I watched this movie in the movies, I recently watched it. As there were questions about the film, so they have not gone anywhere for so many years, so I decided to write my old-new feelings.
The film’s description is intriguing – an obvious hint of how they decided to link many different fairy tales into one story, where the key details for a witch’s drug will be the main items from each fairy tale “white cow, red cloak, a strand of yellow hair, golden shoes.”
Initially, I was interested in the fact that actors like Meryl Streep and Johnny Depp were announced in the film, I was really waiting for them to appear, and the director of the film is not someone there, but Rob Marshall, behind whom there are many beautiful works as an example – the film “Memoirs of a Geisha”, I am still impressed with him. So what I'm getting at is that reality is much sadder and sadder than expectations. I'm shocked, how could you not take full advantage of Meryl Streep's talent? Her character was just leaked. It is I who keep silent about the fact that even Johnny Depp’s part in this film I forgot! How could you use such actors so badly? This is a mystery to me.
I want to note that there are too many songs in the musical that do not fit well with the overall picture, they do not help to understand the characters, they are not remembered. I can only give credit to the visual side - the film itself looks very good. But that's all for me. A beautiful picture does not save.
The plot itself - everything happens very quickly and blurred, many characters appear, but none of them is revealed, you can not empathize with them, you just do not have time to follow them. The plot is all twisting, questions accumulate, but the solution is not visible. By the end of the film, there are a whole bunch of questions, an unsolved plot and a father and son who start singing a fairy tale song. The main question is, what was it all about? So questions to the director himself - how could it be after so many beautiful works to give this out? I leave the film and do not remember anything, the plot does not remain in memory, only individual parts and then they pale with time.
To sum up, I don’t understand how it was possible to make a film that you forget when you leave a room where world-famous actors fade into memories and leave nothing behind except the question “How is this all?”
On the contrary, I want to praise this film. I am more comfortable with this in the form of a response to some of the claims against him.
First, we must understand that this is a film adaptation of the musical, which dictates the convention of costumes and characters, simplification of dialogue, and sometimes slowing down the plot, although the film seemed quite dynamic to me in general. All the salt is in the songs. I really liked them, both in terms of content and execution. The music is really fascinating.
Secondly, this is no longer a “fairy tale”, but a film “based on fairy tales”. One can expect a fairytale atmosphere from it - but not a plot; fairytale heroes - but in a new interpretation. I have no claims to the characters, except that Rapunzel, the baker’s sister, and her prince were somehow strangely intertwined with the story, and the Witch’s maternal feelings are not fully disclosed, as well as her relationship with her mother – and there is something to think about.
About some clumsiness of the plot, haste: indeed, there are so many storylines and heroes that even two hours of screen time is not enough for everyone. So, for a moment, the wolf and grandmother flashed; it is not very clear what with the mother of Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel has already said about the line. But I think that this abundance of characters is necessary and important – the world is big and different.
While there are some funny moments in the film, it’s not a comedy. And, indeed, for the kids this film will not go; but the guys over 12 will be more interesting; it is important only to discuss with them the lesson they will learn from this film.
I also want to mention one image, one character, which is especially important in this story. It is called Into the Forest. The forest here acts as the main place of action, at the same time he is a hero, he has power, he has a special role; this space changes the other characters, reveals their essence, even in some ways affects the course of events.
The first half of the film: musical, typically Disney (in a good way), a rather funny parody of fairy tales.
And I thought that since Depp is not bad here, and Meryl Streep is beautiful, and, in principle, the acting is good, and the plot is suitable for a pleasant evening over a glass of warm milk with cookies, then the end will be good.
Oh, no, no.
I guess what the filmmakers wanted to show and why they chose such a double-talented title. And quotes are useful, “teaching”. But in my opinion, it was disgusting. What at first looked like a fairy tale ended in a harsh household. All the magic went that forest, leaving the viewer with cold milk and disappointment in the miracles and happy endings to which they are accustomed in such stories.
I have enough disappointments in reality. And in drama. And in social movies. And in some serious films, where logic is much more thought out and meaningful, and details play a crucial role.
But "The Further Into the Woods" is an entertaining and easy movie at first. With all the attributes of Cinderella, Rapunzel, bean stems and other fairy tales. Yes, these fairy tales in their own way are also about cruelty, suffering and pain, but this is their fabulous pain. Why the hell would you throw an ending like that when you're disappointed in all the characters at once?
It's a rambling review, but what the movie is, that's the impression. The aftertaste from him is unpleasant, alas. 5 \ 10 and then only for castes (and the songs are good, no matter how they are scolded on all forums, typical film songs, to them without claims).
This is the second time I’ve seen this underrated film, and for the second time I feel it deserves much more credit on IMDb and Movie Search. Although I’m not talking about IMDb at all, they raised the Force Awakens to 8.0. I have already read a lot of reviews on this musical and in particular negative ones. They are much more interesting to read, and positive reviews of this film is clearly lacking. Well, seriously, people, he has a Golden Globe nomination as best film! For this you could at least a little deeper into the meaning, and not look for chewed morality right on the surface. I, despite the fact that I would very much like to put the film 10 out of 10, can not ignore a number of disadvantages.
The film itself, in my opinion, is unique! Such a beautiful crossover of all familiar fairy tales, you could meet, probably, only in the fearless horror of 2005, called Brothers Grimm, which I also terribly liked! Except it's still a lot cooler here! It is here that we can see how all the characters intersect in a beautiful place that appears in all fairy tales, and I am talking about the forest. Specifically, in this film you can not only see, but also, of course, hear how the baker and his wife, Jack, Wolf, Mother, Jack, Cinderella, Rapunzel, Witch, Prince Charming and others will sing. And besides, in the Brothers Grimm there is no such close interweaving of all fairy tales together, we can even see how these or other characters influenced the course of history, it would seem, familiar to us plot. In general, the crossover from the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm turned out to be the most beautiful!
Now, let’s talk about something that no musical can do without, and I’m talking about songs! Unfortunately, that’s what everyone didn’t like. In my opinion, all the songs turned out very good, and each song is similar to the previous melodies everywhere similar, but the spirit of fabulousness and magic is felt! That is, with the main task of the composition coped.
What can we say about the choreography, which, although not so often used and not distinguished by some unusual elements, but still it is very good and insightful. Actors interact with the forest, and not easily dance and sing within it.
Speaking of the forest, I want to note that it turned out here Great! It's just a masterpiece! I don’t pay much attention to the scenery, but in the case of the film “The further in the woods ...” we are dealing with far from simple work on the decor. Everything in the forest is worked out to the smallest detail! Here you can feel the medieval spirit, nebula, nights, all this takes us straight to Europe! There are castles that played a very small role here. Do not wait for the most beautiful halls with marble floors and diamond chandeliers, better prepare for the rare appearance of the entrance to the Prince’s fortress, a couple of streets from the village, and, of course, Rapunzel Towers. All! All other attention and action will be riveted to the forest! Once again, it's great.
Now for acting. Most of the cast is unfamiliar to me, except that my favorite actor Johnny Depp, who lit up here for 15 minutes for the role of a wolf. I’ve also seen films with not the best actor Chris Pine, and James Corden is familiar to me from two episodes of Doctor Who.
And, despite the fact that almost none of the artists I had no predisposition and sympathy, for some reason absolutely everyone I loved and liked from the first minutes of the film. This, of course, thanks to the play of the actors and the script that make us empathize with them, it is the plot of the picture that justifies not the most sometimes good deeds of the main characters in the first half of the picture.
I want to say that the kids played well too! Here the level of acting of children is very good. Our moronic Yeralash and not lying close! Lilla Crawford was magnificent in the role of Red Riding Hood, but the boy Daniel Huttlestone I already knew in the musical Les Miserables. What's up here, he was really good. The level of Meryl Streep is still far away, but it is very good for children.
As for the numerous Academy Award and Golden Globe nominees, everything is more than fine! Johnny Depp in albeit a short, but still the role of the Wolf, very much liked. His only song was sung, so there was a real appetite. Meryl Streep was just stunning as the Witch, charismatic, angry, caring, vindictive, sometimes kind and eccentric. I remember this character the most and liked it. She's a very ambiguous villain, which is unconventional for Disney, but that doesn't seem to apply to their cartoons. Moreover, this antagonist is very logical and always as they say, says in essence, no action or word is meaningless. It’s all about the relationship between them...
Anna Cedric as Cinderella turned out to be very confused and insecure, which makes her original and distinctive from the gray mass of princesses, from most Disney cartoons that marry the prince as soon as he is met.
The same applies to Rapunzel line, which raises the problem of mothers and children. She already seemed to be driven by the same Disney to death, but still the song of the Witch in the presence of the princess touches the soul with his soul and insight.
Emily Blunt James Corden also liked, they look together very harmoniously, and the last song sung by the baker's wife also left a pretty pleasant feeling.
But, unfortunately, there are some in such a wonderful cast who, in my opinion, spoil the picture a little. Chris Pine annoyed me with his face! Although it is worth noting that in the second half of the film, his character was fully revealed. And it was in the finale that I couldn't take my eyes off him! However, the first hour he frankly infuriated me with his rare appearances! I was especially pissed off by the scene at the waterfall! Brr...
So we got to the final. Perhaps, for many, the picture after the first hour will seem a little drawn out. But we can finally look at the dark side of fairy tales and their characters! Something like Disney’s Game of Thrones opens before us. A considerable number of characters were even put under the knife, not to mention the evil deeds, seemingly already by heart familiar characters.
In the end, I recommend this film to all music lovers. Here you will see a fabulous entourage, good acting, insightful plot and beautiful songs and music!
And remember... Not all stories have happy endings.
“The whole kingdom rejoiced. Especially those who were destined to live long and happy.
First of all, I would like to pay tribute to James Lapin, who created the libretto “Into the Woods”, where he managed to unite the classic fairy-tale characters – Red Riding Hood, Cinderella, Rapunzel and others – in one single story. It is worth saying that such work was energy-intensive and required not only physical effort, but also a certain literary talent. Subsequently, Lapin, together with the famous playwright, composer and poet Stephen Sondheim, winner of the Oscar, created a musical that was successfully staged on Broadway stages.
The idea to film “Into the Woods” arose repeatedly, but the project was frozen in the pre-production stage, or even fell into production hell and then did not return to the shooting stage. But in 2014, the year that bought the rights to the film adaptation studio “Walt Disney Pictures” still provided for the general review of the picture with the same name as the musical. By the way, about the name can be discussed in a little more detail. The fact is that the original name has a kind of wordplay, which, of course, will be clear to native speakers of the original language. But our distributors also decided that they can also prick a little, so we got our official name "The further in the forest ...". The triplet in the end, of course, means understatement, and it comes from the common proverb “The further into the forest, the more firewood”, but our people are proud of their wit and hochma and invented other endings, where the most famous serves “.. the thicker the partisans”, and there is also quite piquant and even immoral, so will not call it.
“The further into the forest...” received many flattering reviews about the technical part: critics praised costumes, makeup, hairstyles, scenery; received a tape and several quite solid prizes, but still the numerous viewer was not satisfied. Which is quite surprising, because the filming process was led by Rob Marshall. The same former choreographer, and later theatrical director, who stormed into the cinema with a whirlwind, filming a magnificent adaptation of the musical “Cabaret” (thanks to the film everyone knows it as “Chicago”), then there was the drama “Memoirs of a geisha”, which brought even more fame to Rob, another musical “Nine”, and then the fourth part of the famous franchise “Pirates of the Caribbean”. You can see that Marshall alternates musicals with other genres of cinema.
What could not be so satisfied with the viewer, when even “The further in the woods...” has a strong cast led by Meryl Streep? Yes, perhaps primarily because the musical almost does not cause emotional excitement. The main bet was made on the musical component, but if, for example, Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt coped with their task perfectly, then others did not elicit such admirable responses. Some storylines were not disclosed either. Behind the story of the baker and his wife in perfect shadow were the stories of Rapunzel and Cinderella. But most of all, Johnny Depp got the hat, who played a very short role of the Wolf, hunting Red Riding Hood and his grandmother. With whom only the hero of “Pirates of the Caribbean” was not compared! Even a pimp! But his financial requests are embarrassing: for a five-minute role, Depp received $ 15 million, while Meryl Streep, who played a mutually unifying character, and even received a bunch of nominations for Best Supporting Actress, agreed to a fee exactly 10 times less than Johnny. Feminists probably disliked Depp after that. By the way, about the Streep nominations for the role of the Witch in this film... You know, to be honest, with all due respect, but this role is very, very difficult to call any outstanding in a great actress, as well as the role of Florence Foster Jenkins. It feels like the Oscars are sometimes acting on a pattern.
The musical “The further into the forest...” may well please with an interesting, albeit undisclosed in some moments, story. The work of stylists and decorators is striking, in this regard everything is definitely at a very high level. Fans of the genre will be pleased with good music and vocal parts of at least some participants of the action. But, nevertheless, the film “The further in the forest...” did not do without noticeable flaws, which, of course, affects the final assessment:
6 out of 10
This film-musical, in my opinion, is bad both as a film and as a musical. No song in this movie makes a strong impression, no one I wanted to add to my playlist. None of the characters in the film attracted me, so I could not empathize with them. And, in my opinion, it was not only in the original material, but also in the production. So, Cinderella here with a joyful and fake smile sings about going to visit her mother's grave, and the scene where the Baker's wife tries to get Rapunzil's braid looks like she's going to throw her off the tower. In every character there is anger and hypocrisy. And it rejects. There are also a lot of stupidities in the film. A witch who knows how to appear wherever she wants, for some reason rises to her beloved adopted daughter Rapunzel, using her braid, which causes her pain, and Rapunzel herself, imprisoned in a tower in a medieval setting, for some reason has her eyes made up.
There were only a few scenes in the whole movie that I liked. One of them is the scene of the meeting of the princes, during which they tore their shirts, comparing their feelings with each other. It was ridiculous and funny. But at the same time, it was completely inappropriate. This is the only humorous scene of the film, and it seemed that it was not from this film, but from a parody of this film.
I found the film very ragged. Its elements were poorly combined with each other. The storylines were not finished. The characters did not act on the basis of motives understandable to the audience, but solely for the development of the action. And because of this, each hero came out contradictory and incomprehensible. And everything came to an end from which no conclusions can be drawn.
This very unchildish musical is worth seeing, firstly, because its description is rather vague, therefore it is of interest to understand everything yourself. Second, no matter how trite it sounds, a good cast.
If we talk about actors, they all coped with their roles hurrah. A good solo, especially by Emily Blunt, was pleasantly surprised and delighted. In general, in my opinion, she has all the laurels. Meryl Streep played as always well, but not great.
The plot is rather confusing, but well-built chronology of actions and unexpected “turns” make it original.
The only drawback, as it seems to me, is that the film is sometimes cruel, however, the picture does not lose its integrity.
I love musicals and fairy tales. I only liked the first 20 minutes of the movie. There are very few worthy songs (there are 2 of them), and in general they sing here very rarely. 5 minutes of chatter and 5 minutes of the same songs. And all this alternates for 2 hours.
It is a very stupid idea to combine many fairy tales from different authors and combine them into one. You end up feeling cheated. Seems like I met everyone, but I didn't know about any sane thing. There is a lot of nonsense and stupidity.
Special mention deserves our localizers, who translated subtitles in general it is not clear how. First: sometimes there is a discrepancy in the words that you hear and read on the screen (it would not be a bit scary if the translation was in poetic form, immediately just dry text with some small edits, beauty it does not add, only confuses the viewer). Second, the subtitles come in some segments. Thoughts can start on one screen and end on another (thank you for not translating words). Thirdly: sometimes skips the translation of what the actors have already translated in voice.
The project is not for children or adults. The former will be repelled by the dullness and cruelty of some characters, and the second by the stupidity and incomprehensible decisions of the characters throughout the film.
A musical, I thought, would be great! Oh, fuck! It was in my head after watching.
From the beginning of the film, I had doubts about what I was watching. In my head, everything did not fit the gloom of the narrative and Disney. Well, I thought, maybe here still the original Disney decided to do.
And the first half of the movie was pretty good, even though the songs were terrible. I don’t know if it’s good or bad that they don’t have a translation and only had subtitles, but it didn’t sound perfect.
But since the middle, everything has slipped into a stupid black woman, in the real sense. Even during the trip to the ball, at the end, it seems that they showed a couple consisting of a prince and a negro. I was really hoping it was just two people looking back at what was going on behind them. But still for aesthetics, it would be better to show a gentleman and a lady than two guys who clearly hinted.
Johnny Depp loves acting in dark movies like Sleepy Hollow or Dark Shadows. But apparently he began to confuse gloom and grimace, so he began to act in all sorts of psychedelic nonsense. My astonished eyes must have been the size of a saucer. I just couldn't believe it was Disney. It’s a joke or a joke, but it can’t be.
Starting in the first half of the movie, I really wanted to go under the chair or leave the room. But I still wondered what would happen next. But it seemed much worse, where could lead the path. And she led into a completely unjustified betrayal out of inexplicable selfishness. What made my surprise just never end. And about the end. Everything turned out in such a way that in the end a maniac pedophile can very much appear. After all, in this undoubtedly fabulous world, anything is really possible.
Had it not been for Disney, had it been a better movie, the irony of fairy tales was shown more clearly, more references and more laughter over nonsense, the film would have succeeded. The film Enchanted is much more vivid and clearly shows fabulous stereotypes, and most importantly, it is funny and there is a clear plot, and not mocking fairy tales.
1 in 10
Fairy tales are not for children. And this musical is one of the best indicators of that assertion. Anyone who believes that fairy tales are cute stories with happy endings, which are told for good dreams to children, this film will not like. It will not appeal to those who do not like musicals and are not ready for the fact that almost the entire film conversations and thoughts are transmitted through songs. And of course, this film is not for children, even though it is produced by Disney.
In the first part, the film shows old stories in their almost original reading, which is very rare for modern films. In my opinion, this is the first huge plus of the painting. And this is the first reason why many do not like the film, because there are and ' creepy' parts of fairy tales: and severed fingers and heel of the Cinderella sisters, and gouged out the eyes of the Prince from the story of Rapunzel. Obviously, a lot of people are only familiar with the classic sweet-sweet cartoons-interpretations of Disney, and they find it hard to accept that everything was much more cruel in the beginning.
In the second half of the story, things become even less rosy than they were at the beginning, and much closer to the real world. Gradually, the viewer is led to the idea that things are not divided only into black and white, that there are gray shades, that ' The witch can be right, and the giant can be kind'. And most importantly, you have to be very careful when making wishes, because sometimes you get not what you want. The whole second part is the second huge plus of the picture, without which the film would have turned into a good, but rather typical adaptation of fairy tales with a perfectly happy ending. And that's the second reason people don't like the movie. When a person tuned in to an easy childhood story with a happy ending, and they try to make him think, realize... Of course, few people like it. People are not used to getting serious thoughts and symbolism under the Disney logo. Alas.
In the case of the Russian audience, there is probably also the problem of translation and voiceover. I initially watched the film in the original, so I don’t know how good the Russian dub is. But most likely, it loses another symbolism of history: the same sound of the phrases into the woods and into the woulds. The first translates simply as ' in the forest' and the second can be translated as ' in what may be the future' and the like. That is, often the characters sing not about what leads to the forest / what happens in the forest, but about the impossible, about the future, about dreams. Alas, to understand this, you need to know at least a little English.
There is no point in writing about the rest. The music is beautiful, the voices are good (especially Anna Kendrick’s), the acting is on a level, the scenery and locations are pleasant and well thought out. The script is great, but unfortunately often not understood.
Summing up a bit of a confused review. If you are not a child, ready for serious thoughts inside a Disney musical, have a good command of English and love original fairy tales - this film is for you. If you want a family fairy tale with an easy plot and a happy ending - it is better to include the classic Cinderella or Snow White, it will be more useful.
10 out of 10
For those of you who don’t, you’re watching the movies. . .
First of all, the film was released a long time ago, but on various sites there is it, and reviews of people who have already watched it; therefore, it is never too late, and to see, and write a review.
Conditionally, I will divide the film into two parts before, ' all is well ' and after.
In the first part of the musical, not ' reworking', familiar to us fairy tales, but rather the originals. What do people wonder about? Yes, in the tale of Cinderella, a mother who wishes a better life for herself and her harmful daughters cuts off one part of her heel, the other one of her toes; and at the end, the birds peck out the eyes of her evil sisters. These are not the fruits of ' smoking weed ' screenwriter, and what was told to children, up to our time.
But the intervention of the main characters in the events is fiction, but it should be clearly distinguished among the not adapted versions of fairy tales.
About the wolf: well, the director did not focus on pedophilia, only a subtle hint, for adults, children do not need to understand this at all, for them it is just a call to listen to their parents. And in general, Johnny Depp, played great, you can not argue with this!
I didn’t like the second part of the film very much. Indeed, it could have been milder to end without so many deaths. They wanted to show the audience that death is not so terrible. . .
It's better to look at the original language, although I liked the duplication too.
Actually, it tastes like color. ..
Play actors, costumes, scenery, wonderfully discussed before me, largely agree.
Examples of rethinking and gluing together all sorts of fairy tales have been undertaken by cinema more than once. With varying success.
For example, “Rapunzel” from “Disney” was very useful. Yes, and the series “Once Upon a Time” from “abc” does not bother at first.
Another thing is when all the storylines converge and intertwine into something wild and ridiculous. The same thing happened with “The further into the woods...” The only difference is that the screensaver “in the previous series” will not be.
Throughout the film, the viewer does not keep up with the development of the plot. He simply can not understand and accept the large layer of information that is thrown in his face. Interspersed with songs and an increasing degree of storytelling, the film turns into a full of absurdity musical medley of fairy tales.
Jack and the bean stem, Rapunzel, a wolf and a girl from Red Riding Hood, Cinderella with a beautiful prince, a baker with his wife and other actors. All these characters in a confused order intertwine in a tangle of incredible stuff and make rapid movements in the dark forest. Judging by the fact that they regularly cross each other in three days, the forest is not so large.
This film demonstrates that even a galaxy of “Oscar-winning” and “golden-globus” actors can not pull a good idea with a weak plot.
Meryl Streep as a witch is good and, in fact, the whole film is based on her acting and voice. The supporting role came out in Meryl better than the main character (Emily Blunt).
Johnny Depp sings in another ridiculous wolf costume. He appears in a small episode and does not have time to reveal his character. On the background, even the eaten grandmother looks more colorful.
Chris Pine (a beautiful prince with a two-day bristles) squeezes out two emotions for the whole film - longing and surprise.
Anna Kendrick, it seems, take on the set only because of the voice.
And James Corden plays another simpleton role. In the finale, "as if masturbates", playing the same simpleton.
A little bit about the story.
The baker and his wife, so that their future child was born healthy (in general, born), collect ingredients for a potion to a witch. Each part of the potion belongs to one of the characters of the fairy tale. The couple runs from place to place, as if weaving into the stories known to all viewers (like, we were here too, but the authors were silent about us). Moreover, because of their wanderings, the plots begin to overlap one another, complicating the life of everyone and everything. Screenwriter James Lapin, after “everyone lived happily ever after” puts such a big (literally) pig that finally spoils the entire impression of viewing.
It turns out that one character is a womanizer, the other turns out to be the brother of the first in a completely different fairy tale. The third character loses his mother and doesn’t really care. Besides, everyone sings and sings. Dialogue - two lines of singing to music-dialogue.
There is a lot of nonsense in the film.
For example, the prince is blind, but rides alone on a horse in search of a beloved. And he finds her.
Cinderella’s half sisters walk around the fairy tale wearing factory sunglasses (Charles Perrault was already dead at the time).
And Rapunzel's hair doesn't give a witch youth. In addition, they are in the film mother and daughter.
But the strangest thing in the film is one of the ingredients of the potion, received for the finale. After that, logic rushes further and further into the forest.
Surprisingly, the film recouped the cost of production (thanks to the cast, I think) and was nominated for an Oscar as best film.
In the dry residue, we have a teenage movie with good costumes and tolerable special effects. But that doesn't save the movie.
Right away, I watched in the original , so maybe something was censored when dubbing - I do not quite understand why many people put high marks on this film, I will explain the essence later.
So,
A fabulous musical with an impressive cast - how could I get past?
At first, everything seemed promising. Almost immediately it was possible to understand who from which fairy tale, and it was quite curious how all these stories would intertwine into one.
Everyone starts singing about their dreams: Cinderella naturally wants to go to the ball, the baker and his wife want a baby, etc. What could have gone wrong?
I expected the baker to make something like the Gingerbread Man. But it wasn't! The witch said to get this, this, this and that for the magic potion.
And that's just the beginning. But the further the better. And no, it's certainly not for kids, and as it's become clear, not for all adults, certainly not for me. For who? I don’t understand that either.
"Hello, little girl"
Already at the sight of Johnny Depp's character singing something that sounds more like a pedophile song than a wolf. It got sick. Still, hoping for the best, I kept watching.
Giant breasts?
Of course, the giants have more and more, why sing about it? And the further, the more incomprehensible - what the song is about. Anyway, Jack's not what he used to be. I didn’t know if I was going to cry or laugh.
"He made me feel excited"
Even the red cap went downhill. Something is wrong with the kids in this story. Why did the filmmakers want to do that and not how? Why is everything so ambiguous?
He showed me things
Many beautiful things
That I didn't think to explore
What did I miss here? Again, it's unclear what this is about. I think it's time to get ready.
In addition to these cases, I can note that most of the songs in this musical - listen, listen, and sing essentially about nothing. And these songs make the film much longer than it could be.
What about the plot? Songs, once again songs, absurd magic and illogical twists. Everything is boring and confusing. (I have patience, but I couldn’t do it at once.) Meanwhile, someone goes blind, someone dies suddenly, some storylines go nowhere. It is not known what happened to many of the characters. Many beloved, old stories lose their original meaning.
Where are you?
"You are not alone ..."
No one is alone
So philosophical. The optimist of course will agree, especially this is a fairy tale, and there should be at least some instruction or something like that.
Here's my review. I did because I care. I would like those who are going to watch this film, have at least a rough idea of what awaits them for these two hours.
In the end, what would I bet for this messy song?
0
I bet for the movie
3 out of 10
- for an excellent cast (although the game for many is not fully disclosed)
It’s a pretty good costume.
- the forest itself, of course (for me in any film, a beautiful forest is a joy for the eyes)
Every viewer who read a very good synopsis for the picture will wait for a good Disney fairy tale with favorite characters. It will burn like boiled milk. Because “The further in the woods” is not a fairy tale, but two hours of bullying on loved ones “lived happily ever after.”
The beginning of the action is very tempting and tasty: sympathy is caused by the baker and his wife, and the sorceress, and the unfortunate half-dead cow. However, a sound start calmly ends in the twentieth minute, turning into an American version of the show "The Voice." Who sings whom is not clear, because the voices are skillful, and Kendrick can hardly be distinguished from Blunt. And the brave princes tearing their shirts on their chests must be designed to lure a touch of humor into the film, but more like unfinished singers battling at the ring stage. Pine looks better here.
Part of the film is saved by the audience's reflections. While we are thinking about whether Anna Kendrick is suitable for the role of Cinderella (imho, no, because even in a dress for half a million looks like a notorious gobble), how Rapunzel grew a braid, if the baker’s wife just tore her off, most of this “masterpiece” passes. Only it should pass for fascinating viewing, and not confused reflections.
Speaking of actors. If Kendrick is not in his place, then Depp’s role leaves much to be desired. Someone before me said that the toys of the wolf and the Red Riding Hood resemble the efforts of a pedophile to seduce a young maid. At least listen to (or rather, read) the lyrics of the song! "Succulent flesh," "delicious skin." Brr. It’s good that I watched the movie alone without having to sit next to a little niece who would ask questions.
Another unfortunate miscalculation is that the film should be read. Personally, I am oppressed by endless footnotes distracting from the action on the screen. Fortunately, I speak English well, and therefore I can afford to listen to silly songs in the original, but the eye does not come down. And sees spelling errors. Oh, gods.
But in fact, the film would be good, it ended with the wedding of Cinderella and Prince. What, what's only an hour? The creators turned around so famously that they managed to finish the story of the hat in 15 minutes. But it would be brief, clear and beautiful. But what happened later, otherwise, as a mockery of the genre cannot be called. Oh, those cute secrets of fairy-tale characters after the happy ending! Why spoil the magic halo? After that, the film caused even more disgust.
“The further into the forest” is not a fairy tale, but a parody of your favorite genre, and made without a soul and somehow oblique. A meaningless musical, although beautiful and expensive, but not worth close attention.
Perhaps it was because of my high expectations for him. Firstly, a wonderful cast (I think many bought it), secondly, the musical - and I have a very positive attitude towards them - and, thirdly, a fabulous theme.
This is not to say that all of the above was missing or poorly served. Celebrities worked perfectly, there were many songs, and fairy tales intertwined so well that dissonance did not cause.
However, the film is divided into two symbolic halves, and each item has a different side. The fact is that the songs are all on one motif, which in the end got tired of toothache, the fairy-tale crossover got carried away and weaved a slurred web, and the acting game did not strike something supernatural (but Johnny Depp in the role of the Wolf and Meryl Streep in the role of the Witch turned out great).
Oh, by the way, the two halves of the movie. If the first I really liked, the second caused indistinct sensations that smeared feelings from watching the first half.
The farther into the woods tells us that wanting something is not always a good thing. Moreover, we have no idea where our desires will lead us. The film begins with a song in which each of the future heroes sings: “I wish...” and, towards the end, we see where it all came from. Perhaps this can be called an instructive moment.
From what I liked: the first half of the film, in a fabulous, slightly gloomy spirit, the old familiar characters of the fairy tales are a little different angle - Red Riding Hood, who likes to eat, for example - and a scene of a song by two princes.
In general, the film turned out well, with its instructive meaning and self-irony about some fabulous clichés. Plus, it has a tight atmosphere, and you watch it to the end, just because you can't get away.
I would like to write a positive review, but there is nothing good to say. The film is a real psychedelic mess from the plots of various fairy tales, confusing, illogical, hopeless. In the negative sense of this characteristic. There are too many characters, too many storylines, too complicated plot. The music is good, but also not particularly impressive, does not create an atmosphere.
Only the actors are good here, especially I liked the witch performed by Meryl Streep. She's actually pulling out the whole movie. It turned out a bright, spectacular, memorable image. The witch here is very convincing - cruel, wild, and at the same time possessing a kind of black charm. I surprised Emily Blunt with a good performance and good vocals. I know both of them from the movie The Devil Wears Prada, and I must say that Emily is completely unrecognizable here. In a good way. Cinderella - Anna Kendrick - I think played her part well. The same can be said about Red Riding Hood. The baker was unimpressive. Prince is an interesting interpretation of this character as negative. To some extent, this gives the plot meaning that what begins as a fairy tale can end in disappointment. Wolf. I will tell you about the wolf in particular - I see two options for solving the situation with the wolf: it was either necessary to do without him at all, or to move away from the traditional plot of the fairy tale in this case too, and develop the storyline of this character, giving the beautiful actor more screen time. It could save the movie, breathe life into it. In the current situation, he is good in himself, a kind of cross between Mad Hatter and Sweeney Todd, but breaks out of the overall style of the picture without influencing him in any way. And we see how imperfect everything else is.
In the film there is, alas, no memorable atmosphere, no impressive moments, no fascinating plot. There is no special style of scenery, costumes, in general there is no fairy tale that would fascinate, attract. Perhaps if it had been directed by the great storyteller Tim Burton, or by the great surrealist Thierry Gilliam, things would have been much better. It would have been a very different movie then, a real fairy tale or real madness, or both at the same time, but something really remarkable.
Decide, ladies and gentlemen, whether the movie is worth watching. It’s certainly not the worst movie I’ve ever seen, a lot of it’s not bad at all, but overall I didn’t like it.
Hello, my dear readers! So we met you in the New Year! It is a shame that the year will start with red. But what can I do? Yes, and although it is red, it is stunned red! Yes, there is no special desire to recommend this film for viewing, especially to show it to children. But I have not seen such a frank farce in a long time. But all in order.
Once a beautiful winter evening, we decided with dear mother to spend a cozy end of the day and arrange a small holiday. The mood is elevated, salads are ready, it remains to choose only the appropriate background. And the choice fell on "The further in the woods." We assumed that Meryl Streep played in it, and we really like her.
And so began our journey, where many different fairy tale characters intertwined. And as they're supposed to, they sing. Sing a lot. Too many. And if the songs were different and stood out even a little, but the motif is monotonous, not changeable, the next performance cannot be distinguished from the previous one. And so, somewhere, most of the movie. That's half of it.
The most interesting thing begins when you read and think about the words of the songs, the place of action and see who is involved in this episode. That’s when we started to get a little shocked. I have never seen so many Freudian references, hints, metaphors, and so on, even in the Freud film itself! Here just work is not an old edge, apply your knowledge, you can just take separate pieces and study what is shown here - & gt; what is meant in fact.
You think the story of Little Red Riding Hood is as old as the world. A little girl in the woods, comes alone, there you and the terrible gray wolf, and hunters, but here everything is served like this. I'm telling you, the combination of pictures and words gives the whole action a certain ambiguity. There are at least 4 adults per two children in the forest. The motivation of almost everyone is questionable. Especially Cinderella. It would seem that when the happy ending comes, you think, "What, it's already two hours gone"? But no, the fulfillment of cherished desires does not end, and from this moment this film-fairy tale ceases to be a “fairy tale” in the correct sense. Everything goes to hell, and the only adequate and positive character in all this madman’s nonsense dies.
And the film ends in a very unclear way. What did the creators want to show us, what morality to invest, what to teach the future generation?
In fact, this is some kind of postmodern fairy tale turns out – everything is bad, everything is not as it seems, you really did not want this, get and sign. Desire is bad. But is this what we learned in fairy tales?
To be honest, we were left in shock. That’s why I don’t recommend it.
P.S. I will always remember the picture of two singing princes at small waterfalls. Now you can’t see it, just sit and analyze it.
And the tolerant song that giants are also people is just the height of cynicism, because the giant was eventually killed.
... more than the guerrillas. (My opinion contains enough spoilers.) If anything, you have been warned.
A little lyrical...
The Brothers Grimm wrote very, very remarkable fairy tales, in their own way they were cruel for their time, especially the author’s ending of Cinderella, but people nevertheless read similar literature, because most of the so-called “fairy tales” described by the brothers were something like fairy tales described from the words “eyewitnesses”, “legends”, if they can be called that. And thus it was very interesting to see how modern writers and directors will bring to life the fairy tales of the Brothers.
Now let's get going.
I come from a generation of people who remember in Disney movies and cartoons perfect, almost virgin princesses languishing in castles, waiting for princes. And it is unusual how Disney destroys such a stagnant image, when heroes and villains change places, and sincere love gives way to self-interest and thirst for profit.
First, a barrel of honey:
The cast is selected just fine, small doubts are true is the wife of the baker, played by Emily Blunt - it is painfully cute actress for the status of the wife of a baker, well, nothing ... the film is made in bright and colorful scenery, where everyone is dirty only according to the script, and the baker himself is dressed almost from Armani ...
The fact that the director of dubbing left the voiceover of the songs original, attaching subtitles, this is good, especially when you consider that when singing on the screen, almost nothing happens that would be important for the plot and you can read subtitles.
Johnny Depp as the Wolf – What do we expect from reading the poster or disc cover? Something at least the level of the Other World, or Van Helsing, at worst, Twilight is a kind of werewolf, with amazing visualization and Johnny's voice, and we get, sorry, Mikhail Boyarsky from "The Wolf and the Seven Goats" - and after all, too, I want to note, a musical film was. Hollywood plagiarism? Probably just a coincidence. You can say, well, this is a musical, and there is always so, a similar realization of images. Musicals, normal musicals, put on Broadway and other small and big theaters. If a musical, why can characters speak in simple words, not always using singing?
When you watch it again (you don’t want to watch it more than once), you inevitably start squandering all the songs, except perhaps the opening song and songs performed by Meryl Streep. The voice of a good witch is beyond competition. You can also listen to the musical parts performed by the charming Anna Cedric. But when Chris Pine appears on the screen, then immediately there is an association with the modern image of James T. Kirk and imagine that it is the commander of the Enterprise who sings, and not Prince Charming at all and ... everything looks somehow comical. The result of rewinding unwanted songs is a reduction in the film time by about 10 minutes, cross out all the songs, and also remove the credits and get an hour and a half movie that could have been shown some two years ago, but not now, when films need to be released large and divide any particularly significant into two, or even three parts, but this is nitpicking to modern cinema in general.
For the initial ending of Cinderella, thank you to the creators, and for punishing an unfaithful wife, too, but about the skin of a wolf on a warlike Riding Hood, this is generally something ... I don’t know how there is in the musical, but everything is done well in the movie ...
Outcome
Disney is not the first film destroys the foundations of the genre, bringing something new to the history of tired types of “prince and princess”. The course is right and we need to keep going in the right direction. Of course, there are a couple of “pitfalls”, which the studio’s films stumble upon many times over, but this case is a little more than completely rectified.
p.s.
and strongly recommend not to watch this film in Russian dubbing - exclusively in the original, because the cast on the voiceover is very, very recognizable - bad effect on the atmosphere.
In the last ten years, we have been delighted with enviable periodicity by good musicals straight from Hollywood, whether it is Tim Burton’s gloomy Sweeney Todd or Tom Hooper’s chic Les Miserables. Another musical “gift” in 2014 was the clumsy story “The further into the forest...”, whose heroes are fabulous characters familiar from childhood.
The film appears before us in the form of a mixture of classic children's fairy tales: there is a red cap, and magic beans, and Cinderella with her unreasonably unfaithful prince, and many other favorite fairy-tale heroes. What do you really expect here? A beautiful story with a happy ending, obviously. But that wasn't it. The filmmakers clearly wanted to ignore stereotypes and present the viewer with something new, namely, a fairy tale similar to life. The idea was unsuccessful and the characters of the musical - unnatural and comic. As a result, instead of a good instructive spectacle for children, a mess of absurd and incomprehensible scenes, stuffed with familiar stamps from vulgar melodramas, turned out.
At first, the plot of the film is revealed quite typically, which, by the way, does not spoil the overall picture at all, but makes it familiar, charming and reminiscent of the unfinished magic that we so persistently imagined in childhood. The story develops harmoniously, and, it would seem, already finds its happy ending, when suddenly begins an incomprehensible turmoil with formidable giants and lustful princes in the lead roles. This part of the musical with the desperate revenge of the offended Gullivers and the betrayals of the Prince of the Beautiful does not fit either into the scale of an instructive children's fairy tale, or into the framework of a beautiful adult film, because the semantic component of the film is incomprehensible and ridiculous. However, his amusing absurdity can even be regarded as positive, since I laughed from the heart.
Hope remained for the musical component of the film. Since this is a musical, I was expecting some worthwhile and touching musical scenes that were not in the film. Song dialogues here consist of the same musical intonations, solo numbers do not differ in anything remarkable and, unfortunately, the situation does not save. What caused the composer’s complete lack of musical imagination is hard to say. Perhaps only the last musical composition made me marvel at its semantic load. The song tells us that you should always think about what fairy tales you tell children, because they perceive everything very carefully. And that’s why I would not show this story to children.
Finally, I got to the Disney musical "The Further Into the Woods...", which received such contradictory reviews from critics, including Russian ones. Everyone has a different attitude to musicals: someone enjoys listening to songs that the characters sing, someone – on the contrary, can not tolerate endless chants without dialogue. I belong to the first group of people. If the compositions complement the film, I will gladly listen to them and watch them. The only condition is that the songs must be in the original and with subiters. That's the way I looked at Into the Woods.
The picture reminds me a lot of theatrical production. However, with a group of burned theater, among which stands out only Meryl Streep (and that, because I love this actress), Johnny Depp (similar) and a couple of actors playing secondary roles.
The plot of the film is, frankly, original. Here we see such popular characters as Red Riding Hood and the Wolf, Cinderella with her stepmother and her daughters, Rapunzel, Jack from "Beans Grain" and the Witch (no matter what fairy tale, they are everywhere the same). These fairy-tale characters are diluted by a “real” couple – the childless Baker and his wife. No matter how hard these two tried to have a child, they failed. Having met the Witch on their way, they agree to accept her conditions: they are the necessary "ingredients" for her child, she is a ready-made child for them. That's what we decided. All these ingredients are nothing more than one of the things of each of the fairy tale characters. During the picture, the baker and his wife try in every possible way to take possession of the household items of the heroes, simultaneously solving family problems.
The action was moving so fast, and I looked at the clock: strangely, it seems to be coming to an end, and the film was only halfway through. It turned out that not everything is so smooth in the Danish kingdom, as our favorite storytellers wrote to us. The scriptwriters of the musical decided to continue the line of each of the characters, allegedly so they lived on. Actually, the title of the film speaks for itself: “The further into the forest ...”, the more wood the creators broke. Fairy tales that a child believes collapse like a house of cards. The second part of this opus lubricates the already strange impression of the film. What can we say about fairy-tale heroes whose fates were rewritten by ruthless writers of the script.
Let's go back to the film genre, the musical. After the incomparable "Chicago" (the same Rob Marshall) and "Sweeney-Todd..." the songs in this film seem faded and unforgettable. It seems that all the songs were on the same motif, as now, from memory, I do not remember a single song. Friends, this is a musical! Called a cargoer, please. Either you had to work through the music tracklist better, or you didn't have to put songs in at all. True, if not in this film of songs, it would look even worse than it is.
The scenery is a completely faded gray-dark background with trees, which can be seen in cheap Russian New Year musicals. Honestly, if I didn’t know Disney did it, I wouldn’t believe it. A company that has made a name for itself on quality has no right to release such a shameful (for him) spectacle on the big screens. In general, “The farther into the forest...” is worth looking once to understand that good companies have their failures, as well as to see what can lead to a stormy imagination of the creators.
Total: 2 points - for originality (no matter how ridiculous it was), 1 point for Meryl Streep, 1 point for a ten-minute appearance of Johnny Depp in the image of the Wolf, 1 point for appropriate humor in some places and 1 point for fabulous characters, which should not be forgotten.
Grandma, and Grandma, can I watch Rapunzel?
- What is that?
- A fairy tale.
- What's this about Jews? You should watch your fairy tales, they teach kindness. Remember, daughter? “Let my mother hear, let my mother come.”
From KVN
Recently I watched three fairy tales: “Maleficent”, “Cinderella”, now “The further in the forest”.
In order to remove the curse imposed by the witch on the baker’s family, he (i.e., the baker) and his wife need to go and get a shoe (Cinderella), a row of hair (Rapunzel), a cloak (Red Riding Hood) and a cow (some Jack, I don’t know from what fairy tale this kid is).
All the heroes are stomped together in the forest, where they will be subjected to execution.
A little bit about heroes.
Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) is a rather voracious creature, and at someone else’s expense. She did not stand out in this fairy tale, her role here is small, but she played, in my opinion, not bad.
Wolf. Performed by Johnny Depp, who, apparently, for 12 years of the epic about pirates, finally believed that the only correct behavior of a comedy hero is the behavior of a la gay Jack Sparrow. These squirms and jumps in the role of a wolf ... oh mine goth.
Rapunzel (McKenzie Mosey), it seems, is not aware of such an invention of mankind as a comb. Although, the prince assured us he saw her comb her hair.
Cinderella (Kendrick), princes (Pine and Magnussen) and the already mentioned Rapunzel played four dummies. They walked, ran and sang, but nothing, no event or feeling disturbed these heroes, they played for more than two hours with their faces frozen.
But the Cinderella sisters (Blanchard and Punch) in company with their mother (Baranski), it seems, have just left the asylum for the mentally ill, in an attempt to depict the machinations and cruel jokes over Cinderella, they were so hooked and nervously laughing that it was frightening that all the plaster from their faces will crumble, and in their face will jam something.
The baker played by James Corden was not particularly memorable, but at least he was alive and without seizures.
The baker's wife (Blunt) and the boy with the cow Jack (Huttstone) knew they were playing and were good in their images. The bakery was very natural, organic, you can see that Emily Blunt really felt her character. 16-year-old Daniel Huttlestone got such a touching image of a boy whose only friend is a cow and the first money he carries to the baker to bring home his Burenka. The guy was good, he played convincingly and sincerely.
The witch (Maryl Streep) tried too hard to be a witch. I tried, tried, and became so carried away that she looked not like a witch, but like an unbalanced exalted old woman, with whom, for another minute, St. Witt’s dance will take place. This image did not succeed, in my opinion. Too much.
Actually about the movie.Rob Marshall (director) took on the task of embracing the immense and making a film not for teenagers (because the film is +12), not for adults. In the end, it did not work for them or for others. Because it's boring! It's boring to watch Depp break down the aki of Borya Moses; it's boring to watch Paine's strained attempts to portray passion for Cinderella and the baker; it's ridiculous to see two men in a stream singing and throwing at rocks, like passion, with nothing to express. Everything turned out so boring, ridiculous and implausible that these heroes do not believe, and what happens to them, do not empathize.
I would like to say more. When will someone shoot a story for children? Not +12 or +6 or +35, but for children and their parents? For everyone. A good, kind, magical tale. Where there will be true feelings: love and friendship, faith and hope, magic and salvation. And do not need philosophy, deep meanings and other “curls”, which say the authors of this “Forest” – all this we will see in another movie. Give me a story. A fairy tale in which there will be funny characters, not curves and rustles; where fairy-tale heroines will be dressed as noble ladies, not characters from the Kuprin “Pit”, whose corsages stick out boobs on the viewer a little more than completely, and skirts will not end above the pantalon, and makeup will not resemble a painted transvestite.
When will they shoot a fairy tale instead of a parody of it? Because “Cinderella” (2015) and “The further into the forest...” are not fairy tales, but a cheap farce, which is sad to watch.
2 out of 10
Musicals are a thankless business. It is physically difficult to sit for a couple of hours in front of a dark screen, straining your eyes to read the subtitles. But the recent "Les Miserables" made an indelible impression on me; There was everything: memorable, beautiful songs, and the heroes you worry about, and amazing acting. Unfortunately, in the musical "The further in the forest" all this is missing.
The story here is crumpled and unfinished. At first, all fairy tales go according to their usual scenarios, but after the culmination in the style of “Long and Happy”, the events flow into a different direction. So the Baker family is cursed by the Witch. They can not have children and to remove the spell, they need to collect four items: a cloak, redder than blood (hello, Red Riding Hood), a Snow White cow (Jack has it, a lover of magic beans), a Golden shoe (Cinderella here does not wear crystal, this is not fashionable) and a lump of corn hair (Rapunzel, can you borrow it?). After everyone gets what they want, there comes a time when the story should be finished. But that was not the case.
In general, I constantly had intrusive questions. For example, why does the Prince look and act like an obsessive maniac? Why does he tell Cinderella that he recognizes her eyes out of a thousand, when a minute ago he was ready to leave with another girl who squeezed her foot into her shoe? Why did the baker's wife rip off Rapunzel's braid (which then somehow grew back) when you could just rip off a piece of hair? Why do the characters sing about the right actions and that everyone deserves forgiveness, but in the next scene they kill the Giant? How could the bakers leave their long-awaited baby with an unknown little girl? And that's not all!
Okay, the script didn't work out. Maybe the characters impress us with their rich inner world? No, no and no again. Why is it pathetic that it becomes precisely the “bad” heroes – the Giant is sorry: her husband was killed, she went to revenge, and she herself was killed. Jack's grouchy mother was also sorry, because despite her coldness to her son, she loved him. The baker’s wife is also sorry, because she did not deserve such an outcome only because she became confused in her feelings and succumbed to fleeting passion. Also, I think Cinderella's half sisters didn't deserve that fate. I understood the Witch's love for Rapunzel and why she cared for her. The witch was right when she said the world was dangerous. In the end, probably the only clean way here was Cinderella.
The further into life. If I understood the film correctly, the forest meant life. This became clear when the heroes sang that through the forest (i.e., through the difficulties of life) they would reach their goal, that in the forest (in ordinary, worldly life) you can get confused in the correctness of your actions. The forest is full of dangers: here they die, rob, cheat on their loved ones, betray, walk on their heads to achieve their goals. This idea is interesting, but somehow does not fit into the context.
Despite all this, I am writing a neutral review.
1. I score for trying to create a musical, because it is now a very ungrateful genre of cinema.
2. The idea of Forest=Life is interesting.
3. Meryl Streep shines here. And it is her song "Last midnight" - the only one that stands out from all and at least somehow remembered.
4. I loved the moment when the heroes argued about who was to blame. I don’t know what, but I did.
5. Some fairy tales were filed close to the original and therefore very cruel.
And... Bibidi Bobidi Boom!
5 out of 10
There are films that are only harmful to reviews. "Into the Woods" I’m sure if I had read the reviews before I saw the movie, I wouldn’t have seen it anymore. Much more pleasant is your own "Wow, how everything turned ..." and "And the character is very ambiguous!" than the secondary "Well, so people wrote".
So, if you have not yet come across a detailed retelling of the characters and plot twists (and without this, alas, it is difficult to express your attitude to Into the Woods), then just watch the film. Although there are a few points that are really worth knowing first.
Cinema is not for children. But together with teenagers, I think it will be quite interesting to see and discuss.
A musical, but non-standard. Songs and speech flow smoothly into each other, sometimes turning into recitative. Unusually, but this picture fits.
Theatrical past of the film, which left its mark. In particular, there is a distinct "two-hack" of action.
This is not an adaptation of famous fairy tales. "Into the Woods" is an independent work, which only partially uses the characters and plots of familiar stories.
The darkness of the scenery. Go to the forest to change your life! It would be strange to expect that the fateful changes in the lives of the heroes of the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm (sometimes quite cruel) will occur in a sun-drenched birch grove, right?
That's all, basically. What else to talk about? Characters Interesting and very lifelike. Change or open to the viewer from a new side during the film. I really liked the Baker and his wife and the Witch, as well as the Red Riding Hood.
The cast is impressive. It turns out that Emily Blunt has a pretty decent voice. As Meryl Streep sings, everyone was probably seen in Mamma Mia!. Anna Kendrick also had experience in the musicals Perfect Voice 1 and 2. It’s great to have the opportunity to participate in a better musical project. The children’s role performers did very well. The cow was excellent, even though it did not sing.
It is pointless to mention the plot, since it is impossible to do without spoilers. You should watch the movie, not read it.
“Into the Woods” is definitely worth watching, especially if you’re into musicals. A chic, costumed, gloomy fairy tale, presented not without irony. Or rather, a parable, given the semantic content. Makes you think, settling in your thoughts for a long time. I will definitely review it to get all the details.
The slogan of this film is: Fear your desires. I should have paid attention to it when I wanted to see this movie.
But I did not regret watching, because I was sure of my desire. So did the characters in this musical, who sort of had no doubt about what they wanted. Here are the sprouts that grew into great disappointment. However, not to heaven, which means that there are advantages in this film.
1. Irony. Many reviews say that there were no jokes. It wasn't, but it was ironic. And good actors and good actors to make fun of the character. The meeting of the two princes, their "song battle" and the attempt to prove that "my experiences are worse" - in my opinion, a very ironic moment. A note of irony slipped in the narrator's voice. And the episode with Cinderella long reasoning, when, in general, she runs away from the prince, also looked very funny.
2. Intrigue. Unused script. The moment when all the fairy tales kind of came to their happy ending, and this is only the middle of the film. The anticipation that all these stories somehow unusually intertwined. Well, unpleasant surprises happen much more often. But for now on the pluses.
3. It’s nice to see the adaptation of those “original” fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. Which is very scary, despite their "happily ever after." And it's especially nice to see it performed by Disney studios, which usually had their own original interpretations. I'm sure a lot of kids, not just me, grew up with the Disney brothers and cartoons. So they met! Yes, yes, the stepmother really cut off the legs of her daughters, the prince, thanks to the witch, got into a thorn, the ball lasted three nights, not one day, although this is already a trifle. The truth of the wolf with his...mm... ambiguous desires was not even in the harsh realities of Grimm. I’ll pretend I didn’t think of anything.
4. Good actors. A lot of people come because of them. To be honest, Meryl Streep impressed me the most. If I wanted to see this movie because of the actor, it would be because of him. But everyone who went to the cinema because of Depp (I’m sure there are quite a few of them), I am sincerely sorry. Seeing the esteemed Depp is too good to please fans with his long presence in the film. Or it's just the fault of the script.
Well, it is especially respectful that all the actors sang themselves and sang beautifully - this is important for a musical. But the songs themselves - the second important component - were like the witch's "not good, not bad, just nice." Not bad, but not memorable. And after viewing, only the line “I wish” settled in my head.
Well, I wish...
I don't want this movie to be advertised as a kid. Because he is absolutely not. Children at best will not understand, bad if they understand wrongly, and at worst, just understand. What kind of children they are after that... They'd better read stories. In addition, musicals are not quite a children's genre. It’s comedy, not drama, and it’s the opposite. And yes, there are no jokes, and irony children are unlikely to appreciate. And in general, there was a feeling that it was not for a children's audience "the further into the forest ..." filmed, so perhaps this first claim is groundless. But the further you go into the forest, the more...
I want the ending of this movie to be different. Because it didn't work out. With so much potential, it seemed to me that now Disney would create such a thing that one would only marvel at the skill of the writer. Alas, I didn't. I haven't seen the original musical, so I don't know who to sing "This is your fault!" But it's still a shame. Even from the characters for some reason there was a very small bunch, although it would seem that this is a chance for secondary characters, like grandmother, to come to the fore. Rapunzel and his prince have sunk into the abyss. We could have stayed until the end, the audience was already sitting there. Some trick with the same giant, a deal with her, for example, would, in my opinion, be more elegant than the principle of “we would only hit her around the corner, and then we will hit her with our feet.” Although it was not necessary to introduce it at all, it would be better to focus on the topic of “what would come after” and reveal the characters’ characters.
So there are fewer illogical moments. For example, a witch’s aria about “children always don’t understand” would be more touching if she hadn’t kicked her daughter out of the tower. What understanding and obedience can we talk about after that?
..so that the idea of the film conforms to its slogan. In other words, the topic of “fear your desires” was revealed. Because the morality of this fairy tale is puzzling at best. Cinderella wanted to go to the party. Gotcha. So what's the point of thinking now? Either way, she'll have something to remember and she hasn't lost anything. That's what she ran away from the prince, so she never imagined a prince. "I wish to go to the festival" was her wish. Not marrying a prince. And that the prince was such a womanizer, so to refuse every prince, because “what if”? Jack's mom wanted to be rich (which makes sense, especially when you don't have anything to eat) and that her son wasn't an idiot. In the end, she died, but not from wealth and a good life. Except for a second, unfulfilled wish for a son. Red Riding Hood and completely enjoyed life, that is, cookies and caravans in full, and even with a wolf to connect this desire is impossible. The baker’s wife really wanted a child and was really happy with him. And the thing that died at the end, so now, no kids? With her husband, this morality can still work, he rather convinced himself that he wants a child, under the influence of his wife. But this is not the story of a baker. In general, this morality is best suited to the wolf - he wanted to eat the hat and Grandma, and as a result they made a fur coat out of him.
It turns out that this fairy tale teaches us not to think about the consequences, namely, literally - to be afraid of your desires. That’s the worst part of the movie, in my opinion. After all, those who are afraid will remain at the stove with ash, in a tower hidden from the light, and most importantly with eternal regrets that they never tried, did not take a step towards their desires. Because such steps must be taken, and not once.
It's very simple. Somehow, actors, directors, screenwriters, producers and operators gathered and made a good trailer with all the ensuing.
The memory does not postpone where exactly you watched the trailer: at home or in the cinema with the inscription “the film will be released in six months”.
I liked the trailer so much that I didn’t think anything would be unfair. The subtitles didn't bother me at all. "How about that?" The film will be released in six months, it should be translated by then.
“The farther into the forest”, the... and to continue there are a lot of expressions for every taste, color and smell.
The trailer so turns the head of gullible girls of different ages who love fairy tales that they, poor and zombified, are forced to go to the cinema ... and go.
And there they are waiting for such disappointment.
After scenes from the trailer with the same subtitles appeared, I was not worried in a childlike way, as they say. And when the subsequent scenes looked the same, I fell into a stupor.
I've seen musicals before. "Mamma mia" with subtitles did not cause rejection at home viewing. Maybe that's the point. Reading letters on a small screen at home is one thing, but on a big screen with the lights off and unknown at what distance is quite another.
Personally, in my opinion, the guys working on the voiceover, cheated on the full, because the text, in addition to the song, in the film a little!
Honestly, going to the movies, I did not expect that the big subtitles show subtitles. Remember 2008, the cartoon “Volt”, where even the inscription on the collar was converted into Russian! And here's...
I don't want to talk about the plot.
Most of all killed / struck down: the age limit of 11 or 12 years (I don’t remember already). If we were talking about age, we could say: 12-14, because the fairy tale is not for adults. It is childish in the plot, but young children in Russia will not understand the English text, and they do not yet know how to read even in Russian.
And it would be nice if on the cover of the film, in addition to markers about age restrictions, there was an inscription: a film with subtitles in Russian.
If it were my will, I would give a score of 0. But I will put a little higher because of Meryl Streep, who with her play and beauty (despite her age) played for 100.
2 out of 10
The film fully confirmed the phrase I said as soon as I saw the trailer: "The further into the woods, the stronger the guerrillas." Everything begins simply magnificently: a good performance of the actors, the pitch, the atmosphere, the interweaving of stories - as they say: "Not in a fairy tale to say, not with a pen to describe." Some plot twists were quite predictable, but you are happy to close your eyes. But as soon as I had enjoyed a good fairy tale and prepared to leave the hall, all of a sudden... there was complete nonsense.
It feels like in the second half of the film, the director freaked out or someone changed him while he went out to smoke, but the whole story abruptly turns into a farce and a joke. The completely incoherent twists and turns, the motivations of the characters, as well as their original characters (almost all) went away without saying goodbye. You just look at the screen and wonder, "What's going on here?" The old atmosphere is carefully carried out in parts, and the whole film in your head plays a persistent "Pum-pum-pum!", which is absolutely unnecessary. Suddenly appeared drama level “Hachiko” looks inappropriate and stupid, and from the end of the brain goes on a long flight, without even saying the notorious “Let’s go!”.
As a result, all the joy and excitement of the film was torn to shreds. And even the still good acting and some remnants of the atmosphere of the fairy tale could not overcome the shock and horror of what they saw.
6 out of 10
P.S. If you want to enjoy the movie, then after "wish fulfillment" immediately reel on the credits or just turn off the player.
It's one of the most difficult films I've ever had to judge. The fact is that two films are combined here. The first is the absurd mixing of different plots, drawn by the ears of each other, and the second is the free interpretation of what happened after "And they lived happily ever after." Not for children, of course, but it was interesting to watch, because, having pumped out all the fabulous seduction, director Rob Marshall left the harsh truth of life and how people cope with difficulties, emotions, how, spitting on their own selfishness, they still avoid serious mistakes that can affect their future lives and the lives of people around them. The second part of the children are simply not able to understand due to small life experience, but teenagers, with their maximalism and a sense of their own exceptionalism, there is quite something to get.
Plot
Rob Marshall took a long way to express his ideas. Rapunzel, Jack with a bean stem, Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, a childless baker with his wife and a witch, which is most likely a symbiosis of all fairy-tale witches combined, intertwined in close arms.
Pluses: The characters are more like real people. Cinderella is no longer just a blissful girl who sighs apathetically about how good it would be to go to the ball, but a more independent person. She notices irritation from powerlessness in front of her stepmother and sisters, she wonders whether the prince and life in the palace really suits her or is it just a beautiful picture that will get bored in a couple of weeks. It has a rod in it. The Witch and Rapunzel, unlike Disney’s animation work, are really family. And the witch, sincerely feeling like a mother, without any selfish motives, tries to protect her child from the dangers of the outside world, sometimes using very controversial methods, which often, in a not so exaggerated form, of course, happens in real life.
Minus: But it is more difficult to talk about Jack and Red Riding Hood, since their fairy tales seem to be, but these are more outlines. And if Red Riding Hood at the end of his story comes to some important conclusion, and Johnny Depp, aka Wolf, found a baby Lilla Crawford, in case Amber Hurt gets bored like this in 5-6 years, poor Jack obeys only the central line of the plot, namely the attempts of the baker and his wife to remove the curse (by the way, and they are from what fairy tale?) and find a child. Poor Jack is simply exploited, one might say, by forcing him to pay constant visits to giants, and then blaming the poor boy for bringing trouble to the state. That's it, kids! This is life, damn it!
However, no matter how elaborate some images become, this does not justify the clumsiness of the plot. Rob just had to fit the idea in 2 hours and so the first hour is like “The Benny Hill Show”, with constant erratic movements from point A to point B and chasing each other.
And here we go smoothly to the second film, where girls and boys will sob with bloody tears from the fact that the fairy tale is over and reality has come. Yes! This is what all fairy tales lack! No pink vanilla! “My mom and grandma would scold me I’m going to kill a giant, aren’t they human?” asks Red Riding Hood. And Cinderella gets the answer that sometimes you have to go to such measures. I don't know what Rob put into this conversation, but isn't he right? No matter how many hippies give the police marbles and flowers, most people will be the same: Darwin’s theory, the strongest survive!
At the same time, there is a dialogue between the baker and Jack, where he makes it clear to the boy that hatred will not achieve anything and some things, however terrible they may be, it is better sometimes to forgive.
Yes, these examples are exaggerated, but despite some of the harshness that the film acquired in the second part, it remained a fairy tale, and therefore has the right to such assumptions.
And it turns out that the Prince Charming is not so beautiful. And in general, everything is not perfect and there is nothing wrong with this. In other words, it's normal to be normal. And thanks to Rob Marshall for not being afraid to bring realism.
Acting game
In general, there is nothing to complain about. Sometimes, however, slipped associations with the morning in kindergarten. But don't get me wrong, I'm very warm about amateur preschool productions, but they still don't belong on the big screen. Although such thoughts arose from force twice in the first part of the film, and with her in general trouble, so you can close your eyes. So acting is not bad, but it's not a masterpiece either. Sustainable middle class.
Music
On the one hand, getting one song through the whole movie is also a skill. Thoughts continually turn to the same Chicago where each song was a separate number - in the same genre, but nonetheless. Comparing these two works is a bit incorrect. But musically, I would like some variety. After all, the characters in the film are so different from each other, why not give them the opportunity to express themselves in the song?
A very good number could be a duo of princes. At a certain point, there is an element of humor and further development is expected, but no. Whether this element turned out to be random, or it is a subjective view and in fact I just did not notice the continuation of the joke, but there was a feeling of slight disappointment that the interesting idea remained unfulfilled.
In fact, here are the three whales that created the impression of the film. Of course, there are still camera work, special effects, costumes and so on, but they already remain in some shadow from the script, Performance and Music.
The film is unusual and very good, unless you, of course, do not hold the opinion that the fairy tale is a fairy tale, that there is no place for real life in it.
The further into the forest, the more disappointments
I've always loved musicals, both theatrical productions and as films, but what I saw in The Further Into the Woods & #39; the most useless and boring 125 minutes of my life.
Well, how could it be in one fell swoop to erase all the good memories of children's fairy tales! Yes, there are new plot moves with long-known fairy-tale heroes, but in the same “Shrek” and a bunch of other films and cartoons it is shown with humor when you watch them time flies unnoticed and wait for continuations. And in this breed for the musical there is absolutely no idea and especially no message (kinds, because instead of interesting and bright songs, all the musical numbers here were one song in which stupidly changed the words and horribly insane and certainly not taking for the soul). I already started rewinding 30 minutes after the start of this traction, and the only thing that pleased me was the first “end & #39; stories, I already believed that hallelujah is something you can turn off!” But no, I was in for another hour of nightmare, and "the further & #39; the plot developed, the worse it got ..." And the real ending of the story, the director managed to spoil even the slightest good impressions about the film.
Still tolerable at the beginning, the film by the middle turned into a farce and completely lost logic by the end. Why? Was there not enough "unexpected & #39" twists at the beginning of the film? It seems that the writers wrote a normal script, and then decided that there was not enough zest and added unnecessary plot twists and absolutely not catchy tragedy, which even a child would not believe!
Instead of a bright and kind musical, there was something between tragedy, soap opera and the film “Turn the wrong way & #39;”. And the screenwriter clearly reread “Hamlet”, because so many deaths even in the great work of Shakespeare was not! And most importantly, completely ridiculous and in no way fit with the idea (although what is the idea here..) and this fake drama, played out at the end, is that who it touched? I even caught myself thinking that I almost predicted every word of the characters, because it’s banal! Especially out of place was the piece about the prince and the bakery, well, it is not clear why to start a new storyline to break it in a few minutes! And the Rapunzel storyline? I understand, of course, but did Disney not have the imagination to take another fairy tale, because only a few years ago they released the cartoon “Rapunzel’s complicated story” and, incidentally, a great cartoon, and even in it I empathized with the characters more! Could at least in a different way the story Rapunzel turned, and in the end almost one in one
The only thing on the level was the actors. In general, I decided to watch this film only because of participation in the shooting of Johnny Depp and Meryl Streep, whom I have long loved and, like in other works, they are great here - but this is the only plus of the whole film! In addition, Johnny appeared in the film for only 10 minutes, and most of the time had to endure the constantly repetitive and wretched song.
I don't advise anyone to watch this nonsense! Don't waste your time! Better watch The Phantom of the Opera - a masterpiece for all time )
P. If you could think that I did not like, only because everything was gloomy and not for good, my favorite musical “Sweeney Todd demon-parekmacher' there is enough blood and in the gloom with Tim Burton, few people will be able to compete, but there everything is in place, each song deserves special attention, each character is sympathetic and it is this film that can rightfully be called a musical! + Johnny Depp in the title role will also please.
It's that I just watched, to my horror, a pathetic money grabbing and a total mess.
I'm a big fan of musicals and musical films, and I couldn't get past this #39 holiday table. To begin with, after reading the poster or description of the film in the advertisement, we do not even know that it is a musical, which is why many of my friends regretted their choice. (Well done advertisers, the trick succeeded) But I, in turn, almost missed the premiere for the same reason - I decided that this is a second-rate film, exporting only on famous actors. Oh, these hasty conclusions.
It turns out that this is the musical of Sondheim himself! Explain. He is the author of 20 musicals staged on Broadway between 1954 and 2008. You’ve probably heard of musicals like 'West Side Story' and 'Sweeney Todd'? He's very good, isn't he? Interesting dialogue, beautiful music... singing (albeit not much) Johnny Depp... what could be better for a family home viewing.
The film reveals several stories based on good old fairy tales: 'Cinderella', 'Red Riding Hood', 'Rapunzel', 'Jack and the Magic Beans'... as well as the story of the baker, linking them all into one story of the magical forest. This film will appeal to children, it is bright, fabulous and does not bypass ' lively ' theme of Good and Evil, but these children should be the age of 12 years. That’s what we’ve come up with.
I liked it all, but it’s because it’s focused more on me, Depp and Pine’s lover, rather than the squirrel. Heroes manage to do a lot of business during the film, which I would prefer not to show children. Well, it's such a musical, there's nothing you can do, you just have to warn. It is a beautiful and interesting movie for the whole family.
8 out of 10
I love variations on the theme of classic fairy tales. And even – and especially! – if the Woodcutter is called Juliet, or Princess Charming saves herself.
I was very happy when I saw the description of this film. From the studio Disney expected a good picture, at least, and also a pleasant plot, which children can show, and adults do not miss.
The beginning of the film seemed interesting - there is Cinderella, and Riding Hood, and the Witch, which grows arugula on the bed. Beautiful, beautiful...
But as far as the forest goes...
The more I tried to convince myself that “the movie is interesting, I don’t understand something.”
First of all, it all looks frankly dull, gray-buro. Feeling that you are not watching a fairy tale, but a documentary about poor ecology in the forest.
Secondly, completely cardboard characters. They knocked out the fabulousness - Cinderella doubts the Prince, Riding Hood is a cynical hooligan, and the Witch is a little insanity ... but did not add anything interesting. They became even flatter than the heroes of the usual cartoons. The whole thing is limited to a song from the first five minutes. The baker wants a son, Cinderella wants a ball, and Jack wants milk. And the witch like the girl from the joke “does not want to think, wants a dress and a babysitter.”
Thirdly, even the plot is difficult to call. Some absolutely ridiculous events that do not combine with each other and do not lead to any general finale. There was a bluff, there was a bluff, two hours of time scored - that's your story. Suddenly someone dies, someone recovers, gets married and divorced. This is the main director's task - to confuse the viewer so that he no longer expects any logic from this vinaigrette?
What music. She wasn't impressed. Rather, it was annoying why some of the lines sing to the same motif. I didn’t like it or remember it.
Acting at the top, but from such a stellar composition of failure and do not expect. The problem is that they have nothing to play - nothing is known about the heroes. In the end, Meryl Streep is good as the Abstract Witch, and Johnny Depp’s Wolf is very sinister, but absolutely useless. The same applies to all the others - I believe each individually, and all together, as at the Oscars, I accidentally met.
I'm not that unhappy, I'm rather discouraged. What did I look at?