DVDizzy Forum

Excellent review Aaron! I'm so excited for this DVD! Your review got me, if possible, even more excited for it!

2099net wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:Dusty, you do not need to convince me as to how awesome Helena was / the best thing in the movie. Her lack of recognition from the Academy / Golden Globes is the biggest snub this year, IMO (had the studio put her in Supporting Actress, I'm sure she would have beat Tilda Swinton, no offense to her).

I'm not so sure about that. Anyone who has seen anything of Tida in real-life will know she is a very... shall we say... unusual personality. In fact, its not just her personality, she has a physical "look" when she moves which is uniquely hers.

I've not seen Michael Clayton (like most of this years Oscar films) but I've seen a number of clips of Tilda's character in it, and she is completely transformed. The bits I've seen, there is no hint of what makes Tilda, Tilda in her performance. And that is good acting - it may be mad acting (I hope she's not one of these "method" actors), but its good.

But meh, the Oscars are a waste of time really because its impossible to pick out single performances or even a small number of nominations for each award. Different films require differnet skills, different expectations and different performances. Its madness to compare Helen to Tilda in the first place.

Okay, I know this took forever but I hope you read this. I saw some of Michael Clayton and I've also seen Tilda in Narnia and at the Oscars accepting her award. True, I haven't paid close attention to her, but she still didn't seem much more different from how she was in other films and "real life" than Helena was in the other films and "real life" moments I've seen her in. Helena certainly acts different, too.

Anyway, I say it doesn't matter what work you put into it, or it does matter but not more than how your acting serves the film. If you act exactly as you always do, and it's perfect for the role you were assigned, that's all you need. Acting isn't just about having a different or interesting character, it's about being effective. Do you make the audience feel? Do you help make the film make the audience feel? Does the audience just think the character was awesome? Does the character just make the audience enjoy the movie more? Is the character believable?

Helena did a near perfect job for the role and the film, answering a lot of the questions I made with YES. So then, maybe it was a little crazy to compare her and Tilda together. You have to consider lost of things when trying to find what and how to compare.

I only read your review of the film itself, Aaron. Good job, I don't exactly agree with everything, like Judge Turpin was not perfectly portrayed, he seemed too smart at times when he wasn't supposed to get why Johanna wouldn't want to marry him. But still a good review, it was smart of you to figure out the film was ironic all throughout, I never realized that's what has probably made it so successful and appealing.

Disney Duster wrote:Okay, I know this took forever but I hope you read this. I saw some of Michael Clayton and I've also seen Tilda in Narnia and at the Oscars accepting her award. True, I haven't paid close attention to her, but she still didn't seem much more different from how she was in other films and "real life" than Helena was in the other films and "real life" moments I've seen her in. Helena certainly acts different, too.

I can agree with this. Of course Helena does. But people (wrongly) get typecast. Helena is specialising in playing "eccentric" characters recently, and while her Sweeny Todd role may (or may not) be an acting tour de force (not seen it - any of it in fact not even clips), I'm just saying I don't assume Tilda didn't deserve her win either. (Helena also has the added barrier of being a "non-dramatic" part). Like I said earlier in either this thread or the B&tB thread, I think comparing one acting performance to another in totally different roles, in films with totally different tone, look and aims is impossible anyway.

Anyway, I say it doesn't matter what work you put into it, or it does matter but not more than how your acting serves the film. If you act exactly as you always do, and it's perfect for the role you were assigned, that's all you need. Acting isn't just about having a different or interesting character, it's about being effective. Do you make the audience feel? Do you help make the film make the audience feel? Does the audience just think the character was awesome? Does the character just make the audience enjoy the movie more? Is the character believable?

Well, I don't agree with that. I love Chris Walken. But let's face it Chris is just Chris in everything he does. Sometimes with a little more menace and sometimes with a little more cheer, but all his characters scream "Chris Walken" down to his manner of movement and speech. I therefore cannot say Chris Walken is an excellent actor. He may be a charismatic actor, and a popular actor. But I can't say he is excellent.

Helena did a near perfect job for the role and the film, answering a lot of the questions I made with YES. So then, maybe it was a little crazy to compare her and Tilda together. You have to consider lost of things when trying to find what and how to compare.

But many people would say Tilda was near perfect for the role in her film. How can you compare one to another? You can't. It's an impossible task. And likewise its unfair to claim an award was snubbed or robbed from a rightful reciepient as a result.

Okay Netty, so we don't agree that an actor is worthy of the award if they act as themselves and it's still go for the film. But you know, sometimes it's hard even acting like yourself (and knowing what that would be), and there's still the abilities to call upon your memories and feel the way you did then to consider, or just producing the right emotion for the right scene, and the right amount, and getting it through to the audience. So if you still don't agree when considering all the other stuff you have to do, fine.

Anyway, I think Helena got a nomination snub, even if she didn't necessarily get robbed of the Oscar itself.

The review was the best I've read!

I avoided this thread till I finally saw the movie. I bought the 2 disc on Tuesday.

It took me a while to get into it. I knew there was singing, but I didn't realize it was like Evita and singing throughout. I plan to rewatched it soon so I can catch what I missed because I wasn't paying attention enough. I started getting into it when Sweeney went to see the competition. "smell like piss, who says this?" had be loling. From then on, I got into the movie much better.

Every single actors was spot on, I felt. Helena included. I thought her acting and singing was very good. Now I can't compare her to Angela Lansbury, because I have never seen the original.

Siren wrote: Now I can't compare her to Angela Lansbury, because I have never seen the original.

Check it out:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R3QACSwtkWc&hl ... ram><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R3QACSwtkWc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

In my opinion, Helena has a much better, more pleasant sounding voice, but Lansbury's is 10x more powerful and has more presence.

I agree. I like Helena's take on Mrs. Lovett. Her soft voice can sound so innocent, even when she sings of the worst pies or cannibalism and murder, she still sounds so innocent. And that is scary. That she can sing about murder like it was singing about bluebirds in spring.

To those who have commented so kindly on the review, thanks for doing so. It's been nice to see comments that evidence attention to the critique, which makes writing the review all the more rewarding. As for HBC's singing as compared to AL, I think "A Little Priest" (my favorite song in the show/movie) is a better point of comparison:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2gyl8a140Tc&hl ... ram><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2gyl8a140Tc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

-Aaron

I like everyone's take on Lovett. And by "everyone", I mean Anglea, Helena, and Patti in the concert version but not as much in the revival. As wonderful as Angela is onstage, you simply cannot play Mrs. Lovett like that on film. It would look like a cartoon. Likewise, Helena couldn't play Lovett onstage.

SpringHeelJack wrote:As wonderful as Angela is onstage, you simply cannot play Mrs. Lovett like that on film. It would look like a cartoon. Likewise, Helena couldn't play Lovett onstage.

Exactly! I wish some people would realize that though. Film and stage are two different mediums, and thus require two different styles of performance.

lord-of-sith wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:As wonderful as Angela is onstage, you simply cannot play Mrs. Lovett like that on film. It would look like a cartoon. Likewise, Helena couldn't play Lovett onstage.

Exactly! I wish some people would realize that though. Film and stage are two different mediums, and thus require two different styles of performance.

While I agree with that on Lovett (other thouse than liking Patti) I stand by my opinion that Turpin & Todd were still completely and utterly wrong.

SpringHeelJack wrote:As wonderful as Angela is onstage, you simply cannot play Mrs. Lovett like that on film. It would look like a cartoon. Likewise, Helena couldn't play Lovett onstage.

Agreed. I have no problem with HBC's performance of Mrs. Lovett; in fact, I prefer it... but I'm not sure the strength of the acting justifies casting someone who can't do the music justice.

-Aaron

I got the DVD last night but one thing did catch my eye online. In 9 days the Lansbury/Hearn performance will be re-released with nicer (more movie like) cover art in a keepcase and for a lower SRP. The disc itself should stay the same.

AwallaceUNC wrote:I'm not sure the strength of the acting justifies casting someone who can't do the music justice.

-Aaron

See, I see what you mean with that, but for me, acting > musical ability. I'd much rather have an actor throwing themselves 100% into a vocal performance than just have someone with a pleasant voice sing it nicely with no emotion behind it. Sondheim is typically acting over singing, which he has often stated. For example, Elaine Stritch has limited skills as a chanteuse, but her performance of "The Ladies Who Lunch" is legendary for a good reason. Ditto for Glynis Johns, Zero Mostel, Judi Dench, etc.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

AwallaceUNC wrote:I'm not sure the strength of the acting justifies casting someone who can't do the music justice.

-Aaron

See, I see what you mean with that, but for me, acting > musical ability. I'd much rather have an actor throwing themselves 100% into a vocal performance than just have someone with a pleasant voice sing it nicely with no emotion behind it.

In a different movie musical, I'd probably sign on board with you on that statement. <i>Sweeney Todd</i> goes beyond normal musical territory, though, and is essentially an operetta. The movie relies on singing as its primary source of storytelling and communication between characters and Mrs. Lovett is one of the primary characters (in the stage adaptation, you might argue she had a bigger role than Sweeney himself). It's a contradiction to advance singing as your narrative platform and then skimp on the singing ability when casting. It isn't fair to the audience, either, who is already taking a bit of a risk by sitting down for two hours of almost non-stop song, to ask that they endure "just okay" singing from a lead character.

Now, in defending my stance here, I'm harping on this issue more than I normally would... as I said in my review, I do think HBC gets away with it (just barely). She's a great actress and she isn't even a terrible singer. If this were a shorter movie with much less singing and less demanding songs, I'd probably have no problem whatsoever.

-Aaron

The thing is...I loved Helena's singing. I thought it was beautiful. That's really all I have to say about that. I loved it.

And not being able to sing fantabulously fits her character. She has "limited wind", is weak and is struggling to survive, so it makes sense she might sruggle too with the notes, after being beaten down by life all those years. Yet her voice still has sweetness. That's her character, she tries to be sweet and motherly and loving through all the grim, dark situations. That's not how Angela did it, and so it fits Angela's more bawdy, boisterous character to have a stronger, louder...and I guess to many, better...voice.

I prefer Helena's singing way over Angela's for the part.

I thought Helena had a nicer voice as well.

I watched the features on my dvd a few days ago and a lot of them were intriguing, especially the moviefone segment with Depp and Burton.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/ ... oween/1854

Our favorite flesh-cutting, life-killing, people-eating musical is coming to Blu-ray.

I would totally buy this again if it had a better release (since I already have the 2-Discer).