jtdb

It is genuinely amazing how many people out there don't read anymore, as based on the huge number of negative reviews, many users 1) didn't know it was a musical; 2) didn't know it was on Broadway 30 years ago (and numerous times since); 3) got their knickers in a twist over the more "adult" material (faithful to the play and often right out of Grimm) and the more somber tone in Act II, and 4) hate the score. Going down the list: Yes, "Into the Woods" is a musical, but it was written by Stephen Sondheim ("Sweeney Todd" "Company" "Follies"), not Alan Mencken and co. It's supposed to be challenging music with lyrics that ask tough, hard questions about life, happiness, ambiguity, and "happily ever after." If you want simpler versions of these stories with more "hummable" songs, rent the other Disney versions. And yes, as it goes along, "Into the Woods" basically deconstructs fairy tale conventions by asking real-world queries: why is there suffering? Why does a "good person" die, but a "bad" person gets away with their behavior? Can you love someone and still be tempted by others? Etc. As far as the other more "adult" material: any Children's Lit course worth its salt references Bruno Bettelheim and his seminal work "The Uses of Enchantment"--the interplay between Red and the Wolf is apiece with that. (And really, squawking about the "violence" in the Cinderella story? Again, go to the source material.) As a lover of the show, I could carp about a couple things (losing the princes' reprise of "Agony"), but this is about as faithful and honorable an adaptation as one could ask of such a challenging, thorny show. You want an unchallenging, "happy" kids' musical? Go rent "Annie." For musical film lovers, "Into the Woods" may be the nerviest, most ambitious and unsettling musical since "Cabaret"--and that's meant as praise.

You ever wonder what kind of kids like to pulls the wings off of flies, or wallow in the lowest examples of humanity and then claim disingenuously that they're just "keeping it real?" This is a film for you--the worst of misanthropic Kubrick crossed with rock-bottom incomprehensible and lurid David Lynch. Some people think this is a masterpiece; they're welcome to it. Save the two hours of your life and avoid it--and them. (For a truly brilliant take on a disturbing subject that has flickers of insight and humanity--and a knockout performance from Joseph Gordon Leavitt--rent "Mysterious Skin" which deserves all the accolades this nasty, half-witted pile of garbage erroneously gets.)

Laugh-free, bizarrely-toned misfire unsure if it's a wild, raunchy sex comedy or a serious high school drama; unpleasant homophobic and racist stereotyping abound, not to mention an overload of profanity. Cast is mostly required to play things at the 2-dimensional level. This is the sort of thing that makes "Porky's"--or even "Wildcats"--look like "Citizen Kane" in comparison. To think of all the talented scripts out there in the world that lay languishing and never get made while something like this continues to circulate on pay cable is truly a discouraging thought; in case you haven't figured it out yet, this movie is not just bad--it's depressingly bad.