I saw the movie Monday night and I completely disagree with the Voice review. Marshall may not be Orson Welles, but he comes very close to nailing the intricacies of both the opening scene as well as other transitions.
I found only two scenes that were handled clumsily.
SPOILER:
With Ever After cut, the scenes of the wedding outside the castle, all of the characters winking at one another, and the segue to the Giant's arrival feels forced and poorly edited.
The second scene that I have a problem with is the short scene after the Giant's wife is killed. All of the characters are looking for one another, as Jack and then the Baker can't be found. It should have been reshot.
God I wish the hive-mind/gestapo at this board had relented and allowed an "ITW reviews" thread... Reviews and a score just now appearing on RottenTomatoes today and we're already on page 160 here.
"Well, the thread is now discussing reviews, so I don't really... understand the criticism there."
Most big-news shows have had separate review threads, detached from the rumor threads and casting threads, etc. And no matter how the title gets changed along the way, it still says "Into the Woods Movie Cast" on the main board page. Plus 160 pages/almost 4k posts is a LOT of content to scroll through to see just one aspect of the film: reviews.
What's wrong with compartmentalizing threads? BWW isn't gonna run out of hard drive space.
The "Go Into the Woods" site really needs an editor... and I was "huh?" with: "Some of the changes included no sexual relations with the big bad wolf played by Johnny Depp."
Don't remember ANY production where Red has "sexual relations" with the wolf... yikes.
"Don't remember ANY production where Red has "sexual relations" with the wolf... yikes."
There's a strong sexual subtext. The innuendo was taken to new heights at Shakespeare in the Park, with more than a suggestion of Wolf's eating Red going, yes, there! Many here on bww were not at all amused!
By all accounts, the erotic tensions between Red and Wolf have been turned down big time in the movie, which, given that Lilla Crawford, an actual little girl is playing Red, seems an unimpeachable choice (or perhaps impeachable only if one also complains about the casting of an actual child).
There was no denying the penis in the original production. However you interpret it, either literally, or figuratively, LRRH is changed from naive to experienced. She "knows things now" and I don't think it's just the inside of the Wolf.
I've seen the PBS video obviously, and several other productions live... There's always subtext and innuendo, but "has sexual relations" is a ompletely different thing.
Saw the movie Monday; minus the furry penis from the original production, there's still a bit of pervy innuendo. The kids' roles are made more touching being played by actual kids, but it also reduces how "unsubtle" you can be. Still works.
You could always start an independent thread yourself, jpbran.
It may be a little awkward now, but in the mists of time, anybody searching for info on the movie will be grateful it's all on one thread, especially with the search function the way it is.
Or maybe not. 160 pages is a lot to wade through, admittedly.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
Well, growl had started a separatists thread. But anyway, Rotten Tomatoes has a 78% for early reviews, that's not bad considering Rob Marshall's previous films after CHICAGO.
Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached Please Start a New Thread!