Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 174

[tenorphil81]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 5:30am

Thought I would share my (longish) review which I initally posted to FB. I have endeavored to offer impressions/thoughts ONLY; no spoilers. That said, if you would rather not have these impressions/thoughts in your mind before seeing the film, pass on this post and read it after.

Director Rob Marshall took on an enormous (and possibly unenviable) task of adapting source material both dark in tone (despite its fairy tale trappings) and so damn beloved by musical theater/Sondheim fans. The film tells all the intertwining stories quite clearly and he certainly benefits from Sondheim/Lapine's smart expository Prologue, which lends itself so well to cinematic cross-cutting.

Two general issues I have with the film: Pacing and Tone. The pacing does suffer in the second half, as events happen far too fast after the plot's abrupt tonal shift. Moments to breathe and allow the audience process events seem jettisoned in favor of a tight 2:05 running time. I will grant, however, that nothing major plotwise is truly lost here--just some minor bits. The story is told well, despite plot changes/compromises. As for tone, let's be brutally honest here. The second half of "Into the Woods" as source material is going to be dark, at least tonally. It is what it is. That said, cinematographer Dion Beebe's color composition could have helped liven the atmosphere every so often. Dare I say that including the second act reprise of "Agony" could have helped liven things, if only for a moment in the woods? (<< did you see what I did there?)

Screenwriter James Lapine adapts his original stage play rather effectively, re-imagining the narrative structure and removing the fourth-wall element that works well onstage but would have likely sunk this film. The compromises he and Marshall had to make (mostly regarding character deaths and violence), I believe, are largely dictated from the Mouse House. Yet, despite the orders no doubt handed down from Disney, Lapine still manages to retain the essential darkness of the second half.

Colleen Atwood's designs are sumptuous as ever, especially Streep's pre- and post-transformation looks. Was only unmoved by her zoot suit concept for the Wolf, plus Little Red's second cape made no sense as it bore zero resemblance to Depp's duds.

Sondheim's music has never sounded more gorgeous in any medium. Fantastic orchestrations and expert conducting from long-time Sondheim specialists Jonathan Tunick and Paul Gemignani, respectively.

THE ACTORS

Streep? Goddess. "Last Midnight" left me breathless; the mere 3 minutes of "Stay With Me" showed her enormous range. Certainly took this role very seriously, both vocally and dramatically. Lots of great levels to her Witch. We probably couldn't have asked for a better Hollywood actress in this role.

Blunt? A consistently warm, loving, strong Baker's Wife and for an actress with little to no prior vocal experience, she more than rose to the task.

Corden? His hapless, schlubby Baker worked well onscreen. Maybe not the most inspiring vocalist, but he navigates the lyrics with aplomb. His character's emotional breakdown near the end was acted so beautifully. Hopefully this film will truly put him on the map stateside.

Kendrick? Her Cinderella was just fine--didn't blow me away. I find her voice slightly hard to listen to, but oddly enough it has that Disney Princess tone. However, "On the Steps of the Palace" can be a tricky mofo verbally, and she nailed that number.

Pine? Probably one of the most consistent performances of the film. His 2-dimensional Prince was 3-dimensionally hysterical! "Agony" is worth the price of admission. I'd say he's tied with Meryl for MVP of the cast!

Depp? Whatevs. He's not horrible; he's not revelatory. Just another creeper role, I'm afraid.

Mauzy & Magnussen? Rapunzel and her Prince don't get much to do, but Mackenzie Mauzy and Billy Magnussen elicit a lot of pathos, considering how horribly they suffer at the hands of the Witch.

Ullman? Funny, though I was hoping for more of the laffos from a comedienne who is more than capable of providing said laffos. That's the screenplay's issue, though.

Crawford? She came. She sang. She conquered. I'd expect nothing less from a young Broadway Baby, though I was embarrassed for her when she had to deliver an embarrassingly Hollywood line during the final Giant confrontation.

Huttlestone? Could have worked on diction. If you don't know Jack's signature lines or lyrics, they are often lost in his pseudo cockney speaking voice. Fantastic singing.

Baranski/Punch/Blanchard? They ate up these roles. Think of them as the Kardashians of the Grimm Fairy Tale world.

OVERALL...
I found the film to be very good--if not entirely spectacular. Hollywood may have finally done right by Sondheim with this "Into the Woods" and while his work on this film may not pack the artistic punch of his "Chicago", Rob Marshall has--in my humble opinion--redeemed himself after the unfortunate "Nine" from five years back.

Ok, folks, that's all. I am most definitely seeing this again, so I'm looking forward to making new discoveries. Go see the movie, especially if you are on the fence.

[TazTarney]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 7:59am

The problem with the 2nd half is that YOU KNOW Disney wouldn't allow this film to be over 2 hours. It might not completely be Rob Marshall's fault if he was racing against time to please the giant Mouse.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 8:45am

The latest reports I've seen are saying $1.1 million on Christmas Eve and at least $12 million on Christmas Day, putting it on track towards $40 million for the weekend. If word-of-mouth is good and it has legs, I can imagine big box office boosting its potential to get a Best Picture nom.

[Mrtrobz]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 9:36am

I read it was currently on $13.6 million so that's a good indication. The current number 1 spot is 15.6 with Unbroken, had ITW opened on the same amount of screens I would expect more along those numbers.
Updated On: 12/26/14 at 09:36 AM

[Showface]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 10:18am

"Sorry Ljay but The Witch's arc got so rushed and by the time Last Midnight came, there was just no impact. No weight to her character. She really got butchered in the 2nd half."

I'm not understanding. All of her scenes are still there, and little bits of dialogue are gone. Act 2 just felt rushed, but for good reason. They had to cut certain songs to make it cinematic, and that's what they did. I felt the moment we saw the Witch again, with flattened, somewhat tattered hair, holding Jack by the ear, the Witch just turned her heart to stone. Her line readings from this point seemed to be very unfeeling and sarcastic. I thought it was smart.


@MagicalMusical
The small change in the Bakers relationship is that they were still a strong couple when they separated. When the Wife walked in her direction, the Baker looked back to see if she were okay. He didn't want anything to happen to her. I felt this made "Any Moment" stronger (thought that was a very well handled scene, and I don't understand the Disneyfied accusations being thrown around), and I thought it made the impact of her death stronger.




TazTarney,


About the Baker's reaction to his wife's death. I though it was very well handled. People handle grief differently. He denied it first, he then went on to place blame, and then, when he was to himself, he finally cried with all of the emotions running inside of him (a very well acted scene by Corden)



-----




I actually like the film MORE upon reflection. I need to see it again!

[Showface]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 10:25am

"The problem with the 2nd half is that YOU KNOW Disney wouldn't allow this film to be over 2 hours. It might not completely be Rob Marshall's fault if he was racing against time to please the giant Mouse. "


I disagree entirely. First off, the film is over 2 hours long (4 minutes over). Okay...not a strong argument? Well, here's another thing, they had to cut some musical numbers to make it work as a film. Specifically, Ever After (to stagey), The Act 2 Opening (a repetition of the opening number that starts the rigid two act structure), Agony Reprise, and No More. That doesn't include the songs cut from Act One. All cut for cinematic purposes, though I do say No More could've made it in.

[east side story]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 10:31am

Not a fan of the film, but I would be surprised if it made it into the Best Picture race. Even with the 10 slots, I see films like Whiplash or Grand Budapest Hotel making the cut before Woods.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 10:46am

Was it Rob Marshall that said that fans shouldn't be upset because "No More" is replaced with dialogue that pretty much sums up the same feelings that the song imparts? Because that was a blatant lie.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:03am

Not a blatant lie for this diehard ITW and "No More" fan.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the scene thoroughly offers the same experience that "No More" does.

But the scene similarly advances the plot, all the subtext is there for anyone who knows the song well (aided beautifully by the underscoring for us veterans), the crux of commitment to one's responsibilities in the face of adversity is clearly in play even for the uninitiated, and I'm now convinced the dialogue serves the movie's pacing and momentum far better than the song likely would have, particularly since with the loss of Mystery Man - which similarly proves a wise cinematic move - a Baker/Father duet wouldn't have had nearly the same impact as it does in the stage musical.

Look, there's going to be a variety of takes on this movie.

As someone who hated the Les Mis movie, I know what it's like to be on the grinch list for show adaptations. Everyone, obviously, is entitled to their opinion.

Still, I feel like shouting to the rooftops that this is a great movie, for me clearly one of the year's best.
Particularly because no one is likely more shocked as I am how well - again, obviously, IMHO - it turned out.

I don't expect everyone to agree.

I feel as satisfied with the omission of "No More" as I do with the omission of the equally beloved "Music That Makes Me Dance" from the movie of Funny Girl. Adaptation is a tricky form. It requires hard choices. For me, Lapine has done his job very well, far better than I ever dreamed of.

One other thing I think the movies does gorgeously is balancing scenes in which we see the action unfolding during songs which related past action with scenes in which the characters are allowed, as on stage, to simply relate experience which goes unseen. "Giants in the Sky" with only it's brief flashback frames and on screen mostly Jack relating his journey to the Baker was wonderful. "He's a Very Nice Prince" and "On the Steps of the Palace" with their very different ways of handling this issue also worked like a charm.

I'm happy to be disagree with. As I said, last year, I defended my dissent of Les Mis.





Updated On: 12/26/14 at 11:03 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:07am

I saw the sold-out matinee at the Ziegfeld yesterday- how wonderful to see it in a packed, enthusiastic house!

I liked the film very much and thought it was generally a savvy adaptation. I did miss some of the second act (which is really the film's third act, and understandably so) but felt that the beats were all correctly hit.

The film really belongs to Emily Blunt and Meryl Streep, the former being the best recorded Baker's Wife since Joanna Gleason and the latter now being my favorite Witch. That is not to say anyone else was bad- I even liked Johnny Depp. This is certainly the most well-cast modern movie musical, with everyone not only being musically talented but also "getting" the medium.

I also appreciated the level of staginess and camp the film embraced; it felt at times like an old movie musical in that way and captured the energy of live performance.

Being able to go from Fiasco's production on Christmas Eve to this on the next day was certainly a wonderful Christmas treat.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:08am

Don't get me wrong, I really REALLY liked this film. But I do think I will always believe that the omission of "No More" hurt the ending.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:11am

"The film really belongs to Emily Blunt and Meryl Streep, the former being the best recorded Baker's Wife since Joanna Gleason and the latter now being my favorite Witch. That is not to say anyone else was bad- I even liked Johnny Depp. This is certainly the most well-cast modern movie musical, with everyone not only being musically talented but also "getting" the medium."

Amen, Brother!

Kad, were you at the 2.30 show at the Z.? So was I.

[Showface]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:14am

I agree....Streep is my favorite Witch! I know many in the "fandom" were disappointed that Bernadette Peters was not cast, but I feel that Streep was inspired casting. I said this before, but maybe it was the intimacy of the film compared that made her performance a superb one. That's probably the case, also.


But, hey! Why compare when we can have both!!


In Fact, Let's Have Both: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pOfgT5CNmu

[Kad]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:19am

"Kad, were you at the 2.30 show at the Z.? So was I."

I was! I'm glad I bought my tickets a few hours in advance. Loved seeing it with an appreciative audience that clearly all knew the show.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:21am

BOXOFFICE came out with their overnight figures for INTO THE WOODS yesterday...now they say ITW took in 15.1 million not 13.6 as reported earlier by another source...that is HUGE!..although LES MIZ took in 17% more when it opened over Christmas...I think LEZ MIS definitely had a larger fan base audience then ITW...

Updated On: 12/26/14 at 11:21 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:22am

I'm the first to scream that it's a shame Streep gets just about everything, whether she's right for it or not, and no matter how well she does.

Didn't like her Violet Weston at all.

But, damn, she's good as the Witch!

[sueb1863]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:33am

Huttlestone's accent isn't put-on - I've seen him in interviews and that's how he actually talks. I agree that he needs to work with a vocal coach to lose it or at least tone it down if he wants to continue getting roles.

[JP2]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:43am

I'm gonna have to disagree with the comments about the second act (third act) needing more breathing room. I actually felt it needed to be tighter. The first half of the movie zipped by in the best possible way. It was tightly executed and very well paced. I didn't mind the last half of the film, being a fan of the show. And I understand us fans wanting more. But, I've seen the film twice now and both times the audiences were clearly fed up with the second half and the way it feels like it drags on forever. Reading audience reactions online confirms this sentiment.

I do think it was smart to at least cut "No More." I can't even imagine how much more people would have hated the ending with another slow ballad at the end. Updated On: 12/26/14 at 11:43 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:45am

The second half of the show has always been divisive and criticized for being too slow, moody, and dark. I really can't imagine a world in which it can be pared down more than what was done in the film.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:55am

It's called INTO THE WOODS JR.

[JP2]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:55am

"The second half of the show has always been divisive and criticized for being too slow, moody, and dark. I really can't imagine a world in which it can be pared down more than what was done in the film."


Neither can I, and I know it would probably involve cutting one or two more songs that I'd rather they didn't. I'm perfectly happy with the film, from start to finish. But I heard audible groans by the time "No One Is Alone" began both times I saw it. The film currently has a 64% audience rating on RT. It'll be interesting to see how word of mouth turns out...

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 11:55am

Happy the Ziegfeld was sold out! I've gone to so many opening weekends there were there was nobody there.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 12:03pm

I like this audience review - "The songs were way too long and loud, and that's coming from a big fan of musicals...!"

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 12:03pm

It goes without saying that there would be no pleasing everyone with how to film the second act of Into the Woods.

A great many people are going to be seeing this story for the first time on screen. The second act is often jarring to the uninitiated. It's demanding and not at all what most are going to expect. It's complicated. It's a show for people who think as much as they feel and feel as much as they think. It asks tough questions and offers no easy answers.

And there's a reason for that. There are none.

I'm very pleased with the way Lapine and Marshall shaped the last act. If some people find it too condensed, and others find it a slow, jarring downer, that's an inevitable result of the script remaining true to Into the Woods and of the filmmakers towing a fine line between these two types of reactions.... and succeeding beyond my expectations.

Updated On: 12/26/14 at 12:03 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/26/14 at 12:06pm

I'm loving reading the audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Christians aren't too happy about the Bakers Wife kissing the Prince. I'm surprised they haven't started a boycott of the film over it.