These people are sick motherfuckers. Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, Stephen Sondheim, Helena Carter... sick, sick motherfuckers.
If my first paragraph makes you want to see this movie, then chances are you'll enjoy it on one level or another. If not, then you just might be traumatized.
I knew nothing at all about this movie going into it. Turns out it's a musical based on a Broadway hit. The premise of it is that Sweeny Todd is a slightly insane barber returning to London seeking revenge. After meeting up with the owner of a meat pie business, Mrs. Lovett, opening his barbershop upstairs, and deciding that the entire damn city deserves to die, he becomes a serial killer. Basically, anytime someone comes in for a shave, he slits their throat. All of this is set to the delightful sounds of Broadway musical music.
I told you they were sick motherfuckers. Now, about the music. This is one of the rare musicals that really focuses much more on the story than the music. Only a few of the simplistic tunes are memorable (usually the ones that are repeated three or more times throughout), and the quality of the singers was put on hold in favor of very solid acting. With that said, the music is by no means painful to listen to, and a lot of it honestly sounds good. Although Depp (the male lead, mind you) shows clear signs of struggling with the range of his part and the recording shows signs of pitch correction, he does keep his part well within character. Carter, likewise, isn't the world's sweetest soprano, but she fits the part. Ironically, the most painful musical performances in the movie come from the two young people, who are the only two characters who really have to sound like good singers. Johanna is supposed to sound like a bird (thus the lyrics in the scene I'm referring to). If the sound coming from that woman's voice is that of a bird, then this bird is probably a baby ostrich with a broken neck. Okay, so I'm exaggerating; she's not that bad, but they really needed a better voice in her part. I would like to stress, though, that despite all of the shortcomings that I could nitpick for hours, the music is solid overall, in terms of both the score and the performances.
With all that said, the acting here is really good. Johnny Depp is an incredibly sinister Sweeny Todd; it's almost scary. Half of it is just that look on his face, but really, it's convincing. The other major roles are also very believable. Even Sacha Baron Cohen (yes, ladies and gentlemen, Borat) is very fitting in his intentionally comical role.
Before I get too far from the subject of music, this movie really would not have worked nearly as effectively as it does if it were not a musical. Watching blood spurt from someone's neck for more than a few seconds at a time to the sweet sounds of delightful showtunes is a large part of this film's atmosphere.
The other major part is the lighting. Shadows, shadows everywhere. And light... to highlight the shadows. The biggest part of it though, is that the color is toned down by a lot in all of the scenes of reality in the movie (in other words, everything that isn't a flashback looks very, very gray).
And I'm not even to the best part yet. This movie is funny. Some of the darkest humor I've ever seen adds even more to the sinister, yet... funny... air about the film. Most of this very dark humor is intentional, though not overdone for the most part. The rest comes from how much of a sick son of a bitch you are.
Sweeny Todd is not for the squeamish. It's loaded with gore, but it's not a horror movie. It's a musical; it's a dark comedy; and it's gruesome. If you're interested after reading my review, then chances are strong that you'll like it. If I had to pick one thing that it does best, I'd say that it conveys a mood, which varies from one scene to another. So although the music won't have you rocking out on your CD player and the story won't exactly lift your spirits (unless you're a sick, sick person), this is, shall we say, a solid work of filmmaking. While not revolutionary per se, it just works.
Caius's rating: 4 stars
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Golden Compass Review
Ok guys, I promise this is my last entry tonight. I just wanted to do my intro to the blog and then get to this. Entries from now on will be far less frequent, but I'll try to keep it updated as I see new things. So today I saw The Golden Compass, and afterwards, I started reading the book. My girlfriend has read the book already, so any comparisons I make between the movie and the book are based on her discussion of it, with the exception of the first 50 pages, which I read earlier tonight.
If you've seen previews for this movie and have a particular expectation in mind, then you're probably going to get more or less what you expected. It's an undeniably fun adventure, and although kids will enjoy it too, I really think it's geared more toward teenagers and adults, simply because it's so much more mature than, say, the Harry Potter series, and only adults will catch a lot of the social commentary, even when it's really explicit.
The story follows a young girl named Lyra who lives in a world similar to ours, but in a parallel universe. Her uncle, Lord Asriel, discovers a connection between universes called Dust and seeks to find a way to travel to these other worlds. Lyra, eager to learn more about all this, is tricked by Mrs. Coulter, who seeks to keep everything a secret in the interest of maintaining order. Lyra ends up on the run in possession of an alethiometer, or golden compass, an object which is known simply as something which tells the truth. Meanwhile, children are disappearing... Oh, and there are kickass giant polar bears in there somewhere.
This story is loaded with social commentary, which was undoubtedly planned from the beginning. It's a parallel universe; how hard can it be to make commentary on our world? Yeah. Even so, I should probably note that as with most movies like this, the controversy over it is absolutely ridiculous. So yeah, back to it, there are a number of references to our governments and religious authorities, with a heavy emphasis on the harmful effects of dogma. So if you're into fantasy with social commentary (Lord of the Rings anyone?) then you'll definitely get it here, both subtly and explicitly.
The problem in the plot comes mostly in transitions. I kept getting the feeling that a lot of the events were too random and arbitrary. I kept asking myself things like "Why would she do that with no good reason?" "Where did they just come from?" and even "How do these characters know each other?" It's really not as huge of an issue as it might sound like, but it is noticeable, less so, I suppose, if you've read the book. The other thing is that unlike in the book, the movie's intro reveals a lot about the world in which the story takes place. As a result, we completely lose the effect of learning what daemons and Dust really are. It's a real disappointment, but people who haven't read the book won't notice. The ending is very weak, even considering that it's only the first of a three part set. I was told that the book ended in a different place, which made for a better ending. It's not without its reason though; having the ending where it is puts the climax in the right place (keeping in mind that some events are out of order from the book).
The acting is surprisingly solid. Nicole Kidman plays a surprisingly convincing Mrs. Coulter, and young Lyra is quite good, aside from a lack of desperation in a few scenes. Some of you will have the same problem I had while watching the movie though: I never got past the fact that James Bond, Count Dooku, Hagrid, and Gandalf were all in the same movie. I couldn't help but wish for the giant polar bear to say "You shall not pass!" The good thing is that that'll make for a good time with friends once the DVD comes out.
The CG effects are great, and the polar bears and daemons look very realistic, with just the right amount of hints of human features. The cinematography and editing are well done, despite some slightly jumpy cuts, although it lacks the gorgeous landscapes of such films as The Lord of the Rings. The soundtrack, likewise, certainly serves its purpose well, but it will never be on par with the best.
Overall, what we have here is a very fun and exciting adventure movie that's at the very least worth going to see. While it's not the greatest work of high fantasy in film, it's miles ahead of all the movies in the Harry Potter series, so if you wanted something on that level but far more mature, then this is it. And if you're more into action than fantasy, see it anyway if only for the fight scene between giant, kickass polar bears. You know you want to. I wouldn't quite recommend it for younger kids, but I think that a lot of adults and teens will get a kick out of it.
Caius's rating: 3.5 stars
If you've seen previews for this movie and have a particular expectation in mind, then you're probably going to get more or less what you expected. It's an undeniably fun adventure, and although kids will enjoy it too, I really think it's geared more toward teenagers and adults, simply because it's so much more mature than, say, the Harry Potter series, and only adults will catch a lot of the social commentary, even when it's really explicit.
The story follows a young girl named Lyra who lives in a world similar to ours, but in a parallel universe. Her uncle, Lord Asriel, discovers a connection between universes called Dust and seeks to find a way to travel to these other worlds. Lyra, eager to learn more about all this, is tricked by Mrs. Coulter, who seeks to keep everything a secret in the interest of maintaining order. Lyra ends up on the run in possession of an alethiometer, or golden compass, an object which is known simply as something which tells the truth. Meanwhile, children are disappearing... Oh, and there are kickass giant polar bears in there somewhere.
This story is loaded with social commentary, which was undoubtedly planned from the beginning. It's a parallel universe; how hard can it be to make commentary on our world? Yeah. Even so, I should probably note that as with most movies like this, the controversy over it is absolutely ridiculous. So yeah, back to it, there are a number of references to our governments and religious authorities, with a heavy emphasis on the harmful effects of dogma. So if you're into fantasy with social commentary (Lord of the Rings anyone?) then you'll definitely get it here, both subtly and explicitly.
The problem in the plot comes mostly in transitions. I kept getting the feeling that a lot of the events were too random and arbitrary. I kept asking myself things like "Why would she do that with no good reason?" "Where did they just come from?" and even "How do these characters know each other?" It's really not as huge of an issue as it might sound like, but it is noticeable, less so, I suppose, if you've read the book. The other thing is that unlike in the book, the movie's intro reveals a lot about the world in which the story takes place. As a result, we completely lose the effect of learning what daemons and Dust really are. It's a real disappointment, but people who haven't read the book won't notice. The ending is very weak, even considering that it's only the first of a three part set. I was told that the book ended in a different place, which made for a better ending. It's not without its reason though; having the ending where it is puts the climax in the right place (keeping in mind that some events are out of order from the book).
The acting is surprisingly solid. Nicole Kidman plays a surprisingly convincing Mrs. Coulter, and young Lyra is quite good, aside from a lack of desperation in a few scenes. Some of you will have the same problem I had while watching the movie though: I never got past the fact that James Bond, Count Dooku, Hagrid, and Gandalf were all in the same movie. I couldn't help but wish for the giant polar bear to say "You shall not pass!" The good thing is that that'll make for a good time with friends once the DVD comes out.
The CG effects are great, and the polar bears and daemons look very realistic, with just the right amount of hints of human features. The cinematography and editing are well done, despite some slightly jumpy cuts, although it lacks the gorgeous landscapes of such films as The Lord of the Rings. The soundtrack, likewise, certainly serves its purpose well, but it will never be on par with the best.
Overall, what we have here is a very fun and exciting adventure movie that's at the very least worth going to see. While it's not the greatest work of high fantasy in film, it's miles ahead of all the movies in the Harry Potter series, so if you wanted something on that level but far more mature, then this is it. And if you're more into action than fantasy, see it anyway if only for the fight scene between giant, kickass polar bears. You know you want to. I wouldn't quite recommend it for younger kids, but I think that a lot of adults and teens will get a kick out of it.
Caius's rating: 3.5 stars
About my evaluation system
Before I start reviewing things (i.e. The Golden Compass, which I saw today... full review to come), it is important to understand how I evaluate things. For the purpose of this explanation, I will relate everything to movies since that's probably what I'll review the most, but the same criteria will affect other media as well.
I reluctantly rate movies on a 5 star scale. I normally don't like this because it is impossible to sum up the quality or appeal of a movie in a number, but I think it does help to give people a basic idea if they only take a quick glance, and also as a word-free summary of my opinion of the movie. I try my best to evaluate movies not just based on my own personal taste, but there will always be disagreement about every movie, and I readily admit that my opinion is really no better than anyone else's. Also note that if two movies receive the same rating, that does not necessarily mean that I think they are approximately equal in quality.
The following is an explanation of what my ratings mean. Each section will close with examples of movies that fall into that range so you get an idea of how I classify them.
1/2 star: I always give movies at least a half star just for existing. Unfortunately, the appeal of some movies goes little farther than that. While some people will like some parts of half-star movies for some reasons, they are movies that I would generally classify as "bad." This is rare in my evaluations. Examples: Pearl Harbor, The Omen (2006)
1-1.5 stars: Movies in this range usually have some kind of undeniable appeal, but as a whole, they tend to be below average. While some people would defend them to the bitter end, these films do not stand out above the rest. In some cases, movies that have a good concept but fall short in execution would fall into this category. Examples: Signs, Star Wars: Episode 1, Legally Blonde, The Fountain
2-2.5 stars: These movies are what I call "average." What I mean is not that they are necessarily mediocre, but simply that they are, at best, on par with what is typical. Therefore, I put a lot of movies in this range. This includes movies that even I would call good, but that don't do anything to push their genre or to stand out in general. Fans of the genre will probably appreciate these movies, but they are not for everyone. Examples: Crank, Wedding Crashers, The Wizard of Oz, Unbreakable
3-3.5 stars: If I give a movie at least 3 stars, then I think it's good overall. Typically, they are movies with a lot of potential but that have noticeable flaws or don't live up to their potential. While they may not be for everyone, it is usually safe to say that they are well-made overall. Examples: Spiderman, The Golden Compass, Star Wars, Shrek
4-4.5 stars: These movies are what I call excellent. Although obviously not everyone will like them, it is very hard to deny that they are high quality films, or that they are notably exceptional within their genre, usually both. The typical reader can consider the 4.5 star rating as my effective "5 stars" since I almost never rate a movie 5 stars. A 4.5 star movie, and to a lesser extent the 4 star movie, is the top of the line, just not the very highest peak. Examples: Gattaca, Life of Brian, Spiderman 2, Saw
5 stars: This rating is reserved for what I think are the very best movies. Although no movie is perfect, and I can go on and on about the flaws of even these movies, they truly stand out to me as the top tier of films and filmmaking. Kudos. Examples: The Fellowship of the Ring, Memento, The Godfather
I reluctantly rate movies on a 5 star scale. I normally don't like this because it is impossible to sum up the quality or appeal of a movie in a number, but I think it does help to give people a basic idea if they only take a quick glance, and also as a word-free summary of my opinion of the movie. I try my best to evaluate movies not just based on my own personal taste, but there will always be disagreement about every movie, and I readily admit that my opinion is really no better than anyone else's. Also note that if two movies receive the same rating, that does not necessarily mean that I think they are approximately equal in quality.
The following is an explanation of what my ratings mean. Each section will close with examples of movies that fall into that range so you get an idea of how I classify them.
1/2 star: I always give movies at least a half star just for existing. Unfortunately, the appeal of some movies goes little farther than that. While some people will like some parts of half-star movies for some reasons, they are movies that I would generally classify as "bad." This is rare in my evaluations. Examples: Pearl Harbor, The Omen (2006)
1-1.5 stars: Movies in this range usually have some kind of undeniable appeal, but as a whole, they tend to be below average. While some people would defend them to the bitter end, these films do not stand out above the rest. In some cases, movies that have a good concept but fall short in execution would fall into this category. Examples: Signs, Star Wars: Episode 1, Legally Blonde, The Fountain
2-2.5 stars: These movies are what I call "average." What I mean is not that they are necessarily mediocre, but simply that they are, at best, on par with what is typical. Therefore, I put a lot of movies in this range. This includes movies that even I would call good, but that don't do anything to push their genre or to stand out in general. Fans of the genre will probably appreciate these movies, but they are not for everyone. Examples: Crank, Wedding Crashers, The Wizard of Oz, Unbreakable
3-3.5 stars: If I give a movie at least 3 stars, then I think it's good overall. Typically, they are movies with a lot of potential but that have noticeable flaws or don't live up to their potential. While they may not be for everyone, it is usually safe to say that they are well-made overall. Examples: Spiderman, The Golden Compass, Star Wars, Shrek
4-4.5 stars: These movies are what I call excellent. Although obviously not everyone will like them, it is very hard to deny that they are high quality films, or that they are notably exceptional within their genre, usually both. The typical reader can consider the 4.5 star rating as my effective "5 stars" since I almost never rate a movie 5 stars. A 4.5 star movie, and to a lesser extent the 4 star movie, is the top of the line, just not the very highest peak. Examples: Gattaca, Life of Brian, Spiderman 2, Saw
5 stars: This rating is reserved for what I think are the very best movies. Although no movie is perfect, and I can go on and on about the flaws of even these movies, they truly stand out to me as the top tier of films and filmmaking. Kudos. Examples: The Fellowship of the Ring, Memento, The Godfather
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Welcome!
A warm welcome to my (few) readers. I am new to blogging, so I thought instead of doing anything fancy, I would just use it to post my thoughts about movies, music, video games, and the like: things I enjoy talking about that relate to things many of you like to talk about too.
First, a bit of background; not that there's much to say. I have been a long-time lover of entertainment in various forms, and I am currently a communication studies major at UNC. Once I started taking a serious critical look at various forms of entertainment (despite having no experience in this area... that's just how I roll), I started writing movie reviews for ifitsmovies.com back when it was frequently updated. Now, all I can do is talk. It's time to get it all in writing again! Only this time, I'll tackle more than just movies... basically whatever I see/hear/whatever that I want to discuss.
I also want to note that I will take requests for reviews of movies, CDs, etc. but I should mention that my resources are limited so I make no guarantees. Comments and discussions are also welcome. Please enjoy.
-Caius
First, a bit of background; not that there's much to say. I have been a long-time lover of entertainment in various forms, and I am currently a communication studies major at UNC. Once I started taking a serious critical look at various forms of entertainment (despite having no experience in this area... that's just how I roll), I started writing movie reviews for ifitsmovies.com back when it was frequently updated. Now, all I can do is talk. It's time to get it all in writing again! Only this time, I'll tackle more than just movies... basically whatever I see/hear/whatever that I want to discuss.
I also want to note that I will take requests for reviews of movies, CDs, etc. but I should mention that my resources are limited so I make no guarantees. Comments and discussions are also welcome. Please enjoy.
-Caius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)