Into the Woods Review

I'm ordinarily not fanatical about musicals by any means, but they can be deliriously fun on occasion. There was tons of hype and excitement about a movie version of the Broadway musical Into the Woods (2014) being made. I confess I knew next to nothing about Broadway production apart from the fact that it involves fairy tale characters. It sounded fun, but what I saw was nothing like I expected.

As the result of the curse of a once-beautiful witch (Meryl Streep), a baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) are childless. Three days before the rise of a blue moon, they venture into the forest to find the ingredients that will reverse the spell and restore the witch's beauty: a milk-white cow, hair as yellow as corn, a blood-red cape, and a slipper of gold. During their journey, they meet Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy) and Jack (Daniel Huttlestone), each one on a quest to fulfill a wish. As they work to make their wishes come true, their actions release great danger upon the land.

When a stage production moves to the big screen, there ought to be some significant changes in set and location. For example Little Shop of Horrors; on stage, the whole story takes place inside Mushnik's Skid Row Florists shop. For the movie adaptation, director Frank Oz took every opportunity to get the characters out of the shop and show them in many different locations. This gave the movie a bigger and more open feel to it, and made the fictional setting seem more real. For Into the Woods the primary location was, believe it or not, the woods. While events took place at different locations within the woods, many sets felt very much the same; there wasn't much variety in the background other than trees. Furthermore, most scenes didn't feature much happening other than characters singing dialogue to one another while standing around by the trees with the camera capturing close shots of the characters. This gave everything a claustrophobic look. We're shown a few wide aerial shots of the woods to suggest that its extensive, but when we're down in the woods we're given almost no sense of space or direction. And since the characters move and do so little other than sing dialogue, it almost feels like this could have been on a rather small stage. The whole point of making a movie adaptation is to make everything bigger, grander, and to do things that can't be done on a stage. Apparently no one told that to the director of Into the Woods, and it gave the whole production an uncomfortably amateur quality to it in terms of camera work, and set design. The sets looked good but seems so small that it was practically begging us to notice it was a soundstage.

Because the characters spend most of their time standing around in the forest singing dialogue about how terrible things are for them and what they wish would happen, the story doesn't lend itself to a whole lot of action. I don't mean in terms of chase scenes, explosions, and fights; I mean in terms of things actually happening. It is frequently suggested that events do take place but most of them occur off screen. This is occasionally a good thing, but is usually just confusing and robs the audience of interesting cinematography. For example, none of Jack's adventures up the beanstalk are ever shown; we just see him wander onto the set with an item of loot and hear him talk about what he did. This sort of thing happens a lot, and weakens a very visual storytelling medium by NOT showing us major events. Not showing us things that happen makes for a very slow moving and uninteresting movie. At one point some of the story arches were wrapping up and I hoped we were coming to the end of the movie, but then something happened to push the story further and I realized to my horror that there was a second act.

There were a number of times that something important happened but it wasn't shown happening. Towards the end there's a major character that dies; all we see is this character in a close up looking around and then stepping backwards to move off screen. I felt like something important had happened, but I was given no context to know what. It's not until halfway through the next scene that someone said they found this character, dead. There were so many times I was watching the movie and thought, "What just happened?", because we aren't shown enough of what little action there is to know what is happening in the story. In fact, there's another scene where another character makes a dramatic exit, and as soon as the scene was over a little girl in the back of the theater loudly asked "What just happened?" If small children who usually aren't concerned with things like movie logistics are left confused, then the movie is doing something very wrong.

The few times the lack of action was a good thing was in instances where story elements of the original Grimm's fariy tale were mercifully done off screen, such as Cinderella's Stepmother cutting off the toes of her daughters to try to get Cinderella's lost slipper onto her daughter's feet. It's moments like that which are dark and violent that are obscured enough to keep it's PG rating, but it still obfuscates any potential to actually show the audience something happening other than dialogue.

At least the music makes up for the poor camera work and lack of action, right? Wrong. I'm not sure how this musical has earned such notoriety. None of the music was catchy, exciting, or moving. The lyrics weren't profound, interesting, or inspiring. In the case of Les Misérables many songs were upbeat enough to enjoy, and lyrics so meaningful that they moved audiences to tears. That memorable and intense quality was completely lacking in the music of Into the Woods. None of the tunes have stuck with me. The only lyrics that stick out in my mind were when all of the characters were repeating the same line over and over and over. The opening song had the cast singing the words "into the woods" repeatedly for an obnoxiously long time. I understood very early on where they were intending to go and it would have been nice if they'd just get there and do something already. Much of the music was almost like listening to insufferable bored children trying to amuse themselves on a long car ride.

One of the few things I liked about the movie was how intricately the characters' stories were interwoven. We're all familiar with most of these character's stories already. The way that these stories influence one another and how some characters weave in and out of stories they don't originally belong to was highly impressive and interesting. The structure of the story was well done, even if the story itself was slow moving. It still would have been better if we got to see more of the story rather than just hear the characters talking about the story.

I honestly didn't know what to expect going in to see Into the Woods, but this wasn't it. The camera work was bad, the music was drab and forgettable, and the pacing was very slow. The intricacy of the story is impressive, but the story mostly features the characters standing around in the forest talking about things the movie should have been showing us. I can see how this would be a good production if it were on stage, but the transition to movie was not done well at all. The writing, camera work, and set design should have had a lot more attention for it to be a solid movie. It has cute moments here and there, but the bad aspects of the movie really do ruin the few good bits. I can't recommend seeing this. Fans of the musical might enjoy seeing the play with CGI special effects and such, but I imagine the awkwardness of the overall movie production would make it disappointing. If you had no prior experience with the musical, you'll probably get a good laugh at how bad and awkward this movie is. This isn't even worth renting. Go watch Hairspray or something else if you're in a mood for a musical.

Rock of Ages Movie Review

I'm not a groupie by any means, but I do enjoy 80's Rock 'n Roll. I am much too reserved to be a legit groupie. Having said that, I was psyched to see Rock of Ages (2012), a movie based on a Broadway musical that exclusively features 80's rock music. How can you go wrong with a rock musical?

Arriving in Hollywood with stars in her eyes, Sherrie (Julianne Hough) meets Drew (Diego Boneta), and together they plunge headlong into the local rock scene in the Sunset Strip, dreaming of Rock 'n Roll stardom. The rock club they work at, The Bourbon Room, is in dire financial strain. The owners Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and Lonny (Russell Brand) are relying on money from a gig by the enigmatic and unreliable rock god Stacie Jaxx (Tom Cruise).  Meanwhile, Patricia Whitmore (Catherine Zeta-Jones) the religiously conservative wife of Los Angeles' Mayor rallies her church to protest in front of The Bourbon Room, planning to shut them down in an attempt to rid L.A. of its "sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll" image. Even with everything riding on the gig, Stacie Jaxx's conniving manager (Paul Giamatti) tries to get away with The Bourbon Room's earnings.

I'd never heard of the Rock of Ages Broadway show before this moving came out. I really liked the idea of a musical with 80's rock music, and there is an outstanding rock classics from artists such as  Def Leppard, Journey, Poison, Guns N' Roses, Joan Jett, Bon Jovi, David Lee Roth, and Twisted Sister among others. And they were so creatively implemented. One of my favorites was when Stacie Jaxx was being interviewed by Rolling Stone Magazine, while describing how his life is much more complicated than it appears, you hear Bon Jovi queuing up in the background and then he starts singing "Wanted Dead or Alive." The other favorite of mine was when The Bourbon Room's clientele are waiting to enter while being scorned by the conservative fanatics. The resulting song is an amazing mash up of Starship's "We Built This City" sung by the rock patrons and Twisted Sister's "We're Not Gonna Take It" sung by the protesters. The way the songs are worked into the story is extraordinarily creative and even riveting.

The story itself, though isn't all that impressive. Early on, all the stories are fairly intertwined, but they branch off into their own storylines. There were some storylines that I was more invested in than others. The love/separation story between Sherrie and Drew was pretty run of the mill until they went their separate ways and had to compromise their dreams. When they got back together to lament where life had taken them, Sherrie to a waitress at a strip club and Drew to join a pop boy band, it was decided that Drew is the one that hit rock bottom. Stacie Jaxx's story was more interesting with the media hounding him, his fame and status as a rock god on the brink of toppling as rock was giving way to pop. I thought the most interesting storyline was Dennis and Lonny trying to keep The Bourbon Room up and running as they approach bankruptcy and as the conservative fanatics close in on them. Dennis and Lonny are the comic reliefs in the movie; they are funny and manage to make things like a failing business amusing. But in the end each story wasn't all that interesting on its own, and the overall story arch was only vaguely interesting as each storyline interwove with the others.

Getting Tom Cruise to play Stacie Jaxx was a brilliant casting decision. I imagine the role of Stacie Jaxx is a coveted role, like Edna Turnblad in Hairspray or Éponine in Les Miserables. Tom Cruise has a reputation for being a formerly reputable actor who is now crazy, joined the Scientology church, and jumps on Oprah's couch. The character Stacie Jaxx has a very weird personality, is drunk with his own fame, is out of touch with reality, and is kind of a rock god/man child going through a meltdown. Who better to play that sort of role than Tom Cruise? He kind of takes our perception of him as a crazy guy and uses it as a strength, and he does just that immensely well in Rock of Ages.

In the end, Rock of Ages was disappointing. The story just barely kept me engaged and most of the characters were fairly cliché. The sets were great and the costumes were perfect; they really helped sell the late-1980's feel. The music was outstanding, but that's because it was taken from some of the best songs that 80's rock had to offer and provided some excellent covers; the music is what made Rock of Ages any good. The sex scenes were very risqué for a PG-13 movie; Rock of Ages really pushed what I thought was acceptable for a PG-13 movie. It would probably put off some viewers; heck, I found myself averting my eyes. I appreciated that Patricia and the religious conservatives were not picked on for being conservative or religious; the character had a personal vendetta, the movie wasn't out to bash religion or those with conservative ideals.

 This movie is definitely not for everyone. However, if you like rock 'n roll, if you like music, or think you know when the death of rock 'n roll was, you'll probably enjoy Rock of Ages. Even if you are in that category, I still say Rock of Ages is a renter. If you're just there for the music like I was, you could make your own play list out of the movie's soundtrack and rock your soul out to that. There is the fact that Rock of Ages really captured the feeling and vibe of an 80's rock concert that makes watching the movie more fun than listening to some MP3's.

Here's that We Built This City/We're Not Gonna Take It mash-up scene to illustrate the creative usage of the songs:

So, a musical that features classic songs form a specific music genre. If you were writing a musical like that what genre of music would you use? Country? R&B? Pop? Jazz? Whatever the heck it is that Lady Gaga does?  Comment below and tell me about it!

Funny Girl Movie Review

It used to be the case where watching a big budget, major motion picture was a highly cultural event. Theater attendees would probably dress up like they would for a night at the opera, the movie would have overture before the opening credits, an intermission, and fully orchestrated exit music. Ben-Hur (1959) is an example of this, as is Funny Girl (1968). Ben-Hur was an epic tale which deserved such presentation. Funny Girl, though it was good, didn’t seem to have a big enough story to justify its production costs.

Funny Girl is loosely based on the life and career of Broadway and film star and comedienne Fanny Brice (Barbra Streisand). Set just prior to and following the First World War, the awkward “New Yawker” Fanny Brice fast-talks her way into show business, certain that she’s destined to be “The Greatest Star.” She is later hired as a dramatic singer by impresario Flo Ziegfeld (Walter Pidgeon). Unable to follow orders to play drama, she turns her role in a “Beautiful Bride” tableau into a laugh riot by dressing herself up as an extremely pregnant newlywed. This stunt turns her into an overnight star and the toast of Broadway. Her comedic public image hides her imperfect private life as the wife of big-time gambler Nick Arnstein (Omar Sharif). Nick at first finds it amusing to be referred to as “Mr. Brice,” but he begins to resent his wife’s fame and fortune and starts taking foolish risks with other people’s money.

In general, I enjoy musicals. Musicals have to be crafted very meticulously and carefully. Musicals can go one of two ways; they either have meaningful songs and musical numbers that complement the tone of the story and develop the characters well, or they rely too much on fun musical numbers that have nothing to do with the story or characters, thus weakening the film. Funny Girl seems to fall in the latter category. The songs are alright, but they don’t really modify the story or move it forward. Funny Girl has a bland romantic story with almost illogical vaudeville interludes here and there. Only a couple of them reflect what is happening in the story or to the characters, the rest are just filler that does nothing but reemphasize the fact that Brice does theater.

Funny Girl was Barbra Streisand’s first film role, and she did so well that she won an Academy Award for Best Actress. That is pretty much where the good acting ends in this film. All the supporting characters are very dull, predictable, and poorly acted. They’re almost mechanical in their delivery. I enjoy a good romantic story, but this was just dreadful melodrama. Streisand, by contrast, blows them all out of the water and steals the show. She really makes everyone who isn’t Barbra Streisand look like a petty supporting character. Streisand doesn’t just sing these songs, she acts them. She is expressive, has excellent comedic timing, and is genuinely fun to watch.

It seems strange to say that a movie looked too good for what it was, but that is the case for Funny Girl. The sets were huge, elaborate, and detailed. Even if the set was used only once or twice, it was still too big for the action that was occurring onscreen. For example, the scene when Fanny and Nick finally have a chance to talk for the first time there is a huge, expansive set they stroll around while talking. They are the only ones on set, no background action to capture, and the actors don’t move all that much. It looks okay, I suppose, but it really draws attention to the fact that they are on a set and the production has lots of money to spare. There are also elaborate, sweeping camera shots and wide angles used to captivate events that just aren’t that grandiose. There’s a scene that shows us one of Fanny’s first stage performances, but the camera is so far back away from the stage itself we see less of what she is doing and more of the elaborate set in the peripherals. The movie almost seems to be trying to show us how much money went into the production rather than tell us a story.

Funny Girl isn’t necessarily bad, just over-produced, over-photographed, and really long. During the second act, there are fewer musical numbers and the pace of the movie slows down considerably. This really draws attention to the small scope the movie has and emphasizes the leaden melodrama and poor acting of everyone who isn’t Barbra Streisand. Streisand really is stunning in this film, and makes the whole thing worth watching; I can’t praise her enough for her acting job in Funny Girl, it’s so expressive and full of quirky subtleties that are uniquely hers. This was, of course, before she became one of the most obnoxiously egocentric entertainers in the world. Overall, I didn’t enjoy Funny Girl very much and if not for Streisand, I would have flat out hated it. If you enjoy watching movies that are pretty, have fun musical numbers, and aren’t bothered by poor acting, you’ll likely love this movie and I’d recommend seeing it. If you find extravagant camera work visually distracting, unjustified musical numbers annoying, and weak romantic stories boring, I’d steer clear of this one.

Do you have a favorite Barbra Streisand movie? What is it and why do you like it so much? Comment below and tell me why!