Posted: 10/12/15 at 3:03am
Anybody feels kinda unfair that ITW has only 6.0 rating on IMDB? Although the last third of the movie could have been better but I thought the movie in general was better than Les Miz, Sweeney Todd,..
Half of the reviews seem to trash the music and the whole act 2 so I guess most of them have never heard of ITW before and came in expecting some classic Disney storylines...
Posted: 10/12/15 at 3:08am
How is it unfair for people to watch something and rate it? It isn't up to the audience to research a movie in advance and if they expected something different before watching it, sounds like bad marketing, no?
It is ranking even lower on Rotten Tomatoes.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 3:14am
I am not sure if I should be laughing in pain or crying in pain. Does this really need a whole NEW thread ? I am sure there is a thread about this movie somewhere.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 7:14am
Because it's an dreadful adaption (although Sweeney is too) that absolutely butchered it's source material in a number of ways.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:02am
Most of the negative reviews aren't criticizing it as an adaptation - they're criticizing it because they don't like the music (and there's too much of it) and they don't like the story. Which are perfectly valid opinions (though, in my experience, the music tends to grow on people if they hear it a few times.)
But yeah, people's loathing for it is kind of funny - on Amazon, it has a lower rating than masterpieces like "50 Shades of Gray" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua 3: Viva la Fiesta!" (though it still has a better rating than my favorite film of the decade.) Notably, the film soundtrack and the OBCR and video recording of the original production all have 4.5/5 stars.
I think it's also partly a case of something being marketed to the wrong audience. A Disney Christmas Day release with witches and princesses brings to mind something other than... Well, what Into the Woods actually is. I actually think it was kind of wrong for Disney to market and release it the way they did.
And it doesn't help that Rob Marshall is (in my opinion) a completely boring and unimaginative director with no visual flair. Perhaps a more visionary director could have made the whole thing more palatable to a wider audience - but who knows.
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 08:02 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:20am
I've said my opinion many times, but to put it shortly, I really liked the film and I love the stage version. The casting, the costumes, the production design, we're all perfect, BUT the 2nd half wasn't as strong as the stage version, though I do think it worked pretty well on film.
I will say, however, that films are heavily criticized on IMDb, and that place is dripping with trolls all around...it's really ridiculous--I never go by those rating unless they are extremely low.
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 08:20 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:51am
and to add my 2 cents here with my oft-said opinion...if Disney had spent more than the publicized $50 to $60 million dollars on the film...preferably $75 million of more, a more magical film of this great Broadway musical would have been made, thereby allowing more people to like it...but speaking of public opinions about ITTW...i am still getting google alerts when ever someone rants on about the movie...almost 1 year later...
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:57am
Not many people really knew what the show was about until they went to the movies. I didn't and was unpleasantly surprised that the movie did not end at happily ever after. There were many kids at the movie theater when I watched it and the restlessness (boredom??) and noise level increased in the second act. I suppose the marketing was misleading.
I had the opportunity to recently see a stage production. And I enjoyed it a whole lot more than the movie! Maybe Into the Woods is something better seen on stage then on screen.
Btw I love Les Miserables, both on stage and screen!
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 08:57 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 9:19am
I will say a lot of those low IMDB reviews were from people I have no sympathy for--people who rant about the film, because they didn't do their homework.
Maybe if this film were released at least 30 years ago, when the internet wasn't a major aspect of our life, I would have sympathy, but Google clearly says that this is a "musical". And it's a parents responsibility to see if a film is okay for their child ("Parental Guidance"
, not the studio's responsibility.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 9:27am
I think the studios should have some responsibility...they advertised their movie as musical of familiar and well-loved fairy tales. Parents saw that and assumed it was appropriate for kids
If one is not theater savvy (and I'm sure many of the audience were not) they will not be familiar of the source material! I think I am theater savvy and I didn't like the movie, especially the second half!
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 09:27 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 9:28am
Whether or not it was a good film, its average rating is because of the type of film it is. Imdb raters typically don't go for new musicals for adults. Read their comments. There is also usually a huge disparity between the critical acclaim female-created or driven genre movies get and their lower ratings in imdb
Posted: 10/12/15 at 9:35am
For a long time dating back to the 30s lots of Broadway musicals were made into successful films.
Now it's the opposite. Films are being adapted into musicals. (On the Town, An American in Paris) A huge stage hit like The Producers was a big dud in film with the same stars and creatives.
A few reasons. I think the biggest is that the old Broadway musicals that made it in films had produced hit songs, or at least one big hit, so that the show had already received national publicity.
Broadway and Sondheim don't produce many hit songs anymore.
Edit: Dead wrong about the recent Broadway production of On The Town being adapted from the popular film. This Broadway OTT was a revival of the original Broadway production with score by Leonard Bernstein. The film threw out all the Bernstein songs less four. They kept "New York, New York." Bernstein was obviously not happy about this and cut all ties with the film
Wish Lennie had written a couple of more musicals. Maybe even he didn't think he could top West Side Story.
Updated On: 10/13/15 at 09:35 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 9:45am
"Parents saw that and assumed it was appropriate for kids"
I also don't think any part of the film was inappropriate, per se. Again, this is a PG film--Parental Guidance. If parents don't know how to guide (or possibly just don't know), then that's their problem, in my opinion.
I do find the audience response to be very interesting, though, because I've talked to so many people who've seen it, and they all praised it....obviously not the case everywhere
Posted: 10/12/15 at 10:03am
Although the last third of the movie could have been better but I thought the movie in general was better than Les Miz, Sweeney Todd,..
I know a number of you will disagree with me, but I view the big screen adaptations of Sweeney Todd and Les Miserables as two of the BEST stage-to-screen transfers in recent memory! As for Into the Woods, it's personally not one of my favorite shows, but I was really impressed with the film (for the most part). I did feel the third act of the film was pretty rushed, which was a problem several people had with it (even those who were not familiar with the source material).
Now it's the opposite. Films are being adapted into musicals. (On the Town, An American in Paris).
The original production of On the Town debuted in 1944, five years before there was ever a film.
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 10:03 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 10:09am
It is 100% because of the type of film that it is: A musical. First off, many will give it low ratings just because it is a musical. Then, you have people who just went to watch Johnny Depp and got like 10 minutes of him. Then you have people who dislike Into The Woods in general. Then there are people who are trolling. People with high expectations too. So many reasons as to why. Overall, it was more of a 7.2-7.5 out of 10.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 10:29am
While not perfect films, as a musical theater fan, I am grateful that the Sweeney and Woods films were even produced. Sondheim is difficult to produce for a mainstream audience and those two adaptions are not disasters by any means. Now NINE, that's a disaster.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 11:02am
It doesn't have a high rating on pretty much any professional review sites because the film wasn't very good. Not rocket science. The stage production is one of the best musicals of all time and a film (unfortunately produced and marketed by Disney) had no chance of being as satisfying as the stage show.
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 11:02 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 11:06am
"It doesn't have a high rating on pretty much any professional reviews sites"
Actually, a majority of professional reviews were positive - albeit with very few true raves. The critics were considerably kinder to it than general audiences.
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 11:06 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 11:06am
"Now it's the opposite. Films are being adapted into musicals. (On the Town, An American in Paris)"
Side note, but On the Town isn't a film adaptation. It premiered on Broadway in 1944 and the film came out in 1949. (And the filmmakers famously replaced most of the songs from the stage show with, imo, mediocre replacements.)
I agree with your general point, though.
Updated On: 10/12/15 at 11:06 AM
Posted: 10/12/15 at 4:23pm
Sweeney Todd got better reviews because the musical is a masterpiece. Feel free to criticise details re: adaptation choices. However, the source material is so strong that despite what some naysayers like to harp on about, the movie shines.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 4:31pm
Why is the ITW film inappropriate for children? What ages are we talking?
We took our grandchildren, aged 7, 10 and 14, and all three of them liked the movie.
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:29pm
ljay889 said: "While not perfect films, as a musical theater fan, I am grateful that the Sweeney and Woods films were even produced. Sondheim is difficult to produce for a mainstream audience and those two adaptions are not disasters by any means. Now NINE, that's a disaster.
"
While it's a pretty "safe" comment, I basically agree with this. I see both adaptations as flawed. However, overall I am happy with them, and actually of more importance to me is that most of my friends who did not know the original shows (and the majority of my friends have no idea who Sondheim is except for what they put up with me ranting on about,) saw the films--without my pushing--and for the most part liked or loved them.
Now Nine on the other hand...
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:38pm
qolbinau said: "Sweeney Todd got better reviews because the musical is a masterpiece. Feel free to criticise details re: adaptation choices. However, the source material is so strong that despite what some naysayers like to harp on about, the movie shines.
"
I think this is a valid point. ANd more to the point--whatever one's personal feelings on the original musicals--critic wise Sweeney also got better reviews in its Broadway productions. I think a part of that is that even 35 years later, Sweeney is undeniably audacious in what it sets out to do--whereas Into the Woods structurally is messier and though I'm a huge fan of the show, I think just less satisfying--it always will have story flaws for me.
For the record, looking at the metacritic scores for each film (which, unlike Rotten Tomatoes, only tallies up the major professional reviews and not fan critics,) Sweeney has 83% out of 39 critics, and Woods has 69% out of 41 critics. However, it should be pointed out that the reviews were all, for both films, in the positive or mixed categories--with none in the negative slot (but ITW obviously had a larger percentage of mixed.)
Posted: 10/12/15 at 8:41pm
You guys think that the people on imdb and Amazon know anything about good movies? Maleficent has 4.5 stars on Amazon, for god's sake. Granted, i generally trust rotten tomatoes (but never the audience's reaction). People who review things on Amazon are generally idiots.
