Into the Woods (2014)

The point is, they made their point but kept going on afterwards. Anyway, I know it's ass backwards but I decided to watch the movie first (I didn't even want to see the film but that's democracy for you) see the play later. I found the latter to be paced better, making the repetitive nature of the vocals less noticeable.

Maybe what you do really is less important than when you do it? As said though, the one benefit I will give the movie is that I enjoyed its version of last midnight more because in that case the story really did hinge on four midnights.

Ah. Truth be told, I didn't notice the Opening Number being so long, probably because I thought it was just several different songs being strung together. (Having the Witch rapping in the middle probably helped with that.)

EDIT: I also thought that the whole 'Last Midnight' thing in the play's version of the song was more symbolic than literal. As in, this is the end; there's nothing else we can do; as far as everyone's concerned, this might as well be 'The Last Midnight'. That's my take on it, anyway.

edited 17th Jan '15 6:01:06 PM by kkhohoho

Yep.

Also plays on Rule of Three. Act 1 has three midnights in succession, the fourth breaks the Rule and is alone in the second Act.

Yeah, anyone who saw the play could have guessed from the get-go that pacing was going to be an issue. The play is structured as a fully-contained story and its sequel, and the length of the play reflects that. Hollywood couldn't get away with that, so the length and pacing suffered. But they did the best they could in that case, I think. The only obvious mistake I think they made with the pacing was excluding No More. Normally a song at that point in the movie stops it short and leaves the audience reeling from the sudden break in the action. But since the action was going too quickly, it would have been nice to have a character actually saying, "Holy shit, get me off this roller coaster," and give the audience a second to catch up.

Oh! I just remembered, does anyone know what happened to those rumored extra songs? I heard about them but they weren't in the movie.

I quite liked it. Saw it yesterday. Didn't mind Rapunzel's survival, as her death was pretty pointless in the play. I do miss the Mysterious Old Man/Baker's Father, who only got one scene, but "Be better than me" is a great line. I think Chris Pine was the weakest singer, but "Agony" was still great. Didn't mind the cutting of the reprise either because that also doesn't add much to the plot.

There was a rumor I heard that I was very glad wasn't true, that being that the Baker's Wife survives. I was concerned because I could totally believe Hollywood/Disney would do something like that.

edited 17th Jan '15 7:15:04 PM by HamburgerTime

Well, they're not crucial, but they have their roles. The only weird thing that comes from the change is that Rapunzel and the prince actually get their fairy tale ending. But that's not a big deal.

Rapunzel getting squished does one thing and one thing only: set up a song. Which the movie did anyway in a different context. Apart from that, I think it's just a pointlessly awful thing to happen to a character that had been through enough.

That kind of death can be done well if it has a point (i.e. Eponine, who saved a life and a relationship in dying), but this one was just another victim for the Giantess.

edited 17th Jan '15 7:52:11 PM by HamburgerTime

The Songs that were added; 'Rainbows' for the Baker and his Wife, and 'She'll come back' which was written just for Strep, were both cut. They'll be added back in the DVD Release in March.

Into the Woods is back on Broadway - though it's a bare-bones version with just 10 people and a single piano. But yes, "No More" is in and it's still as haunting and beautiful as ever.

Review

Acting for Two is actually standard for the play: the Narrator and the Mysterious Man, the prince and the wolf (both princess and both wolves if you're going by the revival version). The Giant's Wife and Cinderella's mother are also both voiced offstage and could be done by any of the other female players. And the sets aren't super-complicated. Would be interesting to hear the arrangements though.

edited 25th Jan '15 8:09:16 AM by Elle

The Acting for Two in Into the Woods is usually significant too.

The Narrator and the Mysterious Man both have a significant control or hand of influence over the events of the story.

The Prince and the Wolf have a complete lack of control over their sexual hungers and desires.

The Giant and Cinderella's Mother are both maternal characters in the story and mostly passive roles until the Giant appears in the second act; where she her maternal nature is flipped to a darker end.

Yeah, the revival idea of two wolves was a weird idea and I'm glad they didn't use it for the film.

Wasn't the 2003 revival the one that nobody liked?

edited 26th Jan '15 11:56:41 PM by Pannic

I wouldn't really know.

Anyway, I don't know if I've said this before, but I saw it back in December with my family.

My mom said she was getting bored from it.

My sister liked it more, but got bored towards the end.

I quite liked it from beginning to end.

Come to think of it, what was people's problem with it again?

Act 2 slows down the pacing considerably and doesn't have the time to develop out its plots as much as the first act.

The incredibly jarring tone shift between the two acts, mostly.

Both I guess.

edited 1st Feb '15 12:17:11 PM by Zendervai

Er, IIRC, wasn't that kind of the point of the original musical?

That the first act was about everyone getting their "happily ever afters" and then the second act has the character suffer the consequences of what they did in the first act?

Also, one thing I should've mentioned was that when the movie was over when I saw it, everyone was clapping for it. So it must've done something right.

Basically, the complaints I've heard the most:

• Johnny Depp's character is a pedophile
• The characters are unlikable
• The songs are bad
• The affair between the Baker's Wife and the Prince comes out of nowhere
• General feelings that the last act was a mess, made no sense, or that it just should've ended at the fake-out

I could sort of understand feeling that the movie was too mean-spirited. I think Disney's branding has kinda worked against them. Others, not so much. I've seen people complain that there's "no character development," which is flatly incorrect.

edited 1st Feb '15 1:25:34 PM by Pannic

I'll make my way down.

• Well, that's EXACTLY the point to his character. The wolf IS a pedophile.
• Can't entirely agree. The Baker and his wife are likable enough and the musical explores their relationship enough. Maybe Jack and the Princes can be annoying or lacking, but they are side characters or supposed to have some element of 'not nice'. "Nice is different than good" and all that.
• And, that not something I can agree to either. The musical is popular for a reason and considering how many times the songs have been caught in my head or someone else's, I wouldn't say that that's an common criticism. In fact, I'd say its the first time its come up in the thread. I personally find the songs brilliant because they continuously reuse different themes and segments of other songs in parts of the score. Notable, the 'I Wish' rift comes up numerous times.
• Agreed. Its a bit more noticeable in the show. The Baker's Wife keeps asking about the Prince and the Prince's disillusionment with Cinderella is played up A LOT more rather than not at all.
• Which, considering the second Act is the bulk of the show, they could never do that.

I suspect the last one is once again, that for some insane reason, some people cant stand an ending that isnt sappy and saccharine

I think this might be a movie that benefits from repeat viewings. I mean, a lot of us are fans of the show, so we've had years to see the musical on stage in different productions, watch the dvd a few times, and so on. I think a lot of the dislike comes from people not having their expectation met and from not picking up all the details.

Well, there are two ways to look at the problems with the second act. One is that it is a departure from the first act, that it is grimmer and the movie seems to plow into all of this uncomfortably dark stuff that it hadn't had before. Complaints like that are mostly unjustified, in that all of that stuff is intentional and have benefits in their own right. The other is that it is rushed and there are several things that get lost and are kind of hard to follow. That's valid.

Okay, for instance, take Cinderella's prince. It's not fair to complain about him being unfaithful in that that's sort of the entire point of his character arc. It is fair to complain that it seems to come out of nowhere, since in the play it has a great deal of buildup that was lost in the press for time.

I guess which one of the above bothers someone depends on who's making the complaints.

@ Pannic: So... all stuff that's in the play then? I noticed that with the Les Mis movie as well, that a lot of the bad reviews complained about stuff straight from the play like the very little speaking.

Les Mis also has the problem of a ghastly directorial style that's constantly in your face and gives you no time to breathe. Into the Woods has some flaws in the translation to film, but most of them come from just that. Plays and films work differently and Into the Woods was written around the assumption that there would be an intermission.

Les Mis was directed by an idiot who thought he was an auteur.

edited 10th Feb '15 6:14:31 PM by Zendervai

And, quite frankly, I'm not sure if there's an easy solution to the lack of an intermission. While they literally could just do a 'Two Years Later', Intermission also allows the audience to digest the material. It doesn't work quite the same way.

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/02/26/meryl-streep-into-the-woods-deleted-song

She'll be back has been uploaded.