Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 178

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 1:15am

I made it to the movie theater to see it tonight. I loved it. I did not feel it rushed and I did not mind the transition between acts at all. I did miss hearing "No More," but I do agree that retaining the song would have brought the quick pace to a halt. While I missed the song on a personal level, I do think it was best for the film.

[J_Jammer]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 1:27am

"J_Jammer is right. Why should Cinderella show any emotion? I mean it's just that her husband cheated on her and all her fears are realized. No biggie. I think the world would be a better place if all women reacted that way to their Husband's infidelity. You Go Cindy! -_-"

Bigger problems expounded. A giant is a bigger problem.

You're expecting a woman that has been abused for most of her life to feel sad over another abuse? Oh, okay.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 1:30am

I forgot to mention that during "Witch's Lament" I heard an audible "poor her" from someone in the audience, I said the same thing to.

[Len6677]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 1:55am

Finally seeing it tomorrow. I'm really curious what the audience reaction will be like in my theater. From the reports I've been reading, it seems so varied from showing to showing.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 2:51am

Fortunately caught a late showing after coming back home after Christmas. Overall, I thought it was a pretty magnificent translation of a difficult piece, and I really loved it. Some stray thoughts-

-Meryl, as the Witch, was absolutely terrific, but who really expected anything else? Stay With Me was gorgeous, and she performed the hell out of Last Midnight. That being said, I really though the choice to let Rapunzel live (and shout out to Mackenzie Mauzy who was excellent) did the Witch's arc no favors. Because she lived, it didn't make sense to me that the Witch would give a damn about the Giant or sacrificing Jack- it lowered her stakes significantly and lessened the impact of her actions in the final act.

-Emily Blunt should really be getting major awards talk, as I thought she was luminous. I don't think I have enough positive words to say about her performance- a total triumph in the show's most difficult and important role.

-Pacing wise, I didn't mind the increased tempo of the first act, but as others have expressed, I would have liked to have seen the second act drawn out a bit more. Though I was still engaged and ultimately moved, I never felt as though the conflict of the Giant was thoroughly dealt with. Everything happened very quickly to the detriment of the emotional content of the story as well as it's moral complexity.

-Across the board, the acting and singing were both pretty wonderful. This has to be one of the most well-cast movie musicals ever made. Aside from Blunt and Streep, I loved Pine, Crawford, Corden, and Huttlestone in particular. Baranski and Ullman also did fine work in their roles- Baranski in particular had me in stitches.

-Kudos to whoever gave Billy Magnussen those leather pants, because damn if that boy didn't fill them out beautifully in the ass department.

Really, this was a wonderful adaptation, and I eagerly look forward to enjoying it for years to come.

Updated On: 12/27/14 at 02:51 AM

[HorseTears]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 3:07am

Hear, hear, wonderfulwiz! Let's just be honest here. The real star of Into The Woods was that magnificent pair of skin-tight leather pants. I wanted more scenes of Rapunzel's Prince mounting his horse. Or Rapunzel. I'm not picky.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 3:17am

Or mounting Chris Pine. You know they were close to making out during Agony anyway...

[gypsy101]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 3:58am

I saw this movie finally tonight in Auburn Hills MI, the crowd was generally young - around my age, probably (young college age adults) i don't think there was a single child in the crowd. The whole feeling in the room was pretty tense, and toward the beginning I felt like the room wasn't loving the show, but that happens at most movies I've ever been to, you get more comfortable laughing and crying as the movie goes on.

As for the film, I thought it was terrific. I did not go into this lightly, I've loved it since I was a freshman in high school, so for 8 years I've had the OBCR and have never enjoyed a cast as much as the original, and have scarcely loved a musical as much as this one, it spoke to me so deeply even at the age of 14. There were some mild annoyances since I know the material so well, but for the most part the cuts that were made to the material I didn't miss greatly and sometimes felt it helped the story. The one appearance of the Baker's Father made sense to me (as it was obviously in his mind), and because of all the things that had immediately preceded it I was weeping at the same time as the Baker, and I agree with someone on this board (can't recall who) that said the addition of the song No More may have pushed me past a breaking point, so I'm content that it wasn't included for dramaturgical reasons. I didn't even miss the Mysterious Man whatsoever as I thought I might.
One of my annoyances were some of their costumes. In the course of the film, I ended up finding Jack's and the Wolf's costumes wholly preposterous (Jack looked like he was wearing Gucci couture and the Wolf just looked ridiculous the few minutes he was on screen). For some reason the Baker's pants I also found inappropriate (for a baker, that is).
Like many people have said, I agree that Emily Blunt as the Baker's Wife was absolutely splendid the entire time she was onscreen. She made me truly feel towards the character as the leading lady of the piece, which I don't think I've ever thought of the character until today. Joanna Gleason, as everyone knows, was terrific in a pretty dully written character, and she certainly brought her to life. But even in the original production, I felt she was kind of an excuse for a Leading Actress in a Musical (and always felt Patti was robbed of the Tony that year) since the Witch didn't have enough material. But the film really made me believe this WAS her story, and that all these fairytale characters she meets in the woods were ones she stumbled across on her quest. I would have applauded her in the theater if my boyfriend would have let me. I hope she wins SOME award for her wonderful performance.
Meryl Streep was also terrific in a role I doubted she should have playing, simply due to her age and nothing to do with the talent she possesses (which I feel she is mostly unsurpassed by any actresses currently living). She usually made me forget all about Bernadette Peters, which I didn't expect to happen. Plus, I loved her blue hair. Some people have said they didn't like her death being so specific; i thought it was a great idea to have them use that tar to trap the lady giant. Kind of like she helped them out after all. Something like that.
The Princes I thought were very good, although underused. I agree that Chris Pine sings kind of like an old man, but I found him still to be charming (and I overheard a lady in the audience saying she wouldn't mind getting lost in HIS woods, which was hilarious and nonsensical but I don't disagree with her). Agony was a highlight and another moment in which I would have applauded.
Hello, Little Girl. It's a scene that, in the musical, I've usually never found it to be very offensive or even very noteworthy. In the film, I was so creeped out that I wanted to kill Johnny Depp myself. And I thought it worked immensely, in terms of the point of the character. So, good job to them for creeping me out. I also thought Red going into his stomach was hilarious, it reminded me of an Alice acid trip or something.
The suddenly-nine months pregnant Wife made me laugh out loud, and then when she was thanking Cinderella at the wedding, I thought she might as well have just said out loud "Your shoe got us pregnant!"
Anna Kendrick (whom I have loved greatly through most of her film career) underwhelmed me slightly, only in that she seemed (and has seemed in other roles, either to her benefit or detriment) to be holding herself back emotionally. This lady will not let us see her cry, she is too strong for that. That said, her performance of On the Steps of the Palace is maybe my favorite ever, and I love how she belts the last note.
I had no problem with the children. I thought Lilla was sometimes funny, and Daniel sometimes adorable. Neither one of them greatly excited me, but those characters never have in the past. I admired their performances mostly during No One Is Alone, the entire scene I thought was incredibly well done (although awkwardly cut-off).
James Corden was thoroughly charming the entire film.
The ending with Children Will Listen, I thought was a little strangely done. As someone else said, it may have been better if they had brought the ghosts back as they do in the play.

Now that I've reviewed the whole thing, I realize that I said it was terrific at the very top although I now realize many things in it caught my attention in ways I didn't want. But I really think that, despite the qualms (which I expected), it really is a well-made film. It's better when looked at as a whole than at each part. As I sat in the theater at the credits, I was so pleased with the whole thing. And I'm glad.

A person said as they were leaving "Yeah, I've always thought act 2 was boring as $#!*" They didn't understand (as I feel many in America, judging by every critic saying the end is the worst part and they should have faded to black sooner) that the end is the whole point. Sometimes life gives you a lot of bad stuff to deal with. You have to move on. You aren't alone and there will always be someone there to help you along the way. I don't want an Into the Woods without an Act 2, because it robs the whole thing of its heart. I applaud Rob Marshall for making a terrific entry into the musical movie catalogue.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 4:55am

I thought it stunk. They seem to have removed all the charm and humor and left us in the dark for 2+ hours. It was just sort of a long rambling mess in the dark. No humor. No punch. No real point of view. Didn't care for most of the cast.

Meryl was fine but not spectacular. It's one of the few times I've not seen her be spectacular. She didn't bring out a lot of humor that Bernadette did in the stage version. Also, her rap was underwhelming. Don't know how she's a lock for an Oscar nomination other than simply being Meryl Streep.

The reworking of the script caused a few problems. For instance, if the witch can teleport, why does she need to climb Rapunzel's hair to get into the tower?

Furthermore, in the stage show, she discovers she has no powers anymore almost as soon as she regains her youth and beauty; the ironic trade-off. Then when the giantess strikes, she feels powerless to do anything and resents having to depend on the populace for protection, which is why she finally reactivates her mother's curse and vanishes.

But in the movie, she doesn't discover she's powerless until AFTER the first encounter with the giant, during her last meeting with Rapunzel when she tries to curse the prince. But why didn't she try her powers on the giant in the previous scene? It would've made more sense in the film for her to learn she's powerless at that point 'cause she would've tried out her spells and such on the giant for protection. It makes no sense.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 10:07am

SM2 as far as your last remarks, you have a point about her teleportation powers. But as I recall the only way to enter the tower was via Rapunzel's hair as well as the magic words "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair to me."

If that's the case, no other method (magic or practical) would allow anyone to enter that tower.

As for the Witch using her powers to stop the giant's wife, why would she? She doen'st give a crap if the giant kills everyone and wreaks havoc on the kingdom and village. They mean nothing to her. She thinks only of her own wellbeing and misfortune and for her daughter (as a beloved possession, not a person). That's it.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 10:28am

best12bars, in the stage version, when the giantess first approaches the group and demands Jack or else, the Baker's Wife tells the Witch to "put a spell on her," to which the Witch responds, "I no longer have my powers. If I did, you think I'd be standing here with all of you?"

Also, in the stage show (or the movie or even the fairy tale) it's not implied that the phrase "Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair to me" has any magical connotations, just that she says it so Rapunzel knows it's her. Furthermore, the Witch put Rapunzel in the tower, and if indeed she enchanted the tower so no one else could get in, then why not make herself the exception? Why force yourself (an elderly woman) to rappel up a tower if you can just as easily teleport yourself? It makes no sense. But, then again, this whole enchanted tower/phrase thing is mere speculation.

[Jay94]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 10:31am

So the 2nd Act has been gutted as much as it was in the script? Reading the script is seems like they took out lots of dialogue, particularly any questions of the murky morality surrounding rescuing of kingdom.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 10:34am

SM2---If you want to speculate just as much as I am, then fine. It's in the original fairy tale about the tower and the words that must be spoken to allow anyone to enter the tower, not just the witch.

You want to think it makes no sense. That's fine, too. I want to think it's not a big deal and can be explained fairly easily.

We're both speculating though. You don't like the film so you've pick it apart. I like it, so I don't have to pick it part.

EDIT: And if you want to find flaw with the fact that no one enters or leaves the tower without uttering those words, then why doesn't Rapunzel herself use her own hair (cutting it off) as a ladder to escape? She could have done that for years, too. But this is the fairy tale. She is trapped by a witch.

Updated On: 12/27/14 at 10:34 AM

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 11:29am

Saw it last night and I'll try and keep my thoughts short.

I liked it for the most part. I'll echo what the critics have said, act 2 is where the film goes from great to uneven. The cast is very strong with a shout out to James Corden and Chris Pine. I thought the only song that didn't transfer smoothly was Hello little girl. In all, it's a faithful adaption. It's never been my favorite show but I liked it well enough.

[sarahb22]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 11:44am

"Or mounting Chris Pine. You know they were close to making out during Agony anyway..."

Don't give the fanfic writers any ideas! On the other hand, it's probably too late for that anyway...

And I will add to the chorus that a special Oscar should be given to Billy Magnussen's leather pants. Holy cow. Dat ass.

Does anybody else want to see Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen co-host 'Saturday Night Live' and sing 'Agony' at some point? They could even do the reprise that isn't in the movie. I think that would be very cool.

Finally...it seems this movie is hitting big with young people (if Tumblr is any indication) and if even a few of them look up Sondheim's other works as a result of this, I'll be happy.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 12:24pm

@ the first screening i attended 'agony' was the only number that got applause.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 1:07pm

I got to see the movie last night and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The village and the woods looked majestic. I felt like I was transported into a fairy tale world. The addition of the blue moon appearing on the third midnight was quite clever. The special effects during the scene at the grave of Cinderella's Mother were stunning.

Meryl Streep gave another excellent performance. She was evil and funny. Plus, her voice was powerful. Emily Blunt was simply lovely as the Baker's Wife. Her voice was so pretty and she showed plenty of layers to the character. James Corden was terrific as the Baker. His performance reminded me a little bit of Mark Hadfield's from the 2010 London production but he also made the role his own. The chemistry between him and Blunt was magical. Anna Kendrick was fine but I thought she could have been a bit more believable as Cinderella. Chris Pine gave the best performance of his career IMHO. He was charismatic, funny, and charming. I was pleasantly surprised by his singing voice. Lilla Crawford and Daniel Huttlestone were very solid in their debut and second film performances respectively. I also thought that the producers did an excellent job with casting supporting actors as well.

WARNING SPOILERS BELOW:














I was not completely bothered by some of the plot changes except for Rapunzel's fate. They decided to give her a fate that was a little similar to Ariel's from 'The Little Mermaid'. Neither of the characters die like in the original source material and they do end up with their princes. However, movie watchers will never know if she truly lived happily ever after with her prince or if the two of them escaped to a safe haven.

The ending and its message were not as powerful as the stage production's. The finale from the original Broadway production and the 2010 London production left more of an impact on me. However, I am still very pleased with the job that Disney and Marshall did.



Updated On: 12/27/14 at 01:07 PM

[sarahb22]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 1:20pm

"I was not completely bothered by some of the plot changes except for Rapunzel's fate. They decided to give her a fate that was a little similar to Ariel's from 'The Little Mermaid'. Neither of the characters die like in the original source material and they do end up with their princes. However, movie watchers will never know if she truly lived happily ever after with her prince or if the two of them escaped to a safe haven."

Well, actually, in the 'original source material' Rapunzel doesn't die either (if we're talking about the fairy tale.) If you're talking about the musical, it's true that Rapunzel doesn't die, but to me the witch's anger still makes sense because Rapunzel makes the conscious choice to reject her - which is a LOT more painful than her getting killed, which was an accident.

As for what sort of an ending Rapunzel gets...you're right that we don't find out, although since in the movie her prince seems to be a nice guy and not a cad like he is in the musical, I think it's safe to assume they live happily ever after somewhere - if not at the palace (which I think the giant destroyed) then somewhere else, like maybe a summer palace or something. Maybe they ran off to Norway and became Anna and Elsa's great-great-great-grandparents.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 4:12pm

Sarah, the stage show was the original source material I was referring to. I heard the story of 'Rapunzel' countless times as a little kid. I knew she ended up marrying the prince in the original fairy tale.

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 4:49pm

I haven't seen ITW yet, but I go in with a great deal of prejudice against Chris Pine. I am not at all a fan of his because I just don't believe he does a good job with Captain Kirk. However, my problem may be with the ST reboot in general; except for Zachary Quinto, most of the actors aren't portraying the same characters I grew up with. So, Chris, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- at least this time, you're not trying to walk in Shatner's shoes.

[J_Jammer]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 5:01pm

I think they do a great job doing the YOUNGER versions of the Star Trek characters.

I agree with the disappointment in the technical aspect of those movies being mired. They should bring that back.

[SweetLips]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 5:12pm

That's very big of you AHL--I'm sure Mr Pine is waiting breathlessly for your critique on his performance.

[jsg03jd]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 5:12pm

"The ending and its message were not as powerful as the stage production's. The finale from the original Broadway production and the 2010 London production left more of an impact on me. However, I am still very pleased with the job that Disney and Marshall did."

Agreed. It's a fine film but the emotional wallop the stage show packed was glaringly absent notwithstanding fine performances from Billy Magnussen, Meryl Streeep and Emily Blunt, who was such a revelation.

[AHLiebross]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 5:18pm

Ah, SweetLips, the question is not whether Chris Pine is worried about what I think, but whether he should be worried about what ST fans in general think. It sounds like he's doing ok with the younger generation, so I guess ST fans are generally giving him a thumbs up.

Maybe I'm just prejudiced against his thick eyebrows.

[Showface]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 5:28pm

"It's a fine film but the emotional wallop the stage show packed was glaringly absent"

I disagree. I thought the morals and messages were delivered wonderfully, and I thought they all became very clear during the No One Is Alone scene. In fact, the song resonated with me even more. I keep saying this, but this intimacy of the film medium brings out new stuff. For example, during LRR's "a giant's a human to....aren't we to show forgiveness", the theme of moral relativity and "grayness" hit even harder in my opinion. This was also the first time I felt bad for the Giant's Wife.