REVIEW: INTO THE WOODS
Who says musicals are dead? Well, probably anyone who's seen this year's Annie that's over the age of 10. But I'd like to make a case for the art that is, at least, attempting to come back to life! Rob Marshall, the director of Into the Woods, essentially revitalized the genre with 2002's Chicago, an adaptation of the stage play. It took home the Oscar for Best Picture, beating much better films like The Pianist and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It also won the ancient Golden Globe category of Best Comedy/Musical, which has nominated such hilarious classics like Pride & Prejudice, My Week with Marilyn and The Tourist. It turned out to be a fluke for the genre, until Marshall again tried to wow us with Nine, a box-office failure. It wasn't until 2012's Les Mis, (which I saw twice!) that really excited people and brought theater geeks and casual film fans alike in drove to the box office to watch Hugh Jackman steal bread and hear Russel Crowe's golden voice. Marshall got a mulligan for Nine, and the result is a very watchable Disney mashup that has some problems but is largely a success.
The movie (based on a stage musical by the legendary Stephen Sondheim) revolves around the intersecting tales of fairy tale creatures, namely Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford). The main characters are the ones who bring all these characters together, the baker and his wife, who have to obtain four items to stop the curse of a witch who lives next door to them so the baker's wife can have a child.
I saw the play put on at a college theater, and thoroughly enjoyed the creativity of lively musical numbers, leading to a lot of anticipation to this film. The transition is seamless, though there are moments where the characters act like they're onstage, with not a lot of movement in small spaces. There's a big ensemble here, but everyone gets a chance to shine. James Corden and Emily Blunt are the leads, and both gave compelling, whimsical turns as well-intentioned parents just trying to do what they can. I hadn't really seen much of the talented Corden, only knowing that he'll be taking over Craig Ferguson's show next year. His comedic chops bring a majority of the film's laughs. Blunt, who has wowed me again and again this year with Edge of Tomorrow and a little indie gem I streamed called Your Sister's Sister. She's become one of my favorite actresses, and along with a great singing voice she has an instant likeablity to her that is essential for a role like this, where she makes, some, uh, questionable decisions.
Anna Kendrick, flexing those singing chops she expertly demonstrated in Pitch Perfect, uses the most of her moment in the spotlight with her solo "On the Steps of the Palace." And it was a joy to see Meryl Streep back to form after a bland role in The Giver, as the witch who stirs the pot. Sans the makeup there's still no trace of Streep in this role of a beauty-obsessed, cunning and fittingly wicked witch. Though this will make number 19 for her Oscar nominations, it will be warranted and likely. Into the Woods' finest moment was balancing all these great characters with laughs and heart, toning down the edge of the play for a younger audience. At its peak it made me a little giddy with nostalgia, because I realized if this came out in the late 90s on VHS I would've rewound it again and again; there's a lot of fun in seeing your favorite childhood fairy tales on the screen.
But I do have some beefs with Into the Woods. Some things were not needed: like the Rapunzel subplot. Thinking about it, it really does go nowhere, and doesn't exactly fulfill any specific role for the film other than to be reminded of Tangled. Rapunzel's prince (that's actually his character's name) isn't well-formed at all, and is mainly used for the number "Agony," a very funny song with his brother, naturally Cinderella's prince, played by Chris Pine (it was my favorite song from the play). Another thing unnecessary: Chris Pine's accent. And Johnny Depp...it's a cute cameo, but as my girlfriend pointed out to me, why make him wear a wolf suit when he's...actually a wolf?! That's something you would do onstage because it has to be a person dressed like a wolf. I feel like a CGI wolf could've done the job just as well, and perhaps way less, uh, child-predator-y as Depp did.
Additionally, and this is the big critique where the before mentioned were nitpicks, there are tons of loose ends that I would love to discuss if this were a spoiler review. But many questions go unanswered, some character's fates totally ignored. Perhaps this is the price to pay for such a large ensemble, and is a shame when so much work was put into costumes, practical special effects, and of course the great musical numbers. Time will tell if it will produce Les Mis-like box-office results, but this is an exemplarily film and musical, and will surely encourage more interesting stage works to be brought to screen, and not to be rehashed with Cameron Diaz (cough cough).
Rating: 3/4 stars
The movie (based on a stage musical by the legendary Stephen Sondheim) revolves around the intersecting tales of fairy tale creatures, namely Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy) and Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford). The main characters are the ones who bring all these characters together, the baker and his wife, who have to obtain four items to stop the curse of a witch who lives next door to them so the baker's wife can have a child.
I saw the play put on at a college theater, and thoroughly enjoyed the creativity of lively musical numbers, leading to a lot of anticipation to this film. The transition is seamless, though there are moments where the characters act like they're onstage, with not a lot of movement in small spaces. There's a big ensemble here, but everyone gets a chance to shine. James Corden and Emily Blunt are the leads, and both gave compelling, whimsical turns as well-intentioned parents just trying to do what they can. I hadn't really seen much of the talented Corden, only knowing that he'll be taking over Craig Ferguson's show next year. His comedic chops bring a majority of the film's laughs. Blunt, who has wowed me again and again this year with Edge of Tomorrow and a little indie gem I streamed called Your Sister's Sister. She's become one of my favorite actresses, and along with a great singing voice she has an instant likeablity to her that is essential for a role like this, where she makes, some, uh, questionable decisions.
Anna Kendrick, flexing those singing chops she expertly demonstrated in Pitch Perfect, uses the most of her moment in the spotlight with her solo "On the Steps of the Palace." And it was a joy to see Meryl Streep back to form after a bland role in The Giver, as the witch who stirs the pot. Sans the makeup there's still no trace of Streep in this role of a beauty-obsessed, cunning and fittingly wicked witch. Though this will make number 19 for her Oscar nominations, it will be warranted and likely. Into the Woods' finest moment was balancing all these great characters with laughs and heart, toning down the edge of the play for a younger audience. At its peak it made me a little giddy with nostalgia, because I realized if this came out in the late 90s on VHS I would've rewound it again and again; there's a lot of fun in seeing your favorite childhood fairy tales on the screen.But I do have some beefs with Into the Woods. Some things were not needed: like the Rapunzel subplot. Thinking about it, it really does go nowhere, and doesn't exactly fulfill any specific role for the film other than to be reminded of Tangled. Rapunzel's prince (that's actually his character's name) isn't well-formed at all, and is mainly used for the number "Agony," a very funny song with his brother, naturally Cinderella's prince, played by Chris Pine (it was my favorite song from the play). Another thing unnecessary: Chris Pine's accent. And Johnny Depp...it's a cute cameo, but as my girlfriend pointed out to me, why make him wear a wolf suit when he's...actually a wolf?! That's something you would do onstage because it has to be a person dressed like a wolf. I feel like a CGI wolf could've done the job just as well, and perhaps way less, uh, child-predator-y as Depp did.
Additionally, and this is the big critique where the before mentioned were nitpicks, there are tons of loose ends that I would love to discuss if this were a spoiler review. But many questions go unanswered, some character's fates totally ignored. Perhaps this is the price to pay for such a large ensemble, and is a shame when so much work was put into costumes, practical special effects, and of course the great musical numbers. Time will tell if it will produce Les Mis-like box-office results, but this is an exemplarily film and musical, and will surely encourage more interesting stage works to be brought to screen, and not to be rehashed with Cameron Diaz (cough cough).
Rating: 3/4 stars
Comments
Post a Comment