More 'Sweeney' takes come rushing in...
First and foremost, Jeffrey Wells has written perhaps the most schizophrenic review of his career. In one fell swoop he both calls the film "lifting," "arousing" and a Best Picture "lock," while at the same time considering it "so near yet so far" due to director Tim Burton's insistence on a bloody gore-fest.Take out the general enthusiasm and you have my view entirely. Buried somewhere in that review is the dichotomy the film presents, the depth of metaphor and potential that is perhaps rendered lifeless due to one-dimensionality. But I'll get to those notions elsewhere.
David Poland also went ga-ga, claiming that Johnny Depp is "still likely to win" Best Actor, but that the film "is a very, very hard movie to judge objectively as someone who knows and loves the show."
And David Carr -- The Carpetbagger -- didn't exactly do cartwheels, but says that "Tim Burton’s evocation of darkest London was on par with the film version of Paris in 'Moulin Rouge.'" He says the film has a tough road to hoe for a Best Picture nomination, but that "Johnny Depp will sing and slice his way into the best actor category with alacrity."
Red Carpet District is Variety contributor Kristopher Tapley's attempt at making sense of the ever-expanding glut of film awards coverage. He's been on the beat for six years. Email 
You seem to be doing a lot less prognosticating and doing a lot more of criticizing. Shouldn’t you be analyzing trends, reporting on things, and discussing a film’s merits? I would like to see more of what the film can do, and not what it certainly cannot achieve. Where in your job description does it say that you can bash a film, calling it “one-dimensional?†If your job is to aggregate others’ opinions and buzz, you are at fault here for changing content, synthesizing in the wrong manner, and possibly, libel. I’d also like to point out that if you are the only one who thinks that Sweeney is completely out of the running, then your prognostications probably need to be rechecked.
Posted by: Jeff | 12/3/2007 4:18:16 PM
I thought there was a certain "professional courtesy" extended among critics. Calling someone else''s remarks (we all know there are no "reviews" per se yet) "the most schizophrenic review he''s ever written" seems personal and petty to me and to a lot of other people as well, it seems. Your own reaction was interesting, Kris. You should have just stuck with that.
Posted by: cass | 12/1/2007 7:28:59 AM
Rather heavy handed comments in this thread, I must say. Maybe it''s just cuz it''s VERY early in the morning here & I recently returned from a decidedly UNDERWHELMING screening of I''m Not There. But I can''t say I grasp the viciousness. This is Kris'' blog, after all. He offered his own opinions on ST at In Contention. Now he''s commenting on other peoples'' viewpoints. Hardly a capitol crime. It isn''t required reading, boys & girls. Nobody is putting a gun to your pretty little heads. Regardless of BO or how many Oscars ST does (or DOESN''T) win, I''m sure we''ll all survive. I wonder what in the hell the reaction will be when awards season really gets going. There will be blood indeed...
Posted by: Sherry | 12/1/2007 6:52:37 AM
an*
Posted by: anne | 11/30/2007 6:40:19 PM
dont cry baby.... you're already a old man....
Posted by: anne | 11/30/2007 6:39:54 PM
Sure, I offered a brief personal reaction, but the whole rest of the post was simply forwarding other reactions. And come on. Making fun of their opinions? I don't think that's what I was doing at all. Ah well, my own full take is up now so hopefully it speaks for itself.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | 11/30/2007 4:59:26 PM
Kris - how are you conveying "nothing else" when you say "Take out the general enthusiasm and you have my view entirely" and in the same turn refer to the "one-dimensionality". Unless you've structured your thoughts in a confusing manner, it's a fair assumption that if you're not enthusiastic over the film, your views on it aren't very positive. That said, I like that you respond to your commentators - I'll be a reader going forward for sure. Cheers!
Posted by: James | 11/30/2007 4:42:08 PM
Actually, looking over the post (you know, to make sure I'm not crazy), it seems to me yej is the only one here that gets that I was conveying positive sentiments of others and......nothing else.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | 11/30/2007 3:35:29 PM
WOW. Let's see if I can approach this correctly......A) I'm not making fun of these people's opinions. The only review I even knocked around a LITTLE was Wells', which speaks for itself in that it's obviously torn and unfocused. The rest I quoted verbatim, and anything being read into those notions has nothing to do with me putting them into some sort of invented context......B) I haven't offered an opinion because I was holding off until Monday, as per the weird embargo-ish thing, so I don't have anything prepared. But I'll get to it soon enough. However, the rising tempers in here seem to recall the false notions that I hated "There Will Be Blood" upon posting a simple item last month.......C)The purpose of this blog is to aggregate other opinions and buzz, and that's what I'm doing by posting these links here. That anyone would get so upset about that is beyond me, but people take things too seriously in every single Oscar season......D) Meltdown? Some people have really skewed perspectives on things.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | 11/30/2007 3:34:14 PM
What's with the meltdown Tapley?
Posted by: KubrickDiablo | 11/30/2007 3:10:41 PM
Kris - why are you so bent out of shape over other people's opinion? We get it. You found it underwhelming. Your final review will be as little a shock as the upcoming reviews from the other bloggers you are criticizing. **YAWN**
Posted by: James | 11/30/2007 3:04:24 PM
Remember, these aren't the critics or reviewers... they're just the horserace handicappers. It's fascinating, tho, that all the Sondheim-loving skeptics have been completely won over, and most of the critics. It's only the business suits and their Variety/HollywoodReporter lackeys who still doubt.
Posted by: adamblast | 11/30/2007 3:02:14 PM
Okay, so you don't like the film. You are entitled to your opinion. However it makes you look awfully childish to be so dismissive of anyone who happens to like the film. It is possible for an opinion other than yours to exist.
Posted by: mickey | 11/30/2007 2:59:05 PM
Chaka, that wasn't really neccessary. True, Kris may be baffling at times (his distaste for "No Country for Old Men," for instance), but he's still a valuable resource and a dedicated journalist, and based on the conversations I've had with him, a decent human being.
Posted by: yej | 11/30/2007 2:59:03 PM
you seem to be fairly useless at this point, it seems you wont post your impressions (even though i think i can guess them) despite everyone else doing that. you seem like you are bored and just full of yourself, is this all you do make fun of others opinions! wow makes me want to really trust your view of life, and the movie for that matter.
Posted by: Chaka | 11/30/2007 2:31:52 PM
So, in a nutshell, so far, you've mainly been criticizing the criticisms of other critics. Riveting.
Posted by: wlkingbluepirate | 11/30/2007 1:25:15 PM
You’re taking the raves that are coming in rather harshly.
Posted by: ghost75 | 11/30/2007 1:20:22 PM
So... so far you seem to the be the odd man out. Who to trust?
Posted by: yej | 11/30/2007 1:12:25 PM