Friday, December 21, 2007

Sweeney Todd Review

**SPOILER ALERT**

Consider this your warning: If you're NOT familiar with the musical anyway, or just don't want to know anything about the plot or how it's executed in the film, STOP READING NOW. Because I will be including plot spoilers. You have been warned.

First off, let me say that if you're queasy about blood, do NOT get popcorn, particularly for the last half hour or so! Overall, I really liked it! Tim Burton, through his gorgeous cinematography and twisted spirit, captured the essence of the musical beautifully. Visually, it couldn't have been any more accurate. I will get to the music momentarily; before that, however, I will expound on what I thought were the low points of the film. These can really be summarized by three words: Helena Bonham Carter. Everyone was so worried about whether or not Johnny Depp could sing, but this is where the focus should've been! She could keep a tune, sure, but her voice was way too frail and breathy to be Mrs. Lovett. And I know HBC doesn't want people to think that she only got the role through nepotism and having Burton's babies and all, but, really, what are we supposed to think? And I had a problem with her interpretation of Mrs. Lovett. I had always seen her as very forceful and rather flippant, which is what made Mrs. Lovett so fun. But HBC's Mrs. Lovett was so serious! She was actually kinda depressing...To each their own, I suppose, but her version of Mrs. Lovett seemed deflated compared to, say, Patti Lupone's in the revival.

Of course, if you don't know the musical, that won't matter to you!

The rest of it, however, is absolutely brilliantly acted! Johnny Depp is abso-freaking INSANE in this film! As we all knew he would, he acted the hell out of Sweeney Todd, and his voice was perfectly adequate. It didn't blow me out of the water, no, but he pulled off "Pretty Women" beautifully, and it was throaty in the places it needed to be and melodious when that was called for. Bravo! Ed Sanders, who played Toby, was an extraordinary find! He steals your heart whenever he's on the screen...Even at the end...I'll get to that in a minute. As much as I hate seeing evil Alan Rickman, he was the right fit for the role, and Timothy Spall seems to serve as the quintessential bad-guy-sidekick (see Enchanted). :) I wish we could've seen more of Jayne Wisener and Jamie Campbell Bower, who played Johanna and Antony, respectively, but that was due to severe cutting in their characters and songs. they were, actually, younger than I expected, but now that I think about it, Johanna is supposed to be 16, and I guess it would've been gross to make Antony too much older, so there you go. I thought Sacha Baren Cohen was an odd choice for Signor Pirelli, but he was surprisingly entertaining.

If anything, see this film for the beautiful visuals! The Gothic color palette is completely apt for this story. True to Tim Burton fashion, certain parts are done artfully in eye-popping pastels (think Edward Scissorhands), while the serious parts seem perpetually veiled in black and blue moonlight, with red being allowed through at the appropriate moments. Oh, and don't feel bad about laughing when Sweeney Todd slits people's throats--Come on, it's FUNNY! The over-the-top spurting of blood everywhere is hysterical, and from what I understand, Tim Burton wanted it to be that way. I did notice, though, that I was usually the only one laughing, but keep in mind I did go on a Friday morning, so the theatre was only about half-full. Overall, though, the film was able to capture, both visually and acting-wise, the dark humor that even made this musical popular in the first place. You sit there thinking, I really shouldn't be laughing at this--They're baking people into PIES, for God's sake!--but you do anyway! The only serial killer on Broadway has now found a niche in film. :)

As professional reviews have reported, there is major cutting musically. Ordinarily, this bothers me in movie-musicals, but let me explain why I didn't mind it so much here. First of all, Tim Burton knew what had to be cut simply because the songs worked on-stage but wouldn't translate properly on-screen. Thus, the sung part of the theme "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" was cut from the show entirely (though the instrumental is heard throughout) because the lyrics and presentation of the song on-stage directly address the audience, and such a device just don't quite work in a film without being campy. Though, I admit, I was hoping to hear it because that's where the bad@$$ line "He never forgot, and he never forgave" even came from! Another reason for the cutting was probably in the interest of time. At just under 2 hours, if the film were it's full length, it would've been another Dreamgirls. (Note: I loved Dreamgirls, but I can see where people complain that it was too flipping long.) Also, Burton really wanted to make this Sweeney Todd's story--the focus was to be on him and what he was going through emotionally throughout. After all, he's well aware who the big draw is for this film! This is what, I'm guessing, led to the cutting of Judge Turpin's (Alan Rickman's) version of "Johanna," though I'm sure we all would've loved to see some S&M self-whipping involving Alan Rickman, and "Kiss Me" between Johanna and Antony. I didn't actually mind the second one, because that song kind of annoys me, but I did love Johanna's trope in it, which consequently had to be cut during the version of "Johanna" that they actually kept in the film. ("He said he'd marry me Sunday...")

This isn't to say, however, that I completely approved of every cut Burton made in the film. I'm somewhat ambivalent about the cuts in "No Place Like London." About half the song was cut, but granted a lot of it was the dialogue involving the Beggar Woman. I'm still not sure what I thought about Burton not having Todd meet the Beggar Woman/Lucy until the very end of the film. The ending is depressing no matter what, but it drives it even harder home when he's rejected her several times throughout the story rather than just at the end. Then again, perhaps he didn't want people suicidal when the film is done, lol. (Oh, and the shots of Mrs. Lovett burning in the oven at the end? Completely unnecessary, IMO.) He also changed the circumstances of how Toby killed Todd. In the musical, it's clear that Toby's gone a little loco, and he kills Todd after confronting him about Mrs. Lovett, then is found at the meet grinder singing "Patty Cake" in a deranged voice during "The Judge's Return." In the film, it's basically saying the cycle continues: Toby kills Todd in vengeance over Mrs. Lovett. There's no indication he's gone insane (except maybe insane with anger), and he does it all silently and stalks out. The final image is of Sweeney Todd bleeding over his dead wife. (Incidentally, I really hope that they used a molding or something for him to drip on, or that actress got a raw deal, lol.) But, given Burton's desire to keep the focus on Todd, the film's ending concentrated where it should have; plus, as the stage version led back into "The Ballad of Sweeney Todd," which I already stated they had cut, it was perhaps for the best. "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir" was pretty drastically changed as well, but I'm neutral about those changes. What I'm slightly peeved about was the decision not to have Johanna shoot the person at the asylum. In the musical, that's when she finally gets cahones (IMO), and taking it out just makes her seem so useless and insipid. That, on top of paring down her character to almost nothing and how squeaky her voice got sometimes, was a little annoying.

My verdict: Go see the movie! But not if you're looking for a heartwarming holiday movie. Oh God, if that's what you want, see another movie. But if you're a fan of any of the following, it's a must: Stephen Sondheim; Sweeney Todd the stage show; Johnny Depp; Tim Burton; really dark humor.

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**
Reactions:

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Girls Can Be Nerds, Too...

That sounded less dorky in my head, actually...

Anyway, this thought popped into my head as I was doing some final Christmas shopping today at Woodfield Mall. I was passing by Gamer's Paradise and suppressing the urge to go in and poke around. Not because I was ashamed, but because it's usually better to go in with some male accompaniment (usually my brother); otherwise, you get really weird, freaked-out looks from the guys in there. You know what I'm talking about--The "What's a Girl Doing in Here?" Look. Same thing when I go into EB Games by myself; granted, I don't play video games (as I don't have a consul), but I love browsing through their used DVD section ever since I found season 3 of Scrubs for $10 there. And then there was that guy when I was working at WaldenBooks whom I thought was going to propose to me when I actually knew stuff about the X-Men graphic novels he was buying. (In case you were curious, he had a Spiderman Visa card and what looked like Elvish tatooed around his wrist.) And I couldn't help but think, Why is that? Is it so hard to accept that a girl would be checking out the LOTR action figurine set in the window, or searching through the back aisles for any random X-Files action figures, or wandering through the graphic novel aisle and reading things besides that cheesy Manga crap? It's taken awhile for me to come out of my nerdy shell, but now I thoroughly embrace it, so I'd really appreciate it if nerd guys can get a little bit more socially-acclimated and not bore eyes into you when you go into those stores.

Too much to ask, I know, but it's Christmas. :P

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**
Reactions:

Saturday, December 15, 2007

A Buffy Blog

So, in the spirit of procrastination, I've been re-watching my season 1 of Buffy, and I remember how much I loved this show when it was on! Nowhere near the devotion I gave to certain other *cough* shows, but it was the highlight of my WB part of the week--Yes, I'm no longer ashamed to say that my life in junior high and the early part of high school revolved around my TV schedule. I had no life. Not much has changed.

I had basically stopped watching the show after it went to UPN, mainly because I was too lazy to get used to the new time. :P I mean, seriously, Tuesday nights, 7 PM, followed immediately by Angel--How can you improve on that?!? And that got me to thinking about the various Buffy pairings during the series, and I have come to the conclusion that Buffy-Angel was always my favorite. Buffy-Riley was (IMO) a complete waste of time, as he was a schmuck, and I never got into Buffy-Spike. There was just something about the forbidden-ness of Buffy-Angel that was so appealing...And she loved him! Seriously, she loved him in a way that was so sincere that I feel none of the other relationships ever touched it. I guess the ending kinda left it open that they'll get back together someday, but...I wanted something conclusive, damnit! Although they did it in a shitty way, at least CC finally gave us MSR on tXf; why couldn't Joss Whedon have done the same? *pout*

Anyway, I should probably finish the work I have to do before I can go home. I'm so close to going home--YAY!!!

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**
Reactions:

Thursday, December 6, 2007

More Signs That My Obsession Has Turned into Mania...

(It'll be painfully clear what I'm talking about in a minute...)
  • My brother is listed in my cell phonebook as "El Chupacabra."
  • I am writing a paper for film theory on cult TV fandom and tXf.
  • I have already cleared my calendar for July 25, 2008.
  • I have a list of errors written down for a book I'm reading for the ^^above^^ paper's research, and I'm seriously considering sending it into the publisher. (Fear the Future as the title of the feature--Seriously?!? For an academic work, shouldn't you always get at least the factual information correct?) Although the book was published in 2000, so a lot of people have probably already chewed her out for it.
  • I met a girl named "Marita" today and had to suppress the urge to say, "Covarrubias?"
  • I'm actually reading theoretical criticism for fun because it mentions tXf.
More signs sure to surface...

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**
Reactions:

Monday, December 3, 2007

I Need a Hero...

I am SO unbelievably pissed about tonight's season finale of Heroes!

*WARNING: SPOILERS MAY ENSUE. STOP READING IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED IT YET AND WANT TO*

To begin with, this entire second season was under par. With such high standards set up by the first season, you expected something really spectacular. But this season was marked by an excruciatingly slow beginning, and then, just when it started picking up, the writers went on strike! (Just a note: I'm 100% behind the writers; I'm just saying that it was terrible timing for the show.) Thus, what was mapped out to be a 23-episode story arc got truncated into 11, which lent itself to extremely poor character development and a very unsatisfying ending to what could potentially have been a fantastic story line!

Just take the beginning of the season! What we got was Hiro stuck 4 centuries in the past, Claire in a storyline I swear had to be from a rejected Dawson's Creek or Smallville script, far too many episodes of Maya and Alejandro running and accidentally killing people before they meet Sylar, Micah in New Orleans, Nathan with a beard of woe, and Peter looking sexy and sweaty in a storage bin in Scotland. Fine, so they decided to focus a lot on the new characters; we knew we would get answers in the requisite "Four Months Ago" episode, which should be all about what happened with the old characters, right? NO. What we got was about half an hour about Maya and Alejandro, whose story we basically figured out by then, and about 30 minutes with not even everyone else! What we needed was an explanation for why Sylar was even still alive (we got enough hints that the Company saved him, but why? If he was as good as dead anyway, why bother to heal just to give him a virus to take away his power, which death would have done in the first place?), why Nathan wasn't in Congress (having him verbally explain it away is quite the uncreative cop-out), what exactly happened between Parkman and Janice (She played SUCH a huge role in his life in season 1, and just to make her disappear? No...)--In fact, I don't even think Parkman was even in that episode--Mohinder and Mr. Bennett forming the plan to take down the Company...You know, answers for why things were the way they were! The only storyline that was really fully answered was Nikki/Jessica, DL, and Micah's, though I must say the way DL died was highly unsatisfactory. They should've just left it that he died at Kirby Plaza...

This season was also chock full of anticlimactic moments. Everyone wanted to see what happened when Nathan flew away with Peter in "How to Stop an Exploding Man," and what they showed us was far too quick and neat! Did anyone else say, Wow, Peter healed really fast for having just...Exploded? I haven't time it, but I think he actually took longer to heal when Claire pulled the glass out of the back of his head in ".07%." Oh, and what about when Peter finally opened THE BOX in "Fight or Flight," only to have it not tell him anything? I think the biggest waste of time was the buildup of Hiro trying to save his father's life in "Cautionary Tales," only to have them talk? I realize they wanted to get across a particular theme, and maybe that's what they think the Japanese way is, but it was boring. And don't even get me started about poor Alejandro...

I have a feeling that the 12 extra episodes really would have helped characterization and plot development a lot. But still...Heroes reach the point in 2 seasons that it took The X-Men several decades to reach--There were far too many characters! You couldn't even fit them all into one episode and have all their storylines overlap, as tonight's episode showed! That was part of the brilliance of last season's finale--They all ended up in the same place over the same thing! Maybe they were going to do that with the 12 extra episodes, but we'll never know now. And why kill Nathan and Nikki? Why not just kill Micah while you're at it? You already made the boy an orphan. And, really, the way you set it up at Nathan's press conference, you knew he was getting shot; no tension at all. You were just waiting for the bullet! And, really, you made him survive a nuclear explosion just to kill him now in possible the most un-supernatural way possible?

My only solace is that they're being dead is all implied. You never actually see them dead-dead, or hear Nathan pronounced dead or anything. (Even the news just said that Nathan was "shot," not that he was dead.) Hell, if Parkman can survive getting shot 4 times, or if Sylar can get healed from a sword through his stomach and vital organs, why not Nathan? I'm just hoping that, when the writers come back, they'll make this all go away...

~The Original Fong~
**You wish you could pull off being me**
Reactions: