An actual analysis of the film as an adaptation

I've noticed that a lot of the complaints about this film basically boil down to "it's a musical" or "it's dark," which aren't actual flaws and are really just describing the movie. Besides, the film actually does have real problems in storytelling, which are almost never discussed because all those threads are buried by countless pointless ones. So I've decided to actually look at the film and figure out what works, what doesn't, and why I feel it's a flawed adaptation.

Full disclosure: I am not a massive fan of the musical nor familiar with most of Sondheim's other work. My only exposure to the musical was a high school play which I helped out with.

So, what did this movie actually do well? Well, the first act was translated pretty well. There were some changes, like the removal of the Mysterious Man, but overall it was very faithful to the original. Aside from some weird bits (Depp's zoot suit (seriously, what the hell?), Red's weird shadow puppet thing during "I Know Things Now," Jack's sick tree-climbing skills), it worked out nicely.

I thought the addition of an actual reason for the Witch's 3-day time limit was good. It never bothered me in the stage version, but it was a nice touch, didn't change the meaning of the play, and added a nice visual aspect to the "ticking clock" scenario of the first act. I also thought the change in staging for "Agony" was perfect. Whoever decided it should be a parody of cheesy romantic novel covers with waterfalls and shirtless men deserves a Nobel Prize. That sh!t is amazing. Easily the highlight of the whole film.

So the first act is pretty good. But it's with the second act where the big problems start happening. First off, there's not much time in-between the two acts. This means the shift in tone happens very suddenly, especially since the film gives a false ending at the end of the first act. Secondly, most of the music is cut, which is even weirder when so much of the first act was uncut. Later, Rapunzel gets to ride off with the prince, even though one of the running themes of the musical is that happy endings don't exist. Then we have the Baker's wife's weird and anticlimactic death scene. She's just standing there and then... falls offscreen. It's so bizarre and lazy that I was honestly shocked that Marshall thought he could get away with it. It takes all the dramatic tension and pathos out of what should be an emotional death scene.

And then they cut "No More." Let me ask you a question: you're adapting "Into the Woods," and the studio wants you to cut a few songs out so the movie doesn't run too long. Which do you cut?

A. "I Know Things Now," a song which doesn't add anything to the story and could easily be replaced with a few lines of dialogue;

B. "Giants in the Sky," a song which only exists because it's borderline impossible to show a land of giants on stage, and could easily be replaced with a sequence where Jack meets the giants; or

C. "No More," one of the most famous, emotionally impactful, and thematically important songs in the entire musical.

If you chose C, congratulations! You, Rob Marshall, have figured out how to use a computer and log onto IMDb! Have a sticker! 🏆

I mean, what the f#ck. If you're gonna cut songs, why cut one of the most important songs of the whole damn thing! It's insane!

So, yeah. That's my take on Into the Woods as a film. I found it incredibly disappointing, and I hope you can at least understand my reasoning.