Brilliantly executed but highly disturbing

Rating: 9/10 (23 December 2007)

Sweeney Todd is an old story that is not based on a real 19th century murderer--despite some recent rumors that this legend is true. Though the original story has changed a bit over the years, the basic elements remain. A man is wrongly convicted and returns years later to exact revenge--slicing the throats of the wicked (and sometimes innocent) and then having the bodies disposed of in meat pies sold to the unsuspecting public!
The movie is based on the Sondheim musical. Over the years, there have been other non-musical versions of the fabled story of Sweeney Todd, but Stephen Sondheim has truly popularized this grisly tale of revenge and madness. However, if you are used to the Rogers and Hammerstein or Lerner and Loewe style of musicals, be prepared for a wildly different sort of musical. This isn't just because of the very, very dark subject matter but also the style of singing. Unlike these other famous musical teams, SWEENEY TODD does not offer songs that you will quickly find yourself humming or will hear on an elevator. That's because this production isn't a traditional musical with catchy lyrics, but where the dialog is sung to music--somewhat like the wonderful UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (wow, aside from this, you can't find two films more unalike). And since the emphasis is on dialog that is sung, the style may take a lot of getting used to. Plus, you probably WON'T find yourself tapping your feet and humming to the amazingly fast-paced and somewhat maniacal music. About the only really traditional style song is the lovely "Joanna".
This style singing does take some getting used to, though this film adaptation of the musical is much more approachable to the casual viewer. That's because in the play, many of the songs are sung in a crazy and cacophonous manner--with many singers across the stage singing DIFFERENT parts that generally DON'T harmonize well with each other. This strange and sometimes painful style was done to emphasize Sweeney's madness and I understood the symbolism--I just didn't particularly like it and I was thrilled that these twisted chorusers were absent from the film. Instead, the music was sung by either individuals or in duets (which were ALSO often sung very separately but with much less cacophony than an entire chorus). My daughter, quite the purist and lover of theater told me she missed this aspect of the film--she WANTED the insane chorus. As for me and the average audience member, I am sure this change by Tim Burton is a welcome one. The bottom line is that the stage style was just too annoying and headache-evoking.
While I am talking about the songs, I must point out that despite originally feeling very skeptical about casting Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter in the leads (after all, they're NOT known for their singing ability), they and the rest of the cast did quite well. I am sure that the modern ability to make practically ANYONE a singing sensation (such as Hillary Duff or Ashlee Simpson) was employed, but it did work. Now this isn't to say that they or the rest of the cast have gorgeous and melodious voices--they don't. But, for this style of film, it worked perfectly. Had they been cast in a remake of THE SOUND OF MUSIC or some other more traditional musical, it probably wouldn't have worked. Oddly, despite their being more than competent in the roles, I have heard some snipes about them and I can assure you they DID do well and were well cast.
Now as for the rest of the film, I must STRONGLY urge caution, as this is one of the most violent films I have ever seen. Sure, some films show many more deaths but the closeup shots of throats being slit and profuse torrents of blood is NOT for the squeamish nor is the sight of seeing the corpses splat onto the floor below as they are dropped through the trap door. I noticed several in the theater covering their eyes during the murder scenes--including my daughter. It's not for the faint-hearted and really is up close and brutal in how it depicts the killings. It worked--the murders looked very vivid and real--perhaps too real. With a little more left to the imagination with the killings, I really think the film might have worked a tad better for the average viewer. I have a very high tolerance for this stuff (probably partly due to my being a human biology minor in college), but most will cringe at all the carnage.
Now as for the aesthetics of the film. As you probably would expect, director Burton did his usual marvelous job. The dankness and awfulness of a Dickensian England is vivid and convincing. The plethora of roaches and rats also heightened this awful realism as did the terrible dental work of the actors. Unlike many films set in this era that featured actors with lovely capped teeth, the actors here abounded with crooked teeth! What I particularly liked about the film and what really jumped out at me was the cinematography--how almost everything was done in sepia and gray tones. There were a few exceptions but these were wonderful and were designed as the occasional and shocking contrast (such as the blueness of Pirelli's clothes or the intensity of the blood). Additionally, the fantasy sequence was extremely colorful and this made it one of the most striking and funny scenes in the film--quite appropriate to the mood.
So overall, apart from the intensity of the violence, this was a great film and a nice improvement over the Sondheim stage production due to its wickedly dark humor and style.