|What's wrong with the movie?
|Page 3 of 3|
|Author:||Toru771 [ Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:25 pm ]|
|Post subject:||Re: What's wrong with the movie?|
I enjoy the film for what it is, and fanboyed over it pretty majorly when it came out, though my view of it now isn't quite as glowing. I still think it's the best adaptation Hollywood could have given us... especially since Sam Mendes' proposed version would have apparently cast Russell Crowe as Sweeney and cut even more of the songs, so I'm glad it went to Tim Burton instead.
I do have some issues with the film, though... I would have loved to see how the "Ballad" sequences would have turned out (along with the other ways Burton was planning to use the "ghosts"), and so I found the complete omission of those scenes even before production started to be a bit of a cop-out. I also had a problem with the acting, or lack thereof -- I remember seeing an interview with Burton before the film came out where he said he wanted the cast to act as little as possible while they were singing because the music communicated all the necessary emotion. To me, that shows a clear lack of understanding of how musicals work -- *maybe* that approach would have been okay if all the characters had been played by (or had their voices dubbed by) amazing singers. As it was, though, the film generally felt lifeless, and most of the characters (especially Mrs. Lovett) lacked any sort of presence except in a few scenes. It was sort of like if Crowe's Javert from the Les Misérables film had traveled back 5 years to coach everyone on how to (not) act in a musical. For how kooky and quirky Depp often is onscreen, his performance here was almost boring; and I wish someone had told Bonham-Carter to play Lovett exactly like Bellatrix in Harry Potter -- it wouldn't have been perfect, but easily more interesting. This film seemed to be basically a director known for campiness working on a musical that was unashamedly melodramatic, but trying his hardest to make it gritty, and non-campy (despite the crazy amounts of blood that looked suspiciously like orange soda), and it didn't work all that well for me in that regard. Again, I do enjoy the movie -- I think it's easily one of Burton's best films since 2000, and overall pretty decent for a musical film made since the same period. (We've had some fantastic ones like Chicago and some stinkers like the 2004 Phantom of the Opera, and Sweeney was, imo, closer to the former than the latter.)
|Author:||Flynn [ Sat Aug 16, 2014 4:42 pm ]|
If you think that's all Hearn's performance was, you need to rewatch Hearn's performance.
(though even if it was, your argument is still pretty strained)
|Page 3 of 3||All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]|
|Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group