Friday 9 January 2015

Into The Woods (2014)




Love Meryl Streep (obviously, because who doesn’t?!). Love James Corden. Love Emily Blunt. Love Anna Kendrick. I could take or leave Chris Pine, but I’m thinking you get my point. I pretty much love this cast. Do I love this film? Not so much…

This has been highly anticipated by me and my friends for a while now, and the rave reviews only heightened our enthusiasm, so perhaps that goes some way into explaining why it fell so flat for me. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t hate it, and if someone wanted to see it again I would, but my problem is that this film has no longevity. With musicals you usually expect something epic and awe-inspiring, something that will grab you by the gut and either gets you up singing and dancing or has you on the floor sobbing by the end. This film elicited neither reaction, and as such left me disappointed. The premise is that an old witch living next door to the Baker and his wife has promised to lift a curse she put on him and his kin if they procure four precious items that will return her youth, and in their adventures they come across popular Brothers Grimm characters along the way. It’s an extremely interesting premise, right? That’s not a trick question, I swear. The premise was a part of the reason I wanted to see the film after all. The thought of a mish-mash of fairytale characters interacting with one another and participating in one epic adventure sounds brilliant, and in its highly successful Broadway run it has proven time and again to be just that. In film however, something has been lost in translation.

Perhaps it’s the fact that the rights to the film belong to Disney, and so a lot of the gritty nature of the original script and story had to be cut in order to maintain that fun and friendly vibe we recognise from the main distributor of children’s entertainment. I’m no expert, as I haven’t seen an onstage version, but from my research I noticed a few essential moments were left from the film. Apparently the onstage version is much raunchier and violent, and I think that if this film had been picked up by a different distributor, it would have had the potential to be truly great. I’d just like to make it clear as well that I went into this film having done zero research, so the fact that I left knowing that something was missing is a clear indicator that this film has been altered too significantly to feel true to its audience. (Or its adult audience anyway).

That wasn’t my only problem with it though. I took issue with certain scenes that came off as either extremely unsettling or too rushed to feel authentic. For example, the short cameo made my Johnny Depp playing Mr Wolf saw him sing and act in a way that came off as highly paedophilic. Obviously playing the horrible wolf is going to have its drawbacks, but honestly I and my friend were looking at each other more than the screen (in abject horror) as we watched him creep behind the girl, pull the occasional suggestively erotic pose and then sing about her bright pink flesh which has no lumps. “Lumps”? In reference to a prepubescent girl? Yeah, basically the wolf is talking about the fact that this child has no breasts and how he finds this attractive in a victim. Frankly I was appalled that this was allowed in the film, because I know that if I was a parent I would be shielding my children’s eyes and writing letters of complaint to whoever allowed such blatantly erotic and paedophilic moments to play out in a children’s film. When Little Red admits to the Baker that she was scared but also “kind of excited” by the wolfs advances, that is really the last straw for me. And in a Disney film?! But anyway, I think I’ve said enough about this short section of the film to relate that I am NOT happy about Depp’s character. Oh yeah, by the way Disney and director Rob Marshall, thanks for ruining Johnny Depp for me. I’ll never be able to look at the guy in the same way again.

This scene was not the only thing I took issue with though. Unfortunately, I was not a massive fan of the singing talents of one particular character, the actor who plays Jack – Daniel Huttlestone. I hate to say this, because some may also recognise him from Les Miserables where he played Gavroche superbly, but in this film his talents did not transfer quite so...smoothly.Your guess is as good as mine as to why. When he was singing it honestly just sounded like he was shouting, and his acting came off as forced and exaggerated in parts which ruined key moments in the film. (God, I feel like such a bitch saying mean things about a kid. I’m sorry!). Wasn’t the biggest fan of Chris Pine’s singing voice either, but he played the Prince Charming who isn’t so charming very well, and his scene with Billy Magnussen singing under the waterfall was some brilliantly clichéd (that was what they were going for, so I mean it as a compliment) cinema.

The film wasn’t without its merit (namely a fantastic and enthusiastic performance of It Takes Two by Corden and Blunt which made me really happy and saved this film from being switched off half way through. Also Streep. Because Streep is a merit in everything she does) but it didn’t meet my expectations and for this I am bitterly disappointed. It felt rushed, contrived and too abrupt in parts to maintain my interest. Why Meryl Streep’s character, the driving force for much of the action in the first half of the film, suddenly disappears in the second half is beyond me. If an explanation was given, it certainly wasn’t blatant enough to offer me and my housemates any sort of resolution to her character. But, it’s a Disney film aimed mainly toward children, so I guess not everything has to be tied up neatly…

All in all, I was not happy with the outcome of this film. It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t great either, which is surprising given the stellar cast and experienced crew (Rob Marshall and Steven Sondeheim) at its helm.


A rambler’s star rating?


No comments:

Post a Comment