Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 185

[Len6677]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 11:31am

I think Blunt's performance of that song, and the way they filmed the scene, are just more understated than what we're used to from Gleason's take in the Broadway show. Blunt gives a softer take on the character in general. I still enjoyed it very much, though.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 11:49am

Owen, I'm 99.9% sure the whole song is there.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 11:52am

Moments is the entire song but according to ATC, a few beats are missing between phrases. Presumably to give the song a slightly zippier feel on film.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 11:57am

Saw it for the second time last night and, like other fellow BWW-ers, I also enjoyed it even more the second time. It was much easier for me to see it as the film version this time around and recognize it on its own rather than play the comparison game ("well, Joanna Gleason read this line this way," or "on stage they pause before so and so line and it's funnier"). No longer do I feel like Marshall rushes through some key moments; rather, I think he underplays them without hitting you over the head with them. The second act definitely ends when it needs to end, I stand by my opinion that "No More" would have dragged the ending and messed with the beautiful seamlessness Marshall delicately achieves.
This time I was struck by the subtle acting moments we don't get on stage like Meryl's look after she cuts Rapunzel's hair, her face when she sings "so" during "My Fault," Anna Kendrick's introspective "mother isn't here now" (she makes it as much about the fact her own mother's grave is gone as much as Little Red's mother and the more general idea of a "mother," beautiful). Lucy Punch and Tammy Blanchard are true scene stealers. I could watch them go on for hours.
I absolutely love this movie wholeheartedly. It makes me happy just to think about it.

[Jay94]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 12:15pm

I think there is a lot of irony to be found in how the tables have turned between Into the Woods and The Phantom of the Opera. Phantom proved to be the much bigger box office hit than ITW and ended up winning Best Musical at the Tonys. However, in the medium of film ITW will end up surpassing Phantom at least three-fold and is garnering better critical and awards reception.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 12:37pm

I think there is a lot of irony to be found in how the tables have turned between Into the Woods and The Phantom of the Opera. Phantom proved to be the much bigger box office hit than ITW and ended up winning Best Musical at the Tonys. However, in the medium of film ITW will end up surpassing Phantom at least three-fold and is garnering better critical and awards reception.

Very much the same thing happened with the film versions of DREAMGIRLS and NINE. DREAMGIRLS was poised to sweep the Tonys back in 1982, but then Tommy Tune brought in NINE just before the Tony eligibility deadline and NINE wound up winning the Tony for Best Musical. DREAMGIRLS however was still a huge success, surpassing NINE in terms of longevity and recognition outside of theater circles.
The film version of DREAMGIRLS was hugely successful while the film version of NINE was a huge flop.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 12:53pm

I just saw it again last night and this movie is not going over well at all in my area. Those who are familiar with the stage show or are fans of musical theatre in general are absolutely falling in love with it. On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of families bringing their young children or uninterested teenagers who come with loud parents who have no problem voicing their opinions during the movie.
There were literal " boos " from people when the characters would start singing. The audience erupted into violent laughter when the Baker's Wife died and once again when they said she had died and again when she appeared to sing her reprise. Half of my theatre walked out during "No One is Alone" and those who stayed talked through the rest of the film... loudly. One man started talking on his phone.

Due to this happening both times that I've seen the film, I feel like I can't completely judge it. One thing that I do feel about it is that it's a good film, but you can tell the musical is alot better. It feels like it has amazing source material and a great cast, but it doesn't quite live up to its full potential.

[Len6677]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 12:57pm

Wow, icecreambenjamin. Where do you live? It was nothing like that in my theater. I think maybe one or two people got restless when the last couple songs began, but overall even the kids seemed engaged throughout.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 1:00pm

Orlando
The kids weren't really the the problem. It was more the parents.

[Len6677]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 1:03pm

That's awful. You paid for your ticket too and have every right to enjoy the film without morons messing it up for you. If they don't like it they should shut up and deal with it, or shut up and leave.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 1:08pm

Orlando

This does not surprise me at all. That sounds about right.

I lived in South Florida for 12 years. The audiences there are, and I'm putting this mildly, not quite as sophisticated. Asking them to appreciate a musical, let alone a Sondheim musical is a bit much to ask of them.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 1:47pm

It's funny. When I went yesterday again (midtown Manhattan), it's funny (ok SAD) how you (meaning "ME")can pre-judge who is seeing the movie. I am sitting there and this lovely Hispanic family came in - a grandmother, grandfather and four young children, ages I would say 4-9ish who were just thrilled to be sitting in a theater with lounge chair seating and buttons that moved the leg rests, etc. They were talking really loudly for about 20 minutes before the lights dimmed and running around for appropriate snacks, etc. And I am thinking they have NO idea what they have brought these kids to see...and maybe they didn't.

But they were totally engrossed in the entire movie, I didn't hear a peep out of any of them and the grandmother had tears in her eyes when the movie was over. The grandparents were hugging each other and the kids as they were leaving...and the kids were talking over each other in what the just saw. Quite humbling actually.

You just never know..and it was a really good reminder to myself - who should know better - not to make assumptions based on first glance. You don't really have to be a theater buff to get it...

[Starship]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 2:00pm

^ I agree. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Len6677]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 2:11pm

KathyNYC2, I love that story and had a similar experience. As I was watching people enter the theater, I was imagining how different groups were going to respond. For example, there was a group of old white ladies sitting directly behind me, older couples where I would guess the men had been dragged there by their wives, a bunch of Hispanic families with young kids, etc. The only one I heard say anything negative was one of the old ladies (she must have been 80+, and before the movie actually asked me what was playing in the theater--I guess she was making sure she didn't go into the wrong one, haha). She told her friends that she loved the songs and the "scenery" but that there was "too much commotion" in the film for her liking. The families seemed to really enjoy it.

I am sure there were people in the theater who didn't like it, but none of them were making a scene about it.

[tenorphil81]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 2:50pm

My first viewing was a late evening showing at a megaplex in an Illinois suburb of St. Louis. The audience was a mix of teenagers and up (not many families or small children) A particularly inconsiderate group of teenagers behind talked sotto voce throughout the Prologue and I had to "shush" them...which only worked once because the talking was peppered throughout, and got louder whenever the sound levels increased. (They must have this down to a science.) I had a feeling that at least one of them was explaining the plot to his neighbor/date. Plus, there was a particularly insolent child who left the screening room several times and had to loudly stomp his way up the steps to his seat. So annoying. Kind of tainted my first experience with the film.

My next viewing was at an independent one-screen moviehouse in St. Louis (the Hi-Pointe if you've ever been there) and the audiences skewed older, with absolutely no teenagers or children. Not surprisingly, I had a less annoying experience as people were polite and laughed at points that were meant to be funny...not just because they had issues with the genre of film they'd come to see.

I'm learning my lesson: Avoid the multiplexes for highly anticipated films. Theater etiquette is completely lost there.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 3:04pm

At least those in my audience who didn't like it waited till the end to voice their opinions!

Though the entire group behind me for some bizarre reason started loudly unwrapping candy and putting on their coats well before the Giant's Wife was even killed. Stereophonic coat rustling and cellophane wrappers in one's ears can be very distracting especially regarding the mood of the scene.

The same group also exclaimed loudly "How can you combine five fairytales AND make them sing???"

Updated On: 12/31/14 at 03:04 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 3:11pm

I agree that Blunt's Baker's Wife is somewhat softer than Gleason's. But both actors achieve a very similar effect. Each understand who this woman is, and give her all the warmth, honesty and intelligence at their command. Each also has the advantage of being a first rate comic talent.

Of course, Gleason's Baker's Wife, legendary in its honesty and economy, was still calibrated for the stage; Blunt's is very much a movie performance - and a very good one.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 3:25pm

The first time I saw the movie there were these two ladies next to me and after the movie they said and I quote "What a horrible musical.." "Far too long"... I had to resist the urge to scream at them.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 3:26pm

Gleason had a kind of ironic bemusement to the way she delivered many of her lines. Blunt's performance is much more earnest. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but that's the main difference in their performances to me.

[Mrtrobz]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 3:31pm

The cinema theatres Some of you guys went to sound torturous, over here they are usually quite reserved by comparison. Most children appear 12-5PM and after that the admission price rises and it's usually students and older.
Updated On: 12/31/14 at 03:31 PM

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 4:59pm

B.O. Update:
Tuesday - 6.5 million dollars, up 4% from yesterday. Estimate for this coming weekend is 21 million, which will bring the 11 day total to 94 million.

Did anyone here ever think that this movie would make 100 million in 2 weeks?

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 5:35pm

So glad this movie is doing well at the box office, and I'm glad others here (like ray) are finding it even more appealing upon a second viewing, as did I.

I think it's really sad and disgusting that it's the idiotic, Neanderthal parents who are freaking out over the "strange" material here, not their children ... who if given half a chance are actually enjoying it and learning something new, not only about the many life lessons of story, but also about different styles of music, different ways of singing, and other (musical) ways to tell a story. A lot of them would never get to see the stage production (or any stage show, for that matter). And while this isn't the Broadway version, it's a wonderful gateway to "new" ideas for them.

... but not if their idiotic parents keep freaking out.

Updated On: 12/31/14 at 05:35 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 6:16pm

I just saw Into The Woods today.

I think this is about as good as a Sondheim transfer is going to get. It was very well done.

I think the best musical sequence was "Agony." It was all there, every beat was perfect, every frame well shot.

What can I say? James Corden and Emily Blunt were perfection. Very well cast.

I also think the princes were played to perfection.

I loved Lila Crawford who kept Red Riding Hood from being too precocious. Tracey Ullman, what can you say? Always a top notch performance.

Hats off to Annette Crosbie as Granny, as well as Frances de la Tour as the Giant, Simon Russell Beale as the father and Joanna Riding as the mother.

Daniel Huttlestone was fine, I just wished someone had worked with him on his diction because some of Sondheim's lyrics came out garbled.

Now for some of the weaknesses in the movie.

Anna Kendrick, well acted, well sung, but she just didn't say "Cinderella" to me. The magic wasn't there.

Johnny Depp, fine as the wolf, but meh. I sort of expected more.

Someone needed to tell Christine Baranski that she could tone down the shtick. Every line isn't a punchline.

And finally, I know I'm going to be stoned, but Streep was underwhelming. I'm getting tired of seeing her bag of tricks. The eyes darting back and forth bit is really getting old. Her "telegraphing" to the audience that she's thinking up a plan is tired as well. It's stolen from Lucille Ball doing it on I Love Lucy.

I'm sad that the Baker lost the song "No More" because I think it's one of my favorites in this score, but I can understand why it was chopped.

I needed a shot of Claritan with all that mess flying through the air in every shot. Was that supposed to be magic fairy dust? It was annoying.

Finally, one script flaw. If the witch has magic powers and can appear and disappear, why is she huffing up the wall of Rapunzel's castle? Can't she just levitate up there or twitch her nose and fly up there?

Updated On: 12/31/14 at 06:16 PM

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 6:20pm

This movie has created a funny radical fringe on both ends. There are the horrified conservative parents who think their children will be traumatized if they actually see the big bad wolf opening his jacket to reveal candy.

On the other end are some critics that somehow feel that the movie is hopelessly compromised because the Prince and the Baker's Wife don't have full on back door sex.

Most of the tweaks are minor. It's the tone that's important, and I think just about every aspect of the movie captures the FEEL of the original production.

[HBP]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 6:23pm

So I saw a screening in November and recently rewatched the movie. Like a lot of others have mentioned, it only got better the second time. I think the wolf's costume and flashback threw me off for the rest of the movie the first time, but I absolutely loved (the rest of) the movie upon second viewing. Emily Blunt has won me over and I think they nailed almost every other part of the transition from the stage to screen.

On a side note, was anyone else bothered by the fact that, minutes after the Baker's Wife ripped off Rapunzel's hair, it was grown back in time for the Witch to cut it again during "Stay With Me"?