Console best movie i've ever seen.

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

funkyfry This 1930s version of "Sweeney Todd" features enough grim humor to keep a modern audience involved, but there's little nuance or shading in this tale of horror. Todd in this version is an entirely villainous character; his behavior which has been of more psychological interest in recent versions based mostly on Sondheim's musical is treated in this film as a purely criminal case.As I am myself mostly familiar with this later version, some elements in this one seemed arbitrary or contrived, and furthermore lacking in the irony the follows a late 20th century treatment of this kind of heavy melodrama. Melodrama, for those accustomed to only its casual and rather useless modern adjectival usage, is the classic form of storytelling where 2 perfect lovers are kept apart by some kind of circumstance or villainy that must be overcome, usually (in the formula) by means of a sacrifice on the part of a concerned 3rd party. In the case of this story, the lovers are Johanna (Eve Lister) and Mark (Bruce Seton); the obstacle to their union is the disapproval of her father (D.J. Williams) because Mark is a working man. To gain his fortune, Mark gains passage on the disapproving would-be father in law's boat. This would seem a recipe for disaster, but in this rather optimistic version of the story everyone on the ship loves Mark like a brother.Now comes the really insanely contrived part; when passing around the Cape of Good Hope, Mark's ship is hailed by the servant of a colonist whose home is being attacked by angry natives. Of course being a bunch of heroic merchant seamen, all the guys on the ship want to volunteer to fight the savage natives. These natives are really something to see, right out of a Monogram Jungle Jim movie. Their vocabulary seems to consist entirely of the phrase "la la la la la!", and they are horrible shots with the bow and arrow except when they need to shoot the captain and the colonist so that Mark can inherit a bag of pearls that will win his fortune and enable him to marry Johanna.Given how simple the plot is -- Todd and Mrs. Lovatt (Stella Rho, giving the film's only reasonably subtle performance) kill people and take their money -- it's disappointing how contrived some of these elements are, and how confusing the story gets. I still don't understand why Mark and his bumbling comic relief friend snuck into Todd's house, why Mark sent a note to Johanna, and why he was surprised when Johanna responded to his note by impersonating a servant boy and sneaking into Todd's barber shop. Mark and his friends are eating and drinking (his buddy speculates on what Todd and Lovatt do with the bodies while he munches on a yummy meat pie, one of the film's only hints to that aspect of the story) when they're supposed to be stopping Todd from fleeing. It all seems weird and forced.But then, this whole film really should rise and fall on Tod Slaughter's performance as Sweeney Todd. And I think perhaps a volume could be written on that alone. Slaughter is the very definition of late 19th Century stage acting. His gestures and mannerisms are deliberate and flashy, and even when he pauses for a moment of characterization (like the wonderful pause after dragging his first victim when he absent-mindedly runs his razor across his own face) there's a conscious aspect to the workings of the performance. This is a performance not unlike the one that I imagine made John Balderston famous for "Frankenstein" in the 1920s. And it's a good case study in the old "Grand Guignol" style of acting. Slaughter seems to relish the villainy -- he doesn't make you squirm in discomfort, but rather makes the whole thing a lark. I imagine this guy played Macbeth more than once. As far as the tradition of "horror acting", he is closer to Lugosi and far from Karloff. However the performance becomes irritating because of his screen time. There's only so many times we can hear him laugh villainously before it becomes annoying.What is this film, on the whole? It's a movie that young men in 1936 would have taken their girlfriends to see, so that they could laugh when the ladies complained about it afterwards. It's deliberately shocking and provocative entertainment that is no longer shocking. Once you get past a humorous framing device involving a "modern day" barber (sort of a sub-Langian device), there isn't much actual entertainment here sadly. The direction is uninspired and the storytelling is only as subtle as the censors forced them to be. Slaughter's performance is overly flashy and none of the other characters register. However there are those moments of macabre humor that lift the thing slightly above the banal.

MartinHafer If you are watching this old British movie and only comparing it to the more recent movie or the Stephen Sondheim play, then you will no doubt be very disappointed because the stories are so different. However, if compared to films of the day, then this low-budget film is a better than average time-passer.Unlike the play and movie based on the play, this version of Sweeney Todd is different in so many ways--especially regarding his motivation to kill. The 1936 Todd kills only for greed sake and he is not crazy in the conventional sense--just a sociopathic and selfish jerk. There is no revenge motive--it's just money. Also, there is no wife or daughter and the pie shop may or may not be how he disposes of the bodies--it is only implied that they are made into meat pies. And, not surprisingly for the 1930s, there is no blood, as the victims are dispatched in a really neat way--just without all the blood.What does this film have going for it? Well, it does have a sick sense of humor and should appeal to classic film buffs who like dark films. Also it is pretty original--after all, Sondheim based his play on this film and the old legend.The biggest negatives are the terrible overacting by Mr. Slaughter (great name, huh?) who plays Sweeney Todd and the general lack of incidental music. While there is some music here and there, the film is generally very quiet and stark--betraying the film's low-budget roots.Still, it's an interesting film--just don't spend too much time comparing it to the Tim Burton incarnation--they're like two entirely different films.

gftbiloxi Although some have tried to argue that he was an actual person, it seems likely that the story of a throat-cutting barber Sweeney Todd arose first as a bit of urban myth that was developed into an 1846 story titled THE STRING OF PEARLS by writer Thomas Prest. A year later the story was adapted to the stage as SWEENEY TODD, THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET. The story has remained popular into the 21st Century and is today best known as a musical by Stephen Sondheim.The 1936 English film came about due to English laws which required film studios to produce a certain number of films for every film imported. George King was among the producer-directors who specialized in "quota quickies" and Tod Slaughter was his "star." Born in 1885, Slaughter was never among the great actors of his day--but he was a stage favorite with provincial audiences, most especially when he played villains, and most especially when he played Sweeney Todd.This particular version of the story differs a great deal from later versions, but the basic story remains the same. Todd is a London barber who occasionally cuts a throat; Mrs. Lovatt (Stella Rho) is his partner in crime, who bakes the victims up into pies. Now, make no mistake about it: this version of SWEENEY TODD is essentially one made by a pack of hacks, so you'll find no art here. It really is a "quota quickie," badly written, badly filmed, with a cast that goes from adequate to inept. Even so, Slaughter and Rho are quite entertaining, playing so broadly and with melodramatic glee that offers a window onto the playing styles of a by-gone era. The whole thing is so over-the-top, ultra-Victorian, English-Gothic that it really can be quite a bit of fun if approached in the right spirit.It would, however, be quite a bit more fun if the DVD prints available today were good quality. They are not. Indeed they are so poor that the film is barely watchable, and it goes without saying that there are no bonuses of any kind. Recommended, but really only for those who are interested in tracing the history of Sweeney Tod in his various incarnations.GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Schweinkatz Was fortunate to get a copy of Sweeney Todd in a set of classic horror movies on DVD. Loved it! I think the meat pie contents were plainly implied. Old time movies left so much more to imagination. That way you could take the kids to the movies if you couldn't afford a baby sitter and the adult stuff just went over their heads. These types of movies are probably not to everyone's taste but for us fans, this one is tops. It just goes to show what can be done with small budgets and no technical effects. And just as an aside, has anyone noticed the resemblance Michael Palin (Monty Python Show) has to Tod Slaughter? I'm wondering if they are related to each other.