Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 185

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

^ I agree. Innocent until proven guilty.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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"?