Review of Into the Woods (2014) by Joe W — 06 Jun 2015

I am a fan of "Into the Woods." Not this version, though.

There is a struggle of egos between theatre performers and movie actors. In fact, this struggle was highlighted in this year's Oscar winner for Best Picture. Movies like "Into the Woods" are one reason this struggle is fueled: big name Hollywood actors are cast as leads when these theatrical productions are cinematized, instead of the multitude of theatre performers whom are better-equipped to provide the best performance possible.

I felt like Meryl Streep was the worst offender of this problem. Nobody's denying her talent, but she was not the best choice for this film. She wasn't even the 100th-best choice for this film. And not only was Streep miscast, but - if I may speak something that would be considered heresy in the City of Angels - Streep underperformed. She portrayed her character with a one-dimensional ilk. Whether it was an uncharacteristically poor performance or a poor artistic choice, I don't know and I don't care. There were dozens of better-suited actresses for the role.

Streep aside, I felt like most of the choreography - or more accurately, the blocking - was bland. Most of the musical numbers had long moments of "dead zones," spots where it just didn't pay to pay attention anymore. For minutes at a time, nothing worth watching happened.

There are other versions of this production that had a tenth of the resources and a sliver of the star power, and have still produced spectacles far more compelling and far more dazzling. Go see those instead. Start with the 1991 version.