Go see the movie and think for yourself. And guess what...you'll enjoy it. If you read a review "that disappoints you..." then all you do is go in looking for things to bitch about. Precisely why I don't read reviews until AFTER I see movies myself. I'm a pretty fair enough judge to know to avoid Jennifer Aniston, Martin lawrence, anything made from video games...and smart enough to know that odds are in my favor to enjoy Will Smith, PS Hoffman, Johnny Depp...and so should you be.

Johnny jump-street himself playing a weird character, gee, what are the odds? after seeing the trailer and reading the review for this, I still can't figure out the premise of this movie, fucking closeted republican.

Please disregard my previous post. I didn't know this was a musical, by all means go see it.

I loved the stage play and was all in a frenzy to see this movie. There were some things I loved about it, but I left the theater feeling disappointed. I completely agree with your review, especially the last sentence: "What does occur is too campy to be truly frightening and too jugular-spurting to be much fun." I've been reading reviews all morning, and yours is the first I've found that doesn't fall all over itself to lick Tim Burton's and Johnny Depp's boots.

Really, I think I could've loved it - I loved the imagery and Helena Bonham Carter, especially - if not for the unrelenting gore of the second half of the movie. There was throat slitting after throat slitting after throat slitting and bodies landing in sickening heaps and vats full of severed limbs. UGH. Tim Burton chose to show in close detail each throat slitting, one after the other. Even with a fakey shade of ultra-red blood, it was a little much for me. I'm a fan of dark humor, but the gore was so dark I couldn't see the humor in much of it. When we got home, we watched a cheerful movie to clear those images out of our head.

First off, I loved it. It was different from the stange version but it still carried the same spirit of the original.

I wouldn't say Helena was miscast, since Sondheim had the final say in who was chosen as Mrs. Lovett. If he didn't feel she was right for the role, he would have picked someone else. And as for leaving out 'The Ballad of Sweeney Todd', Burton said that song is just the whole movie. People will get the same message from the film as a whole as they would from the song.

I've gotta agree with some of the other commenters and say that I really loved the film. Sure, this is Burton doing exactly what he has been for the past ten years, but I do so love his aesthetic that it really doesn't bother me (and no, I'm not a mall goth, thank you very much).

Having seen the taped Broadway version just weeks ago, I thought the adaptation of the most important moments were stellar, and that I didn't find it dull at all. The film takes a little while to pick up, certainly--Carter's rendition of "Worst Pies in London" was fairly painful. But after that, I found it all engrossing and quality. In short, it's worth seeing.

In the review of the film and as well as a few post I've come across the word "Pie" or "Pies" several times. Are they referring to "Cream Pies"?

Character development:

1. Todd goes from being revenge-driven with a specific list of deserving victims (or, at least, a legit motive) to a blood-lusting psycho who kills people for no reason at all.

2. Helena Bonham Carter goes from being a sketchy sloven who kills roaches to a cannibal who hacks up humans in a gross basement.

3. The little orphan boy goes from tagging along after a charlatan for practical reasons ("it's not the workhouse") to killing for Helena when it can no longer benefit him and even after she has tried to hunt him to kill him (though, who WOULDN'T madly adore Helena?! Pregnancy boobs!)

4. My darling Alan Rickman and his eminently fuckable voice even experience a miniature character moment. Right before his throat is slashed he recognizes Todd and his eyes flash this whole "maybe I shouldn't have raped that woman" regret/recognition of Nemesis.

5. Wormtail does not have any character development. He's a goon throughout. But he's Wormtail, and I can't even buy the Book 7 moment where he shows Harry an impulse of mercy. So, you know, not really a reason to damn the movie.

6. Crazy-old-lady has some character development. Lots, in fact. She goes from merely being crazy to being all Nancy Drew, if Nancy Drew had rags, dishwater hair and inexplicable boils on her face.

7. Stupid singing boy goes from being merely naive to being naively in love.

8. Girl with a rack that is SO not 16 years old grows some balls and moves from the terrible "caged bird" metaphor to a mental-home escapee.

9. The inhabitants of the asylum realize that they can outnumber the guard without too much trouble.

You know, I actually was slightly disappointed by Sweeney Todd, but I just don't think "no character development" is the best indict.

With all respect due, institutionally, to Pajiba, I am compelled to declare this review patently wrong. The reasons are a bit too numerous to mention, but suffice it to say that I suspect the above review to be operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of many of the conventions of musical theatre. It may be hard to take my protestation seriously when I dont offer specific examples of the aforementioned misunderstood conventions, but i'd really rather not turn this into a musical-theatre-geek sploogefest. And I dont mean to indict Mr. Williams-- and perhaps its best to have a musical reviewed by somebody unfamiliar with the genre, seeing as though most of moviegoing public is similarly uninitiated. But Sweeney Todd is an absolutely brilliant film, and it would be a shame if this review kept anybody who might otherwise have seen it from doing so. I refer one and all to A.O. Scott's spot-on assessment of this film in the New York Times:

The balls on this guy!!! fuck the New York times!!! listen buddy, you don't come here talking shit about Pajiba. The only thing I'm going to say to you is......Tell your god to ready for blood.

Martin, I apologize for my pervious post. Upon futher reflection I agree that maybe A.O. Scott's review is more knowledgable about musicals than Mr. Williams. Maybe Mr. Scott is more of a student of Musicals than our Mr. Williams. Sometimes I wonder why do I even bother with coming to Pajiba for movie reviews when I can just as easily go to the Times. And I guess my answer would be because I fucking want to and if I fucking wanted to read a fucking review by the Times I would do just that.

Sorry, but regarding this film I would have preferred a review written by Mr. Rowles or Mr. Carlson; Mr. Williams' review seems a little lazy for lack of a better word.

I loved it and to the fellow who paid $10.00 to see it, Ha Ha Ha!

I only paid $4.00 to see it Saturday morning at the 10:40 a.m. showing.

this movie SUCKED

my mom and i walked out after borat was killed

DUMB AND BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING

and i love musicals!

How the hell was there no character development? I thought the entire cast evolved after the song 'Epiphany'.

Ok, my kids and I have been so psyched about this movie...we all LOVED it! Say what you will about Burton using Depp and Carter again, but they play so well together, it is hard to imagine anyone else playing these characters. As for "the feeling that Burton could be directing Depp in a biopic of Cary Grant, and the star would still emerge from the makeup room looking like a raccoon with a sleep deficit" its called stage makeup. He is a man who is drained of all feeling, all emotion and it shows in his pale, haunted face. I did not know the story well, having only seen the PBS short version with George Hearn and Angela Lansbury, but I thought the character and story development was plenty. I understood what happened and why. The voices may not have been the strongest, but the acting was excellent. See it for yourself. It is not often I disagree with Pajiba, but since everyone views musicals differently, particularly Sondheim, who is not always that accessible, I think this movie needs to be seen before you can truly judge it. A great job by all involved.

Spot on review, I think, but Mr. Williams, I beg to differ on this one point:
"but Sondheim's verbally packed songs aren't always built for great singing, anyway.

The reason "My Friends" was Dullsville in this version is because it's written for a killer baritone or even bass voice to sing the crap out of it. Since Depp can only kind of whine his way through the tune, which isn't meant to be about the lyrics, it's about seeing the development of an obsession (and hearing ripping good vocals), the whole scene crumbles.

I heart Depp, but between his weak pop-ish vocals (and the fact that his part was raised about a fifth so he could sing it) and all the juicy bits they cut to make room for splattering arteries, this movie was a serious disappointment.

Catch the Broadway tour, which actually has a lot of the Broadway folks in it, for a taste of how shockingly, deliciously evil this show really is.

That said, HBC as Lovett was AMAZING.

Your disappointment is duely noted, but I'm going to go see it anyways. I love musicals, and I love Johnny Depp/Tim Burton/Helena Bonham Carter, and there is very little that could change that love for me.

Also, the fact that this is the site that was "disappointed" with Hairspray, a movie I absolutely ADORED, is making me take this review with a gigantic grain of salt.

Wait, someone actually likes Travolta's Hairspray...and is willing to admit it?

I just saw it today and I do not agree with the review for a number of reasons but there is one thing that stood out for me.

"How and why Todd becomes a maniacal killer is a thin story, and the lack of plot or character development ultimately dooms the movie to boredom."

I've never seen the play or really knew what the show was about but I understand musicals and character development never really happens unless it's in the songs. The story isn't thin, it's simple and it happens in between songs.

*SPOILERS*

He becomes a maniacal killer because he missed his first chance to get the judge. So instead of beating the stuffing out of a pillow or just screaming, he goes around killing people to vent his frustration. Mrs. Lovett makes the bodies into meat pies because she's nuts and thinks it would be a waste for the fresh meat to just get buried when she can't afford to buy good meat for her pies.

*END SPOILERS*

I don't get why people who don't know or understand musicals review them. Hmmm...

I agree with Tammy about Depp's voice. It's too high/pop star. I felt like I was listening to Ewan MacGregor in Moulin Rouge singing all the songs. Not that I dislike Ewan or Moulin, but that is not the sound, nor the feel of Sweeney. On TOP of that, HBC's singing was the same, complately the wrong color. Her voice was too sweet, and I couldn't understand her words. This made two of the most outstanding numbers in the show complete bores/flops to me. (Worst Pies in London and A Little Priest)

This is compounded on the fact that there were so many good things about the movie. When it was good, it was great, which made the so so parts glaring in their mediocrity and bad choices.

So, I'm still trying to decide if I liked this or not.

Just like I'm trying to decide if I'm offended because Alan Rickman's little "gandering" speech reminded me of Britney Murphy trying to use the word "sporadically" in Clueless.

I went expecting a spectacle, and that much was delivered in the sets and costumes. But there was a lack of enthusiasm in the singing.

Rickman didn't play a twisted evil pervert, he was a garden-variety dirty old man. Depp's Todd never gave us a reason to believe he was eager about punishing the whole world for what happened to him. And HBC missed the boat when it came to infusing gleeful dementedness into the concept of turning murder victims into a profitable business.

I'm not mad that I spent $20 to take my daughter to see it, because it was still entertaining. But now I definitely want to see a good stage production, and can see where it could have been much better.

I'm back to say that with a little time removed from the movie, I can better appreciate the things I did love about it - the songs (even if HBC's voice was weak) and the story. I think I'll buy the soundtrack (or the original broadway or london cast soundtrack).

I still wonder why, after the first throat-slashing or two, Burton didn't choose to show the murders from a distance or off-screen. I would've enjoyed it much more if he'd focused on Sweeney's facial expression during the murders rather than the spurting blood. I tried to find the humor in it, but just couldn't.

I saw No Country for Old Men last week, and while the body count was just as high, the murders were disturbing without being ridiculously in-your-face. But maybe it's asking too much for subtlety from a musical!

bloody spot-on review, John

Guh. Sondheim, and non-singers trying to do musicals. Normally, I'd stop reading there. But to compare Sweeney Todd to The Count of Monte Cristo? Sheer idiocy, or clearly you've never read the book and only saw the shitty movie that took a big dump on a genius piece of classic literature. The Count's revenge is all the sweeter because he drives people insane and ruins their lives but NEVER KILLS A SINGLE PERSON. And he feels bad in the end and spares people and moves on with his life. Now stop comparing him to an insane serial killer, thank you. Irrelevant rant over.

It's unfortunate that the highlights from the musical were cut... the title song, for instance, which always seemed a wee bit important, as the byline of the movie is "The demon barber of fleet street" and that lyric is never heard. Also, Antony and Johanna's courtship adds some levity and comic relief, and that was cut. On the whole, it looked like Burton sought out all parts that could make characters (especially Sweeney) likeable or induce smiles/laughter and sliced them out.

Instead, his preoccupation with machinery in the opening titles continues... if it's not cookies, it's chocolate or human-meat pies that are being made.

It's not possible to be a mediocre singer & sound like David Bowie.

one of the commenters above refernced a.o. scott's " spot on " review of this " brilliant film ". it caught my attention since so few pajibians name drop but while we are at it, the a.o. scott fan should check out anthony lane's review in the new yorker.
'nuff said .... i am not looking to start a trend.

I completely agree with you!

Something everyone seems to miss: The original play was written pre-1989, (fall of USSR) when it was still fashionable for intellectuals to be leftists. Sweeney Todd's broad rationale for slitting throats was to make the rich payback something to the poor exploited masses of London. Of course the poor were terribly exploited, but Todd's language is definitely Marxian.

Also, Todd does not know how to use a razor strap; he treats it like a wet stone.

I'm a little late to this review party, but hey... my two cents, just because I feel obligated:

The Stats: I've seen nearly all of Burton's film, enjoy my fair share of musicals, and once considered myself a rather big Johnny Depp fan.

However.

As a musical, this film gets a B-. The music is decent, the songs are OKAY, they're relevant and all but I really only remember about two of them. Which is... very disappointing, considering how badly I've wanted to see a wonderful musical grace the big screen again. Sigh. They sounded more like singing dialogue than perfectly suited Songs.
Also, the singing? I couldn't tell what they were saying half the time, so I missed a bit of the "humor".

As a movie, a B-. Good and solid atmosphere (but the look was way too blurred around the edges, it hurt my eyes), a bit too heavy handed with the mindless murder (ooo, I get it, he's evil, scary, oo), and the acting... well. I've seen Much better from Depp, and MUCH better from Rickman. I loved Helena enough to forgive her character and sympathise with her, which... well, only made the ending piss me off to extraordinary amounts. And I mean, I was Pissed. I'm still bitter.

I know a lot of people loved this movie, and that's great for you guys, but I can't lie and say I enjoyed this. I just can't. I'm a Burton fan who felt very disappointed. I feel like he set the stage for a marvellous project and just... made wrong decisions to flesh it out in all the wrong ways. It needed more character from the Whole cast (and not just Todd and Louvett), more story (I'm sorry, but one line is not enough to explain a huge plot setup or twist), and a lot less excuses to show splashing blood and gouged throats. It felt like it was being gross for some stylish choice that just felt awkward and uncomfortable. Very unsettling, and a bit too macabre to make you feel happy for watching this thing.

I know this Sondheim character is regarded by many as some kind of genius, but I found the song lyrics so lame and cliche-ridden I lost interest and switched the DVD off after half an hour and that's saying a lot since I love the Depp/Burton/Bonham-Carter trinity.
My Friends was just eye-rolling bad, lack of baritone or not, the lyrics are appalling. In fact I found myself cringing a little through most of songs. Honestly, I've heard better songs written by high school students.

The 2006 British made-for-TV film was better in my opinion despite the lack of any big Hollywood stars.