Into the Woods Official Movie Thread- Page 186

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 6:32pm

She only got about five feet of Rapunzel's hair. There was plenty more where that came from.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 6:53pm

I did like that it actually hurt Rapunzel to have someone climb on her hair..it's never really that REAL in the fairy tale version.

While I agree that this is not a movie for very young children, I don't know why any parents would be upset to see The Wolf tempt Little Red with candy. I think it's a very good lesson - she was tempted, she got into real trouble, and was lucky she escaped. Her mother knew best after all. I would think most parents would want their children to see that. Anything else more mature in the temptation zone is going to go right past the little ones so what's the problem.

[canmark]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 7:17pm

The last movie I would see in 2014 was Into the Woods. Acceptable, but disappointing, is the best I can say for the film.

Despite the all-star cast, the movie felt cheap and under lit. The costumes were drab (especially compared to the stage originals), the production design was unimaginative (Granny’s house was a tree with a door, the “palace” looked more like a fortress), and the special effects (like the virtually unseen giants) lacking. Perhaps if less money was spent on star salaries, more would have been available for beautiful, fairytale scenery and effects (the princes ball, the witch’s garden, the giants’ kingdom), Where the stage version had a theatrical magic, this film lacked movie magic.

Many of the “stars” didn’t work in their roles for me. Meryl Streep was nothing special – her witch was less interesting than Bernadette’s. Johnny Depp’s wolf was neither human enough nor wolf enough to be truly menacing. Chris Pine’s prince lacked charm – he was either an airhead or camp (as in “Agony”).

Have no problem with James Cordon, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick, Tracy Ullman, and actually liked Lilla Crawford as Little Red Riding Hood.

I was impressed with the amount of singing versus dialogue, although it did seem like a lot of the songs were shortened. And while it didn’t bother me that the British actors were using their own accent, I wasn’t sure why the American actors needed to use phony sounding British accents (Chris Pine, I’m looking at you). “Giants in the Sky” is one of my favorite songs, but Daniel Huttlestone’s Cockney accent was grating on my nerves.

Was surprised to see Simon Russell Beale and Frances de la Tour in the cast – wished we could have seen more of them.

Couldn’t decide if the occasional bits of physical humor, such as Rapunzel’s prince half falling out of the tower and limping onto his horse, were funny. That said, I did find Little Red Riding Hood singing while eating to be funny.

And like with the Les Miserables movie, I’m glad I saw it, but I have no desire see Into the Woods (the movie) anytime soon. But the stage musical, I would be happy to see both again.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 7:18pm

Emily Blunt only got better the second time around. I agree that she is more earnest and less cynical than Joanna Gleason. Gleason got the chance to sing the brilliant "Maybe They're Really Magic" bit, which she used to stress the Baker Wife's no-nonsense attitude and moral relativism to unbelievably impactful altitudes--what a performance--and her line readings are indeed more ironic as PRS said. I also think Gleason was much more exasperated and dissatisfied with the Baker than Blunt's Baker's Wife ever is. I love that Blunt plays it on a different note though, she finds her own approach to the role and it first perfectly with the film. Her chemistry with James Corden is so sweet, I'm giddy watching them in "It Takes Two" (love love love the way Blunt flirts with him during the "you're passionate, charming, considerate, clever" bit, that's how you build a character). And she delivers "Moments in the Woods" like a Shakespearean soliloquy. I already think it's bound to be one of the criminally underrated performances of the season.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 7:25pm

Just because I'm such a Wizard of Oz geek, I noticed a very subtle nod in the staging when Meryl as the Witch first makes her explosive appearance blasting through the door ...

She stood in the middle of the floor for a nice long moment with her costume flapping in a whipping wind as she glanced around with jerky movements and a crooked, hunched over stance ... and it reminded me very much of Margaret Hamilton's (and her able stunt double Betty Danko's) first appearance as the Wicked Witch of the West. Same high wind, flapping her costume around, same agitated stance, looking around with jerky motions.

Whether Rob Marshall intended that or not ... it immediately called to mind a "witch of a different color" from MGM's Oz.

And I absolutely loved it.

[GoSmileLaughCryClap]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 7:52pm

I thought the same thing!

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 7:57pm

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.

Wow. You nailed it with that description. I truly enjoy both interpretations.

Updated On: 12/31/14 at 07:57 PM

[sueb1863]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 9:29pm

Why did the Witch cut Rapunzel's hair in the movie, anyway? In the stage show she used the hair to trick the Prince, as he climbed up the hair thinking it was Rapunzel, but in the movie it wasn't staged that way. So, it seems she didn'r really have to cut off the braid. She could have banished Rapunzel to the swamp with her hair intact.

Updated On: 12/31/14 at 09:29 PM

[J_Jammer]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 9:39pm

@canmark

I disagree with how Into the Woods looked. It looked fine. That's what makes the musical so awesome, the set doesn't have to be spectacular because the story does all the work.

[J_Jammer]

Posted: 12/31/14 at 9:47pm

@Mr. Nowack

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

Ugh...really? I still don't understand how people don't read up on what they're about to see. I don't know if I could keep my mouth shut. I'd want to say, "You were the fastest swimmer?"

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 2:01am

best12, Oh I love you. I'm a fellow Oz nerd and thought the exact same thing. Nice to know someone else was thinking it!

[BroadwayStar4]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 3:20am

Seriously, every single review out there is complaining about the last half of the movie. It's like they completely missed the point of the entire story.

[Joviedamian]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 3:31am

"Why did the Witch cut Rapunzel's hair in the movie, anyway? In the stage show she used the hair to trick the Prince, as he climbed up the hair thinking it was Rapunzel, but in the movie it wasn't staged that way. So, it seems she didn'r really have to cut off the braid. She could have banished Rapunzel to the swamp with her hair intact."

I think it was a punishment overall. Though she could have kept her hair intact, I think because it was the hair that let the prince in, in the first place, is what made the Witch cut it off. Remember she had this hair for sometime and it got her a man to see her....its a cruel and long lasting punishment as well as sending her away.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 5:40am

I saw it for the second time on Tuesday, and both times I've been in the theater and feeling really tense, maybe like I'm nervous for how the audience will respond to it. Anyone else felt like that? It's like, I know the material so well I'm constantly wondering how these noobs are reacting to it. That said, I immensely enjoyed it the second time. I feel like this will be one that's easier for me to enjoy in the comfort of my home on Blu-Ray or DVD.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 6:10am

I have a question. In the film, the Baker's wife has a sort of "fling" with the prince. Does this happen in the musical as well (since I have never seen the show on Broadway)?

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 6:40am

It's the exact same situation in the film as it is onstage. Although in the film it seems like they've only done some kissing, whereas in the stage version I'm pretty sure they have sex (I've always taken it that way, that is).

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 9:16am

In the show, at least as originally staged and I believe in most productions, there is a strong intimation of sex not just kissing. Usually it's the staging, with the actors suggesting an after sex physicality. Of course, in the show Hello Little Girl is usually much more erotic than it is in the movie, not suggesting that there is actual sex between the Wolf and Red (usually, at Shakespeare in the Park there was major oral sex stage picture joke that many even on bww objected to as, er, in bad taste) but that the Wolf's ravenousness is metaphorically sexual and Red's being shown many beautiful things and her awakening to experience is metaphorically sexual.

I think the movie handled both scenes well in making some adjustments but not completely gutting the underlying sexuality for either.

Especially because Lilla Crawford is actually quite young, it would have been a huge mistake to turn up the sexualiity between Depp and her. Also of course because of wanting to turn down sexuality in general for a huge release Christmas movie about fairy tales. Still, one can't here "I Know Things Now" without drawing sexual parallels. Well, one can, but....

Similarly, the ambiguity is stronger between the Prince and Wife but it plays well from both interpretations. There is room to see their indiscretion as merely making out, but also more than enough room to see it as much more.

In other words:

You decide what's right.
You decide what's "bad".

(ok, that didn't land completely, but I tried)

***

After all this discussion, I still love this movie beyond my wildest expectations. None of the objections posted here or in reviews I've read are for me at all persuasive.

But I'm fine with people not loving or liking it.

I know what it's like to be on the dissenting side of a major musical adaptation success. I found the Les Mis movie atrocious and like many of us who explained why we didn't like it, it was fine for me that so many people disagreed with us. People disagree about art and entertainment - get used to it.


Updated On: 1/1/15 at 09:16 AM

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 10:19am

"Seriously, every single review out there is complaining about the last half of the movie. It's like they completely missed the point of the entire story."

Or the Director did.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 10:38am

The general movie going audience prefer happy endings. That's why we got the terrible ending to Little Shop of Horrors instead of the original cautionary ending it had.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 10:59am

""Seriously, every single review out there is complaining about the last half of the movie. It's like they completely missed the point of the entire story."

Or the Director did."

He didn't. They did.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 12:47pm

how exactly did Marshall and, more to the point, Lapine miss - fail to deliver the point of the last half of the libretto? It's right there on the screen. In fact, much of the criticism of the movie is the criticism of the show.

Many fail to recognize what so many of us maintain. Some just don't get Act II of ITW. Others get it but are not happy with it.

But for many of us, the very real messiness and raw complicated truth of the denouement is what HAS ALWAYS most distinguisheD Into the Woods as a musical and elevates it to brilliance.

That complexity and mess, which has always been there, is on the screen.



Updated On: 1/1/15 at 12:47 PM

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 12:52pm

All I'm saying is, if most of the reviews are criticizing the second half, then maybe Marshall didn't get it completely right and maybe there is something wrong with it. That seems to be the biggest complaint with this film. Even those who loved it have said they had problems with it.
Updated On: 1/1/15 at 12:52 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 1:20pm

I'm saying people have been saying the same critical things about the resolution of Into the Woods for the last quarter century.

If they weren't saying that about the movie, then Marshall and Lapine wouldn't have at all authentically adapted the show.

And then you really would have heard major complaints!

Updated On: 1/1/15 at 01:20 PM

[Showface]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 1:32pm

"I'm saying people have been saying the same critical things about the resolution of Into the Woods for the last quarter century. "

Exactly

"Despite the all-star cast, the movie felt cheap and under lit. The costumes were drab (especially compared to the stage originals), the production design was unimaginative (Granny’s house was a tree with a door, the “palace” looked more like a fortress), and the special effects (like the virtually unseen giants) lacking. Perhaps if less money was spent on star salaries, more would have been available for beautiful, fairytale scenery and effects (the princes ball, the witch’s garden, the giants’ kingdom), Where the stage version had a theatrical magic, this film lacked movie magic.

Many of the “stars” didn’t work in their roles for me. Meryl Streep was nothing special – her witch was less interesting than Bernadette’s. Johnny Depp’s wolf was neither human enough nor wolf enough to be truly menacing. Chris Pine’s prince lacked charm – he was either an airhead or camp (as in “Agony”). "



I thought the exact opposite...thought the costume and production design was exquisite, I prefer Streep over Peters, Depp's number was still pretty creepy, and Pine was genius in his role....he played it like it should have been played all along. Also, they were only given a budget of $50 Million dollars, and Rob Marshall even said the cast took some monetary cuts for the sake of the production.

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 1/1/15 at 1:57pm

The only parts of this film that were remotely satisfying were the performances (some more then others) and the prologue.
I think that the movie looks a little cheap. Lapine changed the dialogue far too much and many of my favorite moments just weren't there. Then there's the whole issue with it being PG. Whoever made that decision should be shot dead on the spot.
I'm sure that Disney thought that a PG rating would make sense. It obviously didn't. Sex is implied a number of times and their attempt to tiptoe around death is ridiculous.
Marshall is not a strong enough director to pull off Sondheim. He must not have completely understood the whole second half because it came off as dull, long, and boring. This may have been due to the dull rendition of "No one is alone" sung by the wooden Anna Kendrick who refused to show any emotion at all.
I was also disappointed with Chris Pine. He was funny, but with all the cuts, he was a paper thin character. His singing is alright, but he doesn't make much of an attempt to do anything but be funny and look hot.
I also thought that Christine Baranski was only ok. I found myself thinking that, that would have been a great role to slip Bernadette Peters into the way they slipped Colm Wilkinson into Les Mis.

Meryl Streep was great and her "Stay with me" was enchanting. I liked that she wasn't really the "star" of the film and more focus was put on the Baker family. "Last Midnight" was perfectly performed, but it looked as if it were still in post production.
Emily Blunt was great. Not as great as Gleason, but still great. Blunt was sweet and more realistic in her portrayal. I also thought she had a very pleasant voice.
What the hell was Marshall thinking with "it takes two?" That was awfully filmed.
James Corden was excellent as the baker. He was kind and funny and had pretty much everything that role requires.
Lilla Crawford was my favorite part of this film. She has a great voice and her acting chops are top-notch. She's the best Little Red since Danielle Ferland.
I couldn't tell if I loved or hated "I know Thing Now." I liked the idea, but not the way it was done.
Daniel Huttlestone is pretty perfect for Jack. I love his accent and I didn't have any trouble understanding him at all. He's a good actor and a good singer.
Johnny Depp wasn't bad, but he wasn't great. I liked his costume, but it didn't really work with the rest of the film. He's not a very good singer at all and this movie proved that Depp does look like a creepy pedo.
Everyone else in the cast was perfectly fine in their roles.
I think that maybe some live singing would have made the singing sound less poppy and robotic. There are moments that could have benefited from there being some more freedom.
it's a good film, but it could've been better.