scorpio-x

The more I think about it, the more I wasn't crazy about it. I've always been really fond of "Sweeney Todd" (Yes, I used to have the original cast album. Thank you.), I even made my parents take me to see an in-the-round Broadway production when I was in high school that was quite awesome. But the movie, really, is far too pretty and sanitized--it just isn't grim enough. "Sweeney Todd" is like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as written by Charles Dickens. Not a Cure video. I feel this is largely because Depp & Bonham-Carter were both too young and pretty and sympathetic. Like that whole at-the-sea-quence that seemed to be mostly devoted to getting her dolled up in Gothic Lolita drag. (I mean, she looks fabulous. I love the tatty Victorian outfits. But Mrs. Lovett can not wear a smoky eye and a push-up bra!) And they eliminated my favorite number, where the villain flogs himself while singing hymns and ogling his lovely ward through the peephole.

All I could think was this: "Dammit, if they'd gotten Tom Waits and Marianne Faithful, this would be the greatest film in history." Think of it. Marianne's half-"screw you," half-rueful "Worst Pies in London" (And, on her, the smudged mascara and the hoisted tits would work.) matched only by the chilling glory that would be Waits' "Epiphany" number. (Depp was good and all, but I know Waits' "Care for a shave?" would make the blood freeze in your veins. Remember his ace performance as Renfield in the otherwise kinda excruciating "Dracula?"). And, oh, their cannibalism duet would be so gravelly and witty and perfectly paced. I can see and hear it all so clearly in my mind and, thus, this version--while nice and all--frustrates me even more. Honestly, most of the people who loved this movie seem like they'd love pretty much anything by Tim Burton and/or with Johnny Depp.

This movie has been a favorite of mine since i was a kid--i was very into Greek mythology during grade school, so i loved this film, even though i've seen it about two dozen times (it continues to be a Sunday-afternoon staple on TV). There are a number of mythological inaccuracies in this film (the Kraken wasn't a mythological monster; Perseus didn't have Pegasus, but actually borrowed Hermes' winged sandals, etc.), but it's still a good kids' introduction to ancient mythology. While the actors playing the "mortals" are definitely inferior to those playing the Gods, i suppose it works in the sense of their being the Olympians' puppets and, well, a little limpness in the thespian department is somewhat de rigeur (as is the wise/comic sidekick of Burgess Meredith and the 'little and cute' factor of the mechanical owl) for the kind of classic matinee swashbuckler that "Clash of the Titans" is.

But all these complaints that the Harryhausen effects are crap and it would be so much better done with CGI... well, that's pure craziness. Sure, the monsters don't look convincing, but they look a hell of a lot more convincing then they would as cheap computer animation--can you honestly imagine the Medusa sequence being done any better with some cartoon computer program? (Why? So it could look like the crap in "Phantom Menace"?) I've always felt that Harryhausen's stop-motion technique and the resultant odd way in which the monsters moved added to the sense of their mythic status, their unreality, the sense that these are creatures from another world, another plane. (The recent Asian fantasy/action film "Onmyoji" paid tribute to the master by having a CGI demon army move in Harryhausen stop-motion style and damn me if they didn't look scarier, more unearthly for it.) In my opinion, CGI looks even less "real," more like a painted-on cartoon. There's a depth and detail to creatures that have actually been created in the three-dimensional real world that those who have only existed on a computer screen don't have. Also, no matter how good an actor is, there's a difference between someone who's in the same room with the monster he's fighting, or who at least knows what it looks like, and someone who's just trying to "act scared" in the general direction where something will be inserted later. (Imagine the "Alien" movies made with a hyped-up animated creature: you know that even motionless and plastic squeezed between light stands, that giant H.R. Geiger monster gave everyone on set the creeps.) Maybe people like CGI because they feel safer with obviously fake monsters, things that never even existed as a three-foot high model next to the ham sandwich in someone's shop.

I appreciate the cheesy and inept exploitation flick as much as the next person--in fact, probably a good bit more--but even by by basement standards, "Chrome and Hot Leather" is a piece of crap. The whole story of Green Berets vs. Bikers is lame and unconvincing on all sides, the bikes are nothing special, nor is the riding done on them. But one thing does set this film apart and that would be the presence of the legendary Marvin Gaye as one of the aforementioned military types. And it makes one a bit sorry that he didn't do more acting (his only other dramatic role seems to have been alongside Lee Majors in a similarly forgettable film): Gaye's on-screen presence is as relaxed and charming as his musical style and he was certainly easy on the eyes. Still, what drove him to make supporting appearances in drive-in fodder escapes me--probably the same thing that drove him to train with the Chicago Bears. But, if it's biker trash you want, I suggest the classic "The Wild Angels" or the magnificently sleazy "She-Devils on Wheels." And, if you want to appreciate Marvin Gaye's talent, you might be better off tracking down one of his "Shindig!" or "T.A.M.I. Show" appearances.