L'échoppe des horreurs

I suppose I should not be too harsh, since this is an American TV movie, and neither a quality British product nor a feature film. But Sweeney Todd was ultimately a disappointment.

On the plus side, the film was enthusiastic about the cannibalism and murder at the heart of the story. These subjects certainly weren't skirted around. Nor were the central characters made into heroes. There was never any doubt that the villainous Mr Todd and his butcher accomplice would pay for their crimes. There was only a faint echo of the modern idea that a criminal is the product of society, and that Todd's crimes were the product of a negligent military. But this was only hinted at.

The major problem was lack of authenticity and a period feel. The Irish street scenes were physically right for early nineteenth century London, but the people were wrong. They were exaggerated characters, caricatures. Everything over over-acted, over directed, over-blown! Basically the director tried too hard to create a period feel.

A good effort, but not good enough. A waste of acting talent

I liked this more than did most of the reviewers, but mainly for the visual aspects of the film. First of all, I am not used to TV movies with production values, sets, costumes, and atmospherics on this plane. If this were a theatrical film, it would probably have received a few Academy Award nominations for those sets and costumes, but they are quickly forgotten (as are good performances) in most TV fare. Anyway, this entire film has a claustrophobic and rather dirty atmosphere. One looks at just about every scene, even those taking place a bit away from the general mayhem, and wonders how people could have brought themselves to get out of bed every morning to face another day of such filth, degradation, and mayhem. Even the clean-cut heroine of the film is a barmaid fully capable of twisting a tough man's arm behind his back and throwing him out of the pub in which she works. The people who work in Mrs. Lovett's pie emporium (well, we have to call it something) look like denizens of Hell, and that is no exaggeration, for to a large extent that is what they are. And there is a sense of pure horror that pervades just about every scene and location that is quite outside the secret horror that is going on thanks to Mr. Todd and Mrs. Lovett. Next to this, THE BEGGAR'S OPERA is a day at the seaside! Outside the atmospherics, there are the performances, and with Ben Kingsley, Joanna Lumley and Campbell Scott doing the honors, we are in good hands, even though one might not really wish to remember the first two as characters of this much reprehensibility. Will I ever see Ms. Lumley again without mental recourse to her decaying teeth? But they do their job well, and Mr. Scott, as a character of scant nobility who stands out as a paragon of virtue next to many of the other characters (he's the hero!) also does well in a role that could have been tailored for his dad in his earlier career (but George C. would also have done extremely well as Sweeney Todd at any time). Anyway, not a pleasant viewing experience by a long shot, but should a story about (even unwary) cannibalism be a pleasant viewing experience even under the best of circumstances?

This is a mildly diverting take on the Sweeney Todd tale with good performances by Ben Kingsley in the title role, and Joanna Lumley as an enterprising Mrs. Lovett with rotten teeth. Those of you who have seen the recent Depp movie and/or the Broadway version will find that the back story has been changed completely. Not wanting to give anything away, I will only say that the Swiftian social satire element of the original Sondheim version has pretty much fallen by the wayside.

Users here comment on the convincing 19th century atmosphere, but judging by the costumes and wigs, the setting is clearly late 18th century London and not 19th century Dublin although the movie was filmed there. There is even a small reference to the French Revolution so I would place it in about the 1790s. Having said that, costume, street scenes and general filth look very true to the late 1700s.

Unfortunately, the anemic musical score is not a good one and it actually detracts from the horror and ghoulishness of the film. On the other hand, the film is a good deal less gory than the 2007 version which may make it more appealing to the squeamish.

I started watching this one with no hopes that it'd be any good but, for my surprise, I enjoyed this classical story until the end. Acclaimed director John Schlesinger and Campbell Scott had worked together before in "The Innocent". Campbell Scott, by the way, defines his character in very positive way and he does look 'cool'. The costumes and art direction are excellent, especially since this is a TV movie (one of the best TV movies I've ever seen, because I don't usually watch them and, when I do, I usually hate it).

Plus there's beautiful young English actress, Selina Boyack, she is one of the best things about this movie. I'd say she might turn out to be famous some time soon.

And this movie is better than at least 70% or 80% of the movies we see around. If you get the chance, don't miss this one, I promise you that you'll like it.

This TV-movie ranks as one of the two best versions of the classic tale of Sweeney Todd, the other one being - of course - the 1936 black-&-white movie starring Tod Slaughter.Ben Kingsley and Joanna Lumley are terrific - and their approach of the famous characters is in the true spirit of horror melodrama: a perilous "exercice de style" between horror and comedy. All the other actors are excellent, the sets are wonderful in their creepiness, a touch of gore is added to good measure, and Schlesinger's direction is faultless. This TV-movie could be shown in movie theaters, as a "legitimate" picture - in fact, it's well above most of the current movies...

Incidentally, this version is an Irish-British coproduction, certainly not "an American production" as wrongly mentioned in some posts.