I'm really disappointed so many people on here can't enjoy this.
shareI rather liked the salute to Tex Avery by clothing the big bad wolf in a zoot suit, and loved the "Agony" song and scene. That one was just funny as heck. :)
shareIt's not just IMDb though. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 51% for the audiences and Cinemascore is a B (which is actually a bit low)
shareIt's cause so many people just did not get it
shareMaybe. I just watched it for the first time now. Unfortunately, there is no "audience consensus" blurb on Rotten Tomatoes, so it's not too easy to be briefed on the general audiences complaints on the movie.
Anyway, I just watched it for the first time now, what is there to get?
And the critics' score is 71%..
~Never Forget. Never Forgive."
Yeah. Like another poster said, seems to be your classic (yet rare) case of a movie that critics like and audiences don't.
shareExcept that audiences went to see it and gave it rave reviews on social media. The movie made over 200m because of the good buzz and word of mouth.
The Judge was a commerical and critical flop and yet it has a 7.5 rating on IMDB and 73% audience score on RT, if the audiences liked it then why did they not go to see it?
~Never Forget. Never Forgive."
Most audience gave Into the Woods poor reviews. Hence the low ratings on all the websites. It didn't make money based on good buzz or word of mouth. It didn't get "rave reviews" by most people on social media".
The Judge was liked by the people who did watch it but it clearly didn't have wide commercial appeal.
I mean, it's like asking why a Transformers movie made more than a romantic comedy.
Into the Woods is a Disney Fantasy Musical based on a beloved Sondheim play which borrows elements from Grimm's fairy tales. The Judge is a down to Earth judicial drama. A lot more people are going to be interested in the former premise than the latter. But evidently, The Judge was more crowd pleasing among general audiences, and Into the Woods was more pleasing to film critics.
This isn't rocket science dude. It's pretty much spelled out in the stats.
It didn't make money based on good buzz or word of mouth. It didn't get "rave reviews" by most people on social media".
An opening has nothing to do with audience reaction.
I wouldn't expect you to ever admit a movie with Johnny Depp in it is considered bad by audiences.
It is almost the most boring, unmemorable musical I've ever watched. Notice there were ZERO award noms for music in this musical. That says it all. Sondheim phoned it in, it all sounds the same and lacks any depth and emotion. It's forgettable, uninspiring and the current 6.1 is generous.
shareNotice there were ZERO award noms for music in this musical.Apart from the Tony Award for Best Score, a Drama Desk nomination for Outstanding Music, a Drama Desk award win for Outstanding Lyrics. share
Well I was only looking at the movie. And Tony's, considering some years there can be a serious lack of competition those don't mean much. Sondheim phoned it in, period.
Oh yes, and not to mention the fact that winning any Tony's probably came only because Sondheim's name was on it. The music is dull, unoriginal and flat out boring.
Phantom of the Opera, one of the biggest hits in the history of Broadway, is a lack of competition?
Also, as for the movie... the thing wasn't eligible for either of the music categories at the Academy Awards (Best Original Score, Best Original Song), on account of all the material being adapted from a previous source. The same goes for the Golden Globes. Not a very compelling argument.
And Grammy award for best album
shareSo, I'm in my early 60s; I've seen hundreds of plays and musicals, many on Broadway, some as long ago as early-to-mid-1960s and as recent as last week. I've seen at least a half dozen Sondheim musicals; indeed, Sweeney Todd (the live version) is my favorite musical. I like plenty of movie musicals, although mostly the older ones -- West Side Story (lyrics by Sondheim), Cabaret, and many traditional favorites. I go to lots of movies, and I typically see about half the Academy Award nominees. I also see lots of super hero movies; I'm an equal opportunity movie-goer.
I'm not trying to say that I'm something special, so please try to resist flaming me; I'm only trying to establish that I don't have an ax to grind, and I know what a musical is, I like lots of musicals, and I go to see musicals live and in the movies all the time. I like Sondheim; I like Sondheim a lot.
Now, here's what I think of Into the Woods -- [Spoilers Ahead}
(1) Way, way too much happens off screen -- Cinderella is forever running from the Prince, but we have no idea why; characters die and disappear off screen, and so on. I suppose that they had a lot of ground to cover, and they figure that we have already seen many of these stories, so that they can leave out the details. Still, it makes for a movie that feels full of holes, and terribly uneven.
(2) I suppose that many expect a movie about fairy tales to not be quite so dark. That applies to me, too. It's not that the movie can't be dark, or that Americans don't appreciate complex stories; it's that I really wasn't anticipating so much darkness; [SPOILER] so many people dying/disappearing in the course of the story. Pedophiles and people going blind! (Yes, I know that people go blind in the real Grimm's fairy tales, but this is the 21st century and we are faced with pedophiles and blinding birds and more jarring images than I had been expecting.)
(3) The singers are mostly fine. I see no reason to beat up on poor Johnny Depp, and most of the singing was perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, there was no one who was wonderful either. The duet of the two princes was actually pretty good, and it sounded more like Sondheim than most of the other numbers in the movie.
(4) And most of the acting was fine, too; special credit to James Corden who was quite good, and carried much of this movie, and Meryl Streep who was very good (not Academy Award good, but hey, there's a streak to consider).
(5) To me, the music was only fair. Like I said, I really like Sondheim; I thought that this was mediocre Sondheim. Yes, I know that it won Tonys and it wasn't eligible for Academy Awards. That's fine; it still didn't do it for me.
(6) This brings us back to the basic story, and I am with the people who just didn't get it. Somebody put a bunch of fairy tale characters in a mixing bowl and produced the first act of a movie. If the live version was like this, then I am truly sad, although I do have to wonder, especially when the second act seems like someone put everything in a BLENDER. While the first act at least resembled the fairy tales we grew up with, the second act was not particularly recognizable. It was like two different movies. (I always thought that Les Mis felt like two separate musicals; alas, this had none of the two great stories that saved Les Mis).
So, I agree with the supporters that this isn't a 1, but I have trouble going beyond about a 5. 6.3 isn't ridiculous, but it is more than I would give Into the Woods.
In a world where 2-1/2 stars (out of 4) indicates something decent, this is probably 2 stars; its got some famous people and a couple of fine performances. It also has a not very intelligible story, and two endings, with the "second movie" really feeling like the story was just made up as they went along (SPOILER -- Cinderella's prince making a pass at the Baker's wife, who then conveniently dies off screen??? It was her suddenly disappearing that really go to me; she was one of the major, major characters, someone whose pregnancy was a key motivator in the story, and then she dies off screen, with just a sentence of explanation.)
Two stars is not enough for me to recommend it, or to want to see it again; for me, these are two other indicators of whether a movie is any good.
That's my view; you are welcome to yours, and I will respect you for it. I trust that you will respect me for mine.
In an enormous collection of 85% positive reviews by "top critics" on Rotten Tomatoes, far higher than the 51% rating given by actual movie goers (not unlike the ratings here on imdb), I was intrigued to find a Rex Reed review that very much captures the feelings of many of us here --
http://observer.com/2014/12/wrapping-up-the-year-in-film/
If the live version was like this, then I am truly sad, although I do have to wonder, especially when the second act seems like someone put everything in a BLENDER.That's part of the point. When the giant comes down, everything turns to chaos, because nobody know what they're supposed to do. Nobody knows the story.
Thanks. That's very helpful.
Interestingly, I get the impression that the movie's biggest supporters are the people who saw the live version and fill in what's missing in the movie. For the rest of us, it's not so easy to do that.
What is there to enjoy? Every second of this POS movie is a disgrace to every version (even the bad ones) of these classic stories, the play was amazing and like all plays found clever ways to get around it's limitations, this horrible movie adds limitations for no reason. *beep* this movie it's my least favorite movie of last year
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
Anyone who uses the words "POS movie" is an idiot. Fact.
---
Click here:
http://soundcloud.com/tigermaster/
I gave it a middling score because I felt it lacked the intensity of the original. None of the actors actually did anything wrong it was just something, and I know the original had some cheesy moments but that was it's charm.
I'm really surprised they haven't re-released the original.
look at the rating for that http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099851/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_18
They can't enjoy it because it is an awful movie. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and my opinion is that this film is boring, directionless and worst of all, for a musical, tone deaf! I love musicals, both in the cinema and theatre, and the songs in this movie made my ears bleed. I didn't even watch the last 45 minutes as I couldn't take anymore punishment.
INTO THE WOODS, INTO THE WOODS, INTO THE WOODS... over and over again! Please just stop already.
I have added my one star review and I hope it helps bring this travesty of celluloid stupidity down to an even lower rating to warn people off.
The film is terrible but you really need to see the original musical. It's the greatest Broadway musical of all time. Even better than Les Misérables.
It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations.share
I have no doubt that the stage production would be better ContrastingColors (they generally are). Although it will be hard to beat Les Mis. I live in London and that is one of my favourite shows, it is amazing live.
shareI know. I saw the original musical when it first played in New York and it's phenomenal. It's an experience people need to discover once in a lifetime.
It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations.share
This movie wasn't that good. The music was some of the poorest In any musical I've watched, the acting was super hammy from almost every on involved, reactions to situations in the film were disproportionate and devalued the thing that just happened.
The plot was a little below average and really all it did was retold stories that didn't need retelling (and certainly not changing) over a chorus of forgettable musical numbers.
6.3, or thereabouts is generous to this movie in my opinion.