Into the Woods

WARNING: This review is hidden because it reveals the content of the film.
Click here to show this review. This is going to be one of those instances where I like the movie, I think it’s well made, well produced, very well acted and performed, but my enjoyment of it is hampered by the style of musical that it is. I liked “Into the Woods”, and I like musicals overall, but I’m also picky about the type of musicals that appeal to me. There are the ones where people talk and then burst into song, like “The Wizard of Oz” or “The Little Mermaid” and there are the ones where people “sing-talk” the whole way through, like “Les Miserables”. I much prefer my singing and talking to be separated from each other, meaning I won’t be revisiting “Into the Woods” anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a bad movie. In fact, I think it’s pretty good as far as broadway-to-screen adaptations go.

I found the plot to be very ingenious. James Corden and Emily Blunt play The Baker and his wife, a childless couple who dream of having a baby. The reason they’ve been having so much trouble conceiving is because of a witch’s curse (the Witch is played by Meryl Streep) She agrees to reverse the curse if they can gather some ingredients, all of which are key elements from four other fairy tales. The film crosses this new story with four familiar ones: Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Little Red Riding Hood (Lila Crawford, particularly good), Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone) and Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy) The actions of each character ends up causing, influencing or altering the familiar elements that we have come to love about these timeless fairy tales.

I really like the concept of this film and I think it gets pulled off very well here. Seeing a live action Cinderella, that sounds alright I suppose, but we’ve had a good version of the story available readily since 1950. A twist on the story might have been interesting, but even “Snow White and the Huntsman” could only go so far with interesting visuals and changes to the story. This though, this is something special. I like the idea of having all of these fairytales packed together in the same universe, without turning it into a farce like “Hoodwinked” or “Shrek”. Not that I dislike those movies, but fairy tales poking fun at each other, that’s been done a lot. This movie feels fresh in that it also stays pretty close to the original Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

I suppose a question to ask is “Is there a reason to watch this film instead of the Broadway production? ” I would say that this is a good companion piece to it, but it doesn’t replace the need for big fans to see a live show. This picture does not include all of the songs originally composed, but it makes up for this with some very good performances and excellent production value. I thought the costumes and the sets were very impressive and I can easily see why this, of all the musicals out there was chosen to become a theatrically released film. Meryl Streep deserves praise of course, but I thought everyone was pretty good here. I got a real kick out of seeing Daniel Huttlestone as Jack. I think there’s just something about British children singing that is very amusing. I was actually surprised by how convincing the child actors were. I’m always weary of seeing children singing in movies, or in movies at all because often, they’re just not on the same level as the other players but the two young performers really did a bang-up job.

Just because I’m not on my hands and knees praising the movie, doesn’t that it isn’t a satisfying experience. I have to admit that I did find it a bit long at times, but that’s just me. Even then I attribute it to the mood I was in when I jumped in the theatre because when I think back to “Into the Woods”, I really do think it’s quite good. I might not have loved it, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s my loss because if “Into the Woods” interests you, I think you’ll have a great time with it. (Theatrical version on the big screen, February 2, 2015)