MovieChat Forums > Into the Woods (2014) Discussion > Terrible and Tortuous

Terrible and Tortuous

posted 9 years ago by joey-tribbiani
17 replies | jump to latest

I avoided this because of James Cordon. He's just never been a decent actor for me. Not even the likes of Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick to name two amongst many swayed that for me. We don't like James Cordon much in the UK. He's been forced on us a lot and some have given in.

Still I watched it. James Cordon was ok - they could have used someone better.

The film though, as much as the acting is great and technically it is fantastic - the plot, the story, the bloody music and the length lets it down.

I think this would have done wonders at least 15 minutes shorter (20 minutes is better) and without any music.

If they wanted to make the music, they should have used songs, with melodies with catch choruses you could grasp.

A huge shame. A hugely wasted oppportunity. So sad.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 9 years ago

They should have replaced the original songs that have been sung by multiple top notch performers since the musical first opened in 1987?

[–] icestorm29 9 years ago

Stephen Sondheim is one of the most celebrated and acclaimed broadway composers of the last 50 years. Into the Woods won tony awards for best book (the story) as well as best music and lyrics and is one of the most performed shows in regional, high school and college theaters for the last 30 years. Doesn't sound like a shame to me.

[–] joey-tribbiani 9 years ago

Dogfood is for Dogs. When you give it to someone else, they'll give their opinion.

[–] cmtlshem15 9 years ago

I'm pretty sure I've said this elsewhere on the board, but here's my two cents on this -

Saying that Into The Woods should have been made without music is the same as saying that bottled water would be better if it wasn't wet. Into The Woods is a musical. That is how it was originally developed and introduced. This movie comes directly from pre-existing source material. I'm not trying to change your mind or invalidate the fact that you didn't like it - it's not for everyone, so that's fine. But making the movie into something without music would have been a slap in the face to everyone who originally brought it to life, and I for one would have been wildly disappointed with such a bastardizing choice.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 9 years ago

People said the same thing about Sweeney Todd. The sentiment was basically, "I don't like musicals, so how dare Hollywood make movies that I don't like?"

[–] joey-tribbiani 9 years ago

It is possible to make films without music.

Just look at films. Most are made without singing.

This did not work with the music. They made a huge mistake.

[–] cmtlshem15 9 years ago

Oh wow. It's possible to make films without music? There are films WITHOUT singing? Is this real??? WOW. This is brand new information!! Someone call the media, we have a breaking story right here.



Into the Woods originated as a Broadway production. From the moment this story was first told, it was a musical. It has always been a musical. That fact is integral to the way the story is told.

People would have a reason to complain if they saw a trailer for a new Rambo movie, went to the theater with an established idea of what to expect from the Rambo franchise, and felt totally duped by the fact that suddenly John Rambo was dancing to show tunes and singing about his feelings. Rambo has never been a musical and you can't just make it into one and not warn people about what they're getting.

If they took Into the Woods and stripped it of all its original musical qualities, that would be absurd and disappointing. It would be the equivalent of Rambo doing jazz squares through the trees as he sings a solo.

People who don't like musicals are not the target audience for musicals. Shocking, right? That doesn't mean that the rest of us want a dumbed-down version of a movie just to cater to the tasteless masses who do not enjoy singing.

[–] joey-tribbiani 9 years ago

Yeah, we all know it was made as a musical for broadway. It should have been made for the rest of the population who haven't programmed themselves into getting ya yas when someone sings in a theatre to the same melody in every bloody musical.

It would have worked without it. It would have worked extremely well.

It's what people believe. The fact it was a musical first - nobody cares but those who think there is some genius level attached to knowing that. No. You just know that. You're just incapable of understanding people want to watch it without the songs.

Does that make sense to you?

[–] cmtlshem15 9 years ago

I don't think I'm a genius for knowing it was a musical. I think I'm a reasonable and rational person for not expecting the movie to compromise the original premise and deviate from what made it what it was in the first place.

You're incapable of understanding that other people want to watch it with songs. This movie was made for an audience that does not include you. Not every movie that gets made has to appeal to what you call "the rest of the population." Hope that makes sense to you.

I have no trouble understand why you didn't like it. I just don't know why you think it has to be made to please you when there are plenty of people who expected it to be a musical and appreciated it for what it is.

[–] joey-tribbiani 9 years ago

Because it was dreadful.

[–] BestOfAllPossible 9 years ago

Basically, someone offered you a martini. You accepted it, drank it, and then said, "This martini is terrible!"

"What's wrong with it?" the person asks. "Too much vermouth? Too little gin?"

You reply, "For one thing, it's clear, not red. For another thing, it's not made from grapes."

"But it's a martini, not a glass of wine. Why did you drink a martini if you don't like them?"

"Not everyone likes martinis!" you petulantly complain. "It's possible to make a drink that's not a martini. Most people prefer wine, so this should have been wine, not a martini."

The person who served it tries to explain, "There is wine. There's plenty. You can certainly have wine if you want, but you knew this was a martini when you accepted it and drank it. If you don't like martinis then you wouldn't have liked even a really well-made martini like this one."

But, you'll have none of it. "Why can't you accept that it was a terrible and torturous drink? It would have been just as easy to pour me a glass of wine in the first place. You should have just done that."

See how this can be annoying to those of us who drink martinis.

[–] Naeblis5 8 years ago

Hey don't diss Rambo the Musical!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAOOHVFqKkw

[–] ohmypotter 9 years ago

The backlash from fans of This adaptation was already so bad I can't imagine how much worse it would've been if they hadn't made this as a musical. I've only seen the original on DVD but I loved both of these films. I think Disney could've done a better job marketing it as a musical, as I had no idea it was one before going to see it (I was totally unfamiliar with the source material) but loved it because I love musicals. The people with me hated it though and said they wouldn't have seen it had they known it was a musical.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

... they should have used songs, with melodies with catch choruses you could grasp.

It does help, doesn't it?🐭

[–] KristenStewartForever 9 years ago

This movie was wonderful. Wonderful casting, wonderful directing, great singers, great film. Especially Johnny Depp and Anna Kendrick.

[–] greenbudgie 9 years ago

I think that James Corden is going to get on my nerves if they keep showing that 'green light' advert for very much longer. I thought that he was OK in this movie.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

It is wonderful and spot on. Fact. My word is law.