Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 141

Off topic
Some people said they dont't like J. Depp as wolf, his costume etc. I expected another wolf too. So if I could only comparion.
I am from Czech Republic (and unfortunately Czech premiere of ITW will be - don't know why - 2nd April) and this summer our filmmakers made a movie musical fairytale THREE BROTHERS. This movie is based by three little children's whole-sung musical fairytale (Red Riding Hood, Sleeping Beauty and The Twelve Months; one Brother saved RRH and grandmother, other kiss SB etc.) by our popular children songwriters. In the story RRH we haad the wolf - it was big puppet, bigger than a person...
I would like to know do you like THIS WOLF in a movie (more then Depp visual)? Yes, I know ITW story needs more human wolf but it's true I thought about different Mr. Wolf...

Some pictures



And english trailer of THREE BROTHERS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vea0K8BO30

Updated On: 11/27/14 at 07:34 PM

I feel as if that version of the Wolf would be way too terrifying for Disney audiences. Plus, I think it looks slightly Muppet-y and cartoony. I also think the costume choice for the ITW movie is more the way it is due to the fact that it shows off Johnny Depp. I don't think Disney wanted a costume/look for the Wolf that would make it difficult for audiences to figure out if it was Johnny Depp.

I like the idea of the Tex Avery inspired wolf. I used to love those red riding hood cartoons when I was a kid.

Updated On: 11/28/14 at 02:12 AM

I think the London wolf looks too fake...

"I want to talk about the ending of the Into the Woods film I read spoilers about, but I don't know how to make a spoiler tag for it. Can anyone help me out with that?"

I read spoilers on IMDB...the best we can do is type "SPOILERS".

The spoilers are here on this thread page https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2180411/board/thread/237185286?p=6


Now,

SPOILERS!!

The ending may not seem like much, but the poster (who writes more thoughts about the film on other pages) said that the ending is better than in the leaked script because the characters coming back would not make since because they are "real". I agree.


END OF SPOILERS!!

^It is, but the reprise is cut.

Here's a wonderful interview with Emily Blunt, where she gets to talk about auditioning and the rehearsal process. She also talks about the mix between pre-recorded takes and live singing; so happy Marshall went this way rather than the LES MIS approach, which frankly did more to hurt the quality of the film than contribute to it. Also, the interviewer confirms that Blunt's performance doesn't quite fit into the lead category.


Emily Blunt InContention Interview

---

Kudelicek, what is the name of that castle in the trailer?

Showface SPOILERS But the Baker's Wife appears. Why would she appear, but not the rest of the characters? That doesn't make sense. They should all appear, even if as ghosts. Remember how Fantine appeared at the end of the Les Miserables film? That was a realistic film, too, and that worked. SPOILERS

And if you think that London Wolf costume looked too fake, I mean a realistic version of that.

And according to an article, they actually made the key in "On the Steps of the Palace" HIGHER so Anna Kendrick would be forced to be a soprano? I thought people here said it was in the original key?

Updated On: 11/28/14 at 08:26 PM

BWW to premiere On the Steps of the Palace:

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/BWW-World-Exclusive-INTO-THE-WOODS-Clip-Coming-Soon-Guess-the-Sondheim-Track-Featured-20141129

Just saw an industry screening at the Disney Lot last night, and I've wanted to sleep on it before posting my review. (And I should preface this by saying that though I loved and worked on the Original Broadway production back in '87, ITW has never been a particular favorite of mine within the Sondheim cannon, so take my words below with that big grain of salt).

Let's start with the overwhelming positives-- Marshall and friends actually get the whole play onscreen in a little over 2 hours and make it thoroughly understandable to boot! You learn all the key stories with all their key plot turns, including all the complex tone shifts in Act II. The great songs are nearly all there in some form or other, and some of them really catch fire. "Agony", "On the Steps of the Palace" and every single one of the witch's numbers are alive and thrilling and subtle and funny and moving and just land.

The cast is almost uniformly strong. Lilla Crawford, Chris Pine, Tracey Ullman, even dopey Daniel Huttlestone worked swell for me. James Corden and Emily Blunt seemed underpowered somehow-- they were sweet and subtle and fine singers but didn't seem to command the center of the story like they do onstage. Volumes have already been written about Meryl's witch, and oddly I found her acting too over-the-top at times but thought her wonderful singing thoroughly redeemed the performance. Anna Kendrick showed us a very funny Cinderella but her voice strained to hit the notes-- I want my Cinderellas to sound effortless. Mackenzie Mauzy and Christine Baranski were perfection.

The design choices were a mixed bag. Some stunners from Colleen Atwood (the Baker's Wife's Act I look and the witch's transformation gown) competed with some bizarre letdowns. Why does Cinderella's ball gown look like a deflated gold lame balloon? Why is Rapunzel's Prince dressed in leather pants? Why is the Baker dressed like an 1850's Bob Cratchet? I understand they wanted a look that spanned periods, but if you start asking so many questions, you're pulled out of the story.

The Production Design was occasionally lovely but it sure took a decidedly CRUMBLING view of the entire fairy tale world. Barns and cottages were decaying, but so were Castles and the Stepsisters' mansion. Between the dim DP lighting and the repetitiveness of the woods looks, much of the film seemed even more claustrophobic than the stage version.

My biggest reservations? As usual we lost most of the chorus numbers that give the score life-- "One Midnight Gone", "Ever After", the finale reprise of "Into the Woods" were all missing, so most of the show was a parade of static solos or duets. The thrilling excitement of the opening number-- multi-part singing, zooming camera movement, a large cast moving through town and up into the woods was rarely matched again in the rest of the film.

The whole wolf concept was a serious clunker for me, from Depp's inept performance, to the 1940's soot suit, to the lack of staging or choreography, to the woeful trip down the wolf's gullet during "I Know Things Now" with a laughable wolf-snout silhouette gag to boot. It seemed Rob Marshall had no idea what kind of story he was trying to tell there, and it showed.

The newfound clarity the writers brought to the story was a mixed blessing-- yes it was easy to follow now, but some of the story became simple and linear to a fault. The witch's final fury in "The Last Midnight" made little sense onscreen (why would she commit suicide because the world wants her to be nicer to the boy?) The final act of killing the Giantess just sort of let the movie end with a whimper-- with 4 sadder but wiser characters left in the fog. No escape back into the sunlight, no thrilling on-camera reprise with once-dead characters to tell us we always have to return to the woods "every now and then", just a pan up to a title card and... roll credits. Huh?

Despite these flaws, huge kudos to the team for taming the unruly beast that is INTO THE WOODS and putting it onscreen at all, and with so much work that is so good. Was it an unmitigated success? I wish...

Thanks for the review, but I still plan on enjoying this film through and through!



"ITW has never been a particular favorite of mine within the Sondheim cannon"

It's my favorite which is one reason why I think I'll really enjoy the film!


"Let's start with the overwhelming positives-- Marshall and friends actually get the whole play onscreen in a little over 2 hours and make it thoroughly understandable to boot! You learn all the key stories with all their key plot turns, including all the complex tone shifts in Act II. The great songs are nearly all there in some form or other, and some of them really catch fire. "Agony", "On the Steps of the Palace" and every single one of the witch's numbers are alive and thrilling and subtle and funny and moving and just land. "


That's wonderful to hear, so what I love about ITW is still there!

"Volumes have already been written about Meryl's witch, and oddly I found her acting too over-the-top at times but thought her wonderful singing thoroughly redeemed the performance.'

I'm actually not surprised, but I think I'll enjoy it because, IMO, The Witch is very over-the-top so that's a plus in my book.


"The Production Design was occasionally lovely but it sure took a decidedly CRUMBLING view of the entire fairy tale world."

Wonderful!

I happen to really love the design choices (a little mixed on the wolf), but I think the design choices are perfect for the film IMO.


"The newfound clarity the writers brought to the story was a mixed blessing-- yes it was easy to follow now, but some of the story became simple and linear to a fault. The witch's final fury in "The Last Midnight" made little sense onscreen (why would she commit suicide because the world wants her to be nicer to the boy?"

Now, I haven't seen the film, but it seems like from other reports that the Witch's (epic) Last Midnight is not only a combination of her rage at these people who are going to let themselves die due to their "niceness", but by the fact that her daughter basically said "I hate you", left her for a prince who just entered her life, the fact she sacrificed everything for her daughter, and all of the mayhem in Act 2.


At least, that's what I have gathered.



"The final act of killing the Giantess just sort of let the movie end with a whimper-- with 4 sadder but wiser characters left in the fog. No escape back into the sunlight, no thrilling on-camera reprise with once-dead characters to tell us we always have to return to the woods "every now and then", just a pan up to a title card and... roll credits. Huh? "

Another plus in my book. Into the Woods never really had a typical happy ending, and I still fully support the dropping of the Into the Woods reprise.





@Someone in a Tree

Out of "10" how would you rate the film?

Updated On: 11/29/14 at 12:47 PM

That was a great review Someone In A Tree, I can't believe that December is finally coming after two whole years of this films development and the attempted development in the 90's. BTW, what did you think of Dion Beebe's cinematography?

I have a weird feeling that Rob Marshall has found his second musical film gem, the one that will put him back on the map.

NINE? What's that? :P

^Which musical film is your personal worst?