Bloody Excellent--You'll "Lovett"!

Rating: 10/10 (8 January 2008)

Having come into this film somewhat "new blood" (that is, fascinated by the legend as it stood, but knowing very little about the Broadway productions) I admit I may be biased towards preferring the film adaptation. But that I prefer it is not without reason, or rather, reasons, plural, which I intend to outline below. The setting, firstly was precisely as claustrophobic, as "grim-and-gritty" as it needed to be to convey what it was for most to live in that time and place. It made me as a viewer profoundly grateful I was merely a spectator to the horrors great and small, everyday and unexpected, of Burton's London. Oh, yes, there was more horror on view than merely that enacted in a bakeshop or a barber's chair, and viewers, I think were best able to "get" that sense through the staging. Besides which the countless little abuses sprinkled throughout (witness Toby in Pirelli's hands, or the imprisoned Johanna) did much to prove that this was not a happy time, and this is not *going to be* a happy film. The supporting cast was better suited than I expected, in truth. What more needs be said about the ratty little Beadle, or the slithery Judge? (Puns? Yes, but necessary ones!) Anthony read a little "fey" to me, but as he was not really the focus of the piece I could excuse his naiveté. (Besides which he reminded me visually of Ashton Kutcher, and *that* is its *own* kind of horror! <*shudder*>) But it is the film's two leads who truly shine. I admit I am *not* the biggest fan of the stage musical of this work, just because I found Lansbury's performance camp and grating to the point of absurdity. Bonham-Carter, by contrast, brought an effervescence and a sophistication to the role that suited both her and the part and was sorely lacking in previous adaptations. As I was saying to a friend of mine--there *is* a difference between upward-mobility-seeking lower-class and gutter trash, really there *is*! And Depp--Wow. I have no more words than that, but does his performance really require any more? He *TRULY* threw himself into this role and *infused* it with a torn, emotionally-battered *INTENSITY* (yes, ALLCAPS, it's THAT INTENSE!) that the role truly requires. The snarling and the posturing hid a broken man, and viewers were fortunate to be allowed through Depp's profoundly affecting performance to see both of those sides. Hearn (as again I wish to contrast the film with the stageplay) by contrast is blustery for the sake of it. Someone else described his acting as "wooden," and to me his voice was *too* trained, "rang" too much as opposed to grated. (Plus, I *cannot* be intimidated by a man who reminds me so much of Fred Murtz--I just *can't*!) He had none of the same manic intensity, and was almost "gleeful," but not in a way that spoke of madness. Hearn read too "normal," too cheerful, and that is not who or what Sweeney Todd should be. I admit to closing my eyes to many of the throat-slittings, at least after I heard that first *sshhktt*-click-*thump* <*shudders violently*> and it is true I am no fan of violence for its own sake, nor of "slasher films" as they are generally perceived. However, as a necessary plot device and as an execution of vengeance, the killings read like a Greek tragedy, or like Titus Andronicus. While excessive, the violence is not "extraneous," the deaths did serve a purpose. Thus, as a "horror musical," this film will not suit everyone, and true some purists may be offended by omissions and changes Burton has made to a so-called "masterwork of the American Stage." But I personally feel as if just enough was "shaved off" for what is left to play out a taut, glorious, heart-wrenching, bloody revenge thriller. Appreciate it for the new, different, equally-enjoyable adaptation that it is. Some favorite moments: "My Friends," "Epiphany/A Little Priest," "By the Sea" and a good portion of the "Final Scene". Go, enjoy, and know you'll have a "bloody good time"...