Fairy Tale Movies Sent "Into the Woods"

A little treat of a trailer for a bonus fun post today, made by someone who clearly loves fairy tales, animated movies and "Into The Woods". While there are a ton of fan made "trailers" mixing up the soundtrack from ads with images from Disney and other films, and I honestly wasn't expecting much, this one is a stand out and worth your time.

It might make you think of those Disney (& more) stories a little differently too...

Enjoy!

Reader Spotlight: Bluebird-cakes Goes Into The Woods

I was sent a picture of this delightful - and amazing! - cake recently, from a OUABlog reader and talented fairy tale community friend, Zoe Smith of Bluebird-cakes (aka Wintersgate fairy). She kindly gave me permission to share it and some of her other fairy tale creations with you. Thank you Zoe!

About the Into the Woods cake, Zoe says:

The Into the Woods cake was chocolate mud covered in ganache and decorated in fondant icing , and modelling chocolate was used for the detail of the head and trees.

Chocolate, chocolate ganache, more chocolate... mmm. I just don't know quite how you go about eating a witch's face... (Fingers? No problem. Face? Um... please don't curse me!) But seriously, can you imagine receiving this for your birthday? I think I wouldn't let anybody touch it. Ever! ("Don't never, ever, ever mess around with my greens cake!")
         
Zoe also shared a little more about herself, confirming her long time fairy tale obsession, er, love, and that she truly is one of us...

I am a cake decorator based in the North East of England, love all things fairy tale from dark Grimm's tales to the Spiderwick  Chronicles and I bleed Disney ! Love , love , love animation and we have a collection of DVDs that I pretend belong to my kids but they are truly mine . My books are half fairy tale /animation art , half cake decoration and recipes. And lastly , I am Pinterest obsessed !  Makes you wonder how my husband puts up with me ?!

                
Look at those little animated pansies!! I want a whole cake with singing Alice flowers now...

For those lucky people in the UK who can go see and taste test one of her cakes personally: I envy you.. and keep her in mind if you need something a little special, something made with enchantment. As you can see, Zoe is sure to deliver.

I also discovered that Zoe has an Etsy shop, something for which I have no idea how she finds time to create anything with cakes like these. But in the past she made - and sold - these adorable elf boots below. (Lucky customer!)

I have a feeling we'll see more magic from Zoe's corner before long. I've added her sites and information below.)

                       Zoe Smith - Bluebird-cakes
www.facebook.com/wintersgate
www.pinterest.com/wintersgatefae

"Into The Woods" Coming to DVD & Blu-ray March 24th

This is on my to-get list. I'm aware of some of the challenges of bringing a musical to screen and how impossible it is to please everyone. Considering the "small" budget (relatively speaking) for this movie and the decision to do as much as possible "in camera", I think this is an overall better-than-we-expected result. The casting was good to great and the music, complete with symphony-sized orchestra, is wonderful. I just wish there was more to this take-it-home package. Considering how beloved a musical it is in general I think they could have easily had a special edition with book and lyrics that included pre-production designs, as well as nods to previously great productions. I would have considered getting it and I know I'm not alone...

Listed below are the special features from the Blu-ray. Disney has a track record of only putting the best features on the Blu-ray, not the DVD, so if you want the behind the scenes extras the Blu-ray is the way to go.

They still haven't put everything currently available to view online on the discs though! (Seems crazy to me.) I wish there was more from Sondheim and Lapine, a comparison to the original screenplay, a shout-out to the original Broadway cast, some development artwork and story research notes... Anyone who is interested in this as a play, who is looking at tropes or as a lyricist is going to feel frustrated (including me).

There is a filmmaker commentary though and Rob Marshall isn't just a technical conductor with regard to his films. He's very involved in the "how" and "why" of each scene and moment, so hopefully there will be some great gems from him on here.

There's also the newly written, then deleted song. Disney released an excerpt of it late Friday as a DVD teaser (it was filmed for the movie, not just recorded and was cut late in editing so it's a fully produced version).

The clip features Meryl Streep as The Witch performing ‘She’ll Be Back,’ an original song written by Stephen Sondheim for the film. In the song, The Witch laments Rapunzel’s decision to leave her and run off with the prince, but she is convinced Rapunzel will return once she comes to her senses. (The) full length of the bonus feature/song (which also features an introduction by director Rob Marshall) is just over 4 1/2 minutes long. (via StitchKingdom)

Take a look:

Additional bonus features are as follows:

• Streep Sings Sondheim – ‘She’ll Be Back’ (4:35) – Meryl Streep performs a compelling new song that sheds a little more light on the Witch’s relationship with Rapunzel. This never-before- seen composition was penned especially for this movie by Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine, and is seen here exclusively on Blu-ray and EHV. With introduction by Director Rob Marshall.
• There’s Something About the Woods (12:46) – Journey into this mysterious forest to discover how this compelling, new musical was made. Meet Director Rob Marshall and his award-winning team of artists and craftspeople, see how the woods were brought to life…and what they represent to the story… and to all of us.
• The Cast as Good as Gold (9:42) – Emily Blunt. Anna Kendrick. Chris Pine. James Corden. Johnny Depp. Meryl Streep. Meet the remarkable cast of this musical movie, and hear of their affinity for this Broadway classic.
• Deeper Into the Woods – Journey even further into the development of the film in these 4 segments:
• Deeper Into the Woods – From Stage to Screen (8:10)
• Deeper Into the Woods – The Magic of the Woods (7:03)
• Deeper Into the Woods – Designing of the Woods (6:48)
• Deeper Into the Woods – The Costumes of the Woods (6:35)
• Get direct access to the musical song segments from the film, with optional sing-along lyrics.
• Easter Eggs – Meryl Climbs (:21), Witch Riser (:46), Sneakers (:12), Jack and the Bean Stalk Rehearsal (1:30), Bird Attack (:19)
• Into the Woods Audio Commentary with Director Rob Marshall and Producer John Deluca

You can pre-order via Amazon (they've updated with the proper images now) or through the official Into The Woods movie site.

Illustrated Movie Tie-in Book For "Into The Woods" Late Release/ Blu-ray Now Available For Pre-Order

                         

Here's the announcement and an excerpt from the press release earlier in the month for a special edition, movie tie-in book for Disney's Into The Woods (I believe this was supposed to be out before the movie but it seems there was a printing delay. Not exactly sure why this was announced in near-mid January).

Interesting to note is that the book is via TCG rather than directly from Disney's publishing house and is illustrated as well as having photos (I haven't seen it myself but everyone is wowed with how lovely it looks):

The Theatre Communications Group (TCG) has published a movie tie-in edition of the book and lyrics for the musical, Into the Woods. 

Famed composer Stephen Sondheim wrote the lyrics and stage directorJames Lapine created the book. This new edition will feature eight pages of full-color photographs from the film adaptation which stars Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, and Johnny Depp. 

(From the press release:) 

“Into the Woods brings to musical life Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, Little Red Ridinghood, Rapunzel and other well-known fairy-tale characters. Interwoven with these classic tales is the story of the baker and his wife, whose longing for a child is thwarted by the mischievous witch who lives next door. Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine have fashioned a modern musical classic which has been performed countless times all over the world since its Tony Award-winning debut in 1987.”

Sounds like it might be worth picking up if you ever want to discuss the movie down the road. I'm sure such an edition will be hard to find not too far in the future!

And we have a Blu-ray with special features (I hope there are LOTS!) coming on March 24th. 

It's now available for pre-order. Here's a poor quality pic of the new cover (the one showing on Amazon is supposed to be replaced - just be sure if you pre-order and want the extras that you're ordering the correct version).

From Broadway World:

(Both) the Blu-ray and DVD editions are now available for pre-order, as well as a HD digital download, set to be released in March, with a preview of the cover art now available to view.

Of note, the INTO THE WOODS Blu-ray is rumored to contain a director's commentary, extensive documentary featurettes and the excised new Sondheim-penned song sequence, "She'll Be Back", performed by Meryl Streep.

Sondheim on Bettlelheim, and Lapine on Narrators

So Into The Woods didn't snag any of the awards they were nominated for at The Golden Globes on the weekend, but the movie (and fairy tales) are still very much being discussed, especially as the cast (and media) continue to promote the various overseas releases.

I keep seeing references to Sondheim and Lapine using Bettelheim's philosophy when writing Into The Woods, (as in the original musical, which they both then adapted for the Disney movie), however it's not quite as black and white as that. 

We'll start with a summary so you have a better idea of the thought processes behind the writing of ITW, from an interview with Edward Seckerson, published by Stage and Screen Online in 2006. It seems to make it pretty clear the pair were anti-Bettelheim, but as I said, it's not so straight forward so keep reading:

Sondheim: "[W]e took a Jungian approach. You know, this whole thing about how we based it on Bruno Bettelheim is nonsense — it’s nothing to do with Bettelheim. In fact, I don’t know if James read the book, I didn’t." 

And when Sondheim was interviewed by James Lipton for the TV series Inside the Actors Studio, Lipton brought up Bettelheim: "There seems to be a philosophical war in that musical between the theories of Bruno Bettelheim and Jung." 

Sondheim responded, "It’s interesting you say that. Everybody assumes we were influenced by Bruno Bettelheim. But if there’s any outside influence, it’s Jung. James is interested in Jung—Twelve Dreams is based on a case Jung wrote about. In fact, we spoke to a Jungian analyst about fairy tales."

And from Sondheim's book, "Look, I Made a Hat" comes the following quoted paragraph:

"And, ah, the woods. The all-purpose symbol of the unconscious, the womb, the past, the dark place where we face our trials and emerge wiser or destroyed, a major theme in Bruno Bettelheim's The Uses of Enchantment, which is the book everyone assumes we used as a source, simply because it's the only book on the subject known to a wide public. But Bettelheim's insistent point was that children would find fairy tales useful in part because the young protagonists' tribulations always resulted in triumph, the happily ever after. What interested James was the little dishonesties that enabled the characters to reach their happy endings. 

... James was also skeptical about the possibility of 'happily ever after' in real life and wary of the danger that fairy tales give children false expectations. As his play Twelve Dreams has demonstrated, he was drawn not to Bettelheim's Freudian approach but to Carl Jung's theory that fairy tales are an indication of the collective unconscious, something with which Bettelheim would be unlikely to agree. James and I talked about the fairy tales with a Jungian psychiatrist and discovered that with the exception of 'Jack and the Beanstalk,' which apparently is native only to the British Isles, the tales we were dealing with exist in virtually every culture in the world, especially the Cinderella story. African, Chinese, Native American - there is even a contemporary Hebrew version in which Cinderella wants to dance at the Tel Aviv Hilton." 

So the answer is more like "No, they didn't base it on Bettelheim's ideas" but also "those ideas weren't exactly ignored either."

OK, that's all good then, but here's the thing that bothers me, personally, though: Lapine (who wrote the "book" for the musical, as well as co-wrote the screenplay for the current Disney movie adaptation), is reported by Performing Arts Journal in 1988 as saying this (emphasis in bold is mine):

"The Narrator is what the fairy tale is about. I tried telling the stories without a narrator and it just doesn't work. A story needs a storyteller, and the storyteller is the ultimate figure of authority. Originally we wanted a public figure, not an actor, to play the Narrator: Walter Cronkite, or Tip O'Neill—someone who disseminated information and points of view. Then when we got rid of him you would see that the news was now being reported by the newsmakers, not the news reporter; decisions were being made by the people, not the politicians. Ultimately, we defined our narrator as a kind of intellectual, a Bettelheim figure; I wanted to get rid of Bettelheim!"

If this is the case, why was the Narrator's pivotal role so greatly downgraded in the movie? It makes a huge difference not having The Baker's father as the Narrator (especially as we then lose the impact of the change of POV in story telling when he's removed). Having The Baker be the Narrator all along didn't work quite like the bookend I (now) believe it was intended to be (as in, he was telling this whole story to his child.) When watching the movie I was a little confused as to why the Baker was telling us all of this in the first place, the WAY he was telling it (especially how the telling started, then ended...). 

A last but important note: I want to be clear on one point. I am in favor of the movie, in general. I fully expected it to miss the mark - widely - but the material is more faithful than I expected too. The fact that it uses fairy tales at its center is actually what helps transcend the things that bother me about the movie. What fairy tales are, how they live in people's minds, how the stories communicate and pass themselves on, is what does it. The stories themselves, and all the history they bring with them, the social legacies and various personal contexts etc work to overcome the movie's shortcomings, simply because their essential forms (wonder stories/Märchen) are kept intact. The beauty of certain iconic images (created by Rob Marshall et al) and catchy, beautiful tunes that remind us of certain story phrases, support this too. Everything else is peripheral and people can take what they want to (or need to) from the movie as a result. It's kind of magical in a way.

So there you go - my two cents for the day. ;)

Additional sources: "Look, I Made A Hat" & HERE. All movie screencaps created by Turn the Right Corner. Go HERE to see many more.

No One Is Alone

by Rune Guneriussen

Today has been... shocking. Everywhere people are devastated and outraged by the terrible, violent terrorism in Paris. And it's hit home particularly for communities of cartoonists, animators and artists. It's all I've been able to think of all day. Two images have stayed with me. One is the response by artist Lucille Clerc, that was helped into wide circulation in social media by the well known controversial street artist, Banksy. All I can add is simply a determined "Yes":

I'm going to keep a copy of this close to my desk from this day forward.

The other is a photo of the rally in Paris tonight/last night, condemning the terrorism and showing solidarity, holding large, lighted letters that read: NOT AFRAID.

While there are many bad and terrible people in the world there are many, MANY, good as well.

Paris, we stand with you.

You are not alone. Truly.

Je suis Charlie

The Witch Wears Prada (Late Sunday Funny)

Nailed it.

I don't know if this is Prada. I'm sure someone would have pointed it out if it were. So much for the "no witch" policy - this almost counts as number two... (and she's brilliant as both).

*In case you're not familiar with either reference, the lines are from Into The Woods, the footage from The Devil Wears Prada, in which Emily Blunt played the harried first assistant to a powerful (and scary) fashion magazine mogul, played by Meryl Streep. It fits so well it's both hilarious and eerie.

Into the New Year By Way Of "The Woods" (Movie Review!)

I was given a very generous gift on New Year's Day: the chance to see Into The Woods on the big screen, when I thought I'd most certainly have to wait for the home viewing release.

I'll admit, the more promos and trailers I've seen, the more excited I became about the movie, despite my initial reaction to the concept being less-than-positive. (Although, I completely agree that I, too, would jump at the chance of having my work be seen by a much-wider-than-usual audience, even if it mean inevitable compromises.) Take a look at these two featurette-trailers and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

But before I share my two cents on the movie, let me give you a little background, first, so you understand where my review (or should it be reflection?) is coming from. (And I will gif-t you with these lovely, subtle-y alive, character posters as you read.)

New Year's Day I decided it had been far too long since seeing the show (and my last viewing was not of the legendary original Broadway cast either), so I dusted off my DVD and managed to watch the entire play over the course of the day. It was a pretty great way to pass a day.

At this point, you need to know that I'm not a huge fan of fairy tale mash-ups in general and Into the Woods has never been one of those favorite fairy tale things of mine. I don't like characters from one fairy tale running into characters from another. To me it flattens them, makes them caricatures of what is the very spare character outline fairy tales generally use - and need - in order to be effective fairy tales. When you caricature them, however, to me it makes them less relatable and the power of the story drains away. I know this isn't everyone's experience, it's mine, but it has affected my view of Into the Woods over the years. My main problem with the play has always been that the division in ideas between the two acts is so extreme, (almost all light versus almost all dark) and that unless you already had an appreciation of fairy tales and understood much of the subtext, most people I knew who saw it completely missed the point of Act II and just wished it had finished at intermission, missing the entire point of seeing it in the first place.

My eventual thoughts on there being a Disney movie (underline the "Disney" part there) was that these two disparate parts would likely be more interwoven, (especially seeing as the movie making business doesn't tend to give a whole lot of credit to modern audiences to pick up on subtleties). The result would (likely) be that the core idea of the play "be careful what you wish for", which has been the key phrase of the marketing campaign, by the way, would be far more clear, as would the key themes of maturation and cycles. Despite the inevitable Disneyfication of some aspects, if they were doing it with Sondheim and Lapine, surely even a watered-down version would be worth making.

So my DVD viewing, which was a far more enjoyable (and hilarious) experience than I ever remember it being before (apart from seeing it in person, which can't be beat, in my opinion), had me very much looking forward to seeing the movie.

And then I was given the opportunity to do exactly that.

So what did I think?

Is it worth seeing on the big screen? 
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: there are definitely some parts of the movie which make the price of the ticket completely worth it, as they used the *very different* media of film extremely well, rather than having it play second fiddle to an excellent live play experience.

Did I like it overall?
Short answer: yes...?
Long answer: some parts almost glowed, they were so wonderful, while many other parts, including the end, felt disjointed. It should have been more consistently funny but wasn't allowed to carry this through as the primary tone. The times the film shone, was when the storytelling was clear or when the "funny" was given center stage. They should have done this more. A lot more. Overall I was left feeling frustrated and a little let down because it felt so uneven.

Will I get the DVD when it comes out?
Short answer: yes!
Long answer: There's a lot I'd love to see again, things I'd like to revisit and other things I'd like to puzzle out, try to understand why on earth they did it "that way". And anything behind-the-scenes will be gold.

Was it "faithful" to the Tony Award winning play?
Short answer: yes, absolutely.
Long answer: But not in all the ways I think mattered most. (See the above long answer to "did I like it" and, below, the long answers to pretty much every other question!) If I had to choose, it would be the play, hands-down, as the sheer fun of the story and the way it's told make all the difference, but I'm very glad they both exist.

What about the music?
Short answer: Excellent.
Long answer: I'm considering investing in the soundtrack. The orchestration is amazing and the best I've ever heard. The singing from everyone is top notch and then absolutely stellar by some who managed both the technicality and the acting-via-song.

What about the music changes?
Short answer: generally fine.
Long answer: Knowing there would be key differences, I tried very hard to let the movie stand on it's own music and songs, rather than looking for what was added or missing. The songs themselves were OK, though I do think the uneven placement of the numbers, including the way they stopped and started, was a detriment at times (eg the movie opened, and continued, with mostly songs telling the stories, with little dialog, which worked pretty well. When they stopped singing for a while and the orchestra's "stings" weren't accenting the lines, it was as if the focus changed and became a different movie, to the point where someone starting to sing would jolt you a bit.)

Visual style - what did I think?
Short answer: Good, almost great.
Long answer: Colleen Atwood's costume design (and the reasons and research behind each) doesn't disappoint (she even made Johnny Depp's personal preference less obnoxious than it might have been, though clearly she had to defer in that case). The overall visual style was a little uneven - sometimes clearly theatrical, sometimes faux-real. Overall the entire film was very blue, (as in literally had a blue cast over everything) which I think was a poor choice. Although colors popped here and there, the whole atmosphere seemed the same and too stagey for a film, especially with regard to the wood. I think they could have served the story and themes better with a lighter, brighter color palette (and this is from someone who loves blue and moody things by the way!)

What about the Disney-factor?
Short answer: both good and bad.
Long answer: The good was that this anti-ever-after fairy tale made it through the Disney machine, keeping it's main thrust intact without sugar-coating everything - or turning into typical Disney - to be seen by a huge audience. That's almost a form of magic in itself! The big budget was a plus for costume, cinematography and casting too. The bad is that almost all the innuendo and subtext present in the play that makes it SO much fun and so layered simply was not there. At. All. It was actually really bizarre in places that people were saying what they were because, without innuendo, there was no reason for them to be talking about that at all! I think this affected the performances as a result and it definitely affected the reason the story took the path it did (that is, the plot points appeared arbitrary as opposed to cause and effect, part of a cycle, part of a larger set of principles in motion).

So what about the (main) cast?
Short answer: better than expected.
Long answer: Although they were all very good in their parts, some were amazing while others were just "good".
I'll break it down by the mains:
Meryl Streep as the Witch: holy crap she can sing - and act while singing! It's hard to review her performance because she's "always excellent" and she was. I did feel her performance was rather neutered, not being allowed to be at all suggestive, but the mother/daughter push-and-pull within her character was clear and heart wrenching. Unfortunately, despite how good she was, many of her scenes felt uneven. [QUASI-SPOILER: The callback to her own mother at the end, was well done and a good way for her to 'exit'.]
Emily Blunt as the Baker's Wife: She was pretty much perfect. Wonderful voice, lovely layered acting, theatrical enough in her portrayal to pay homage to history. Her tone was a perfect match for the best parts of the movie and she was consistent in it throughout. If everyone has been of the same tone, it would have been a far better movie.
James Corden as The Baker: Very good. Honestly, he was mostly flawless but he was put in some odd scenes/staging that detracted. His singing was good, not perfect, but it didn't bother me in any either. In the end, the omission of some key resolution points with regard to fatherhood, left him seemingly lost. I felt sorry for him, because it felt like he wasn't allowed to travel his full arc through the woods.

Anna Kendrick as Cinderella: Very good. Her singing was excellent. I don't think she matched the best tones of the movie though. It's hard to put my finger on why I didn't love her in it, because she was REALLY good, but I think it was a tonal thing.
Johnny Depp as The Wolf: Good, generally. His performance would have been perfect for stage but he didn't match, or play well off Red Riding Hood. Not entirely his fault, I don't think. It's hard to tell. There was a lot of imbalance in his and Red's scenes together. His costume though seemed a little out of place, from a different story (thank goodness it didn't have the traditional "wolf tackle" though!).
Lilla Crawford: Good. Solid performance but too flat, one note and too "American". (Her accent was garish against everyone else's who used a more affected, traditional tale-style of speech and emphasis. She felt modern.) The fact that she really was a young girl (12 years?) and not a woman playing a young girl, just didn't work. I do think this was because of her performance though, (see notes on Jack below) and I'm fairly certain it was directed to be this way - that she was completely unaware of any layering, let alone innuendo (and she never, ever used any). She came across as brusque, flat and fairly unemotional with no sense of maturation happening through the film. Given that Little Red is one of my favorite characters because you can do so very much with her in the play, I was seriously disappointed they didn't capture even a shadow of the traditional Red.
Daniel Huttlestone as Jack: Overall he was fantastic! After the first few scenes he WAS Jack. And he grew up during the film while still managing to remain a child. His tone was perfect.
Mackenzie Mauzy as Rapunzel: Good and better than expected. She was very good opposite Streep in her Mother/Witch role. My one complaint is there was no lightness/crazy to her role at all. She was just serious and if it had been a straight movie this would have been fine, but being *this* musical, she needed to be "more" to meet the required tone.

Chris Pine as The Prince (Cinderella's): Wow. This was the greatest, most wonderful surprise of the entire movie. Where did he come from?! I had zero expectations for him and expected him to be there for eye-candy only (which usually, in my mind, requires suffering through). I barely know who he is. I'd heard ravings about his performance in this and I can tell you they are all true. He is pitch perfect! His tone is perfect for the movie and play and he walks that line of theatrical-realism to a "t". His delivery and timing are hilarious, yet touching and oh boy can he sing (thank goodness). The standout scene of the whole movie is "Agony" with the two princes. And I kept being surprised that every single scene he was in he was spot on - not too dramatic, not too smart or too smarmy, just "charming'. We rarely see Oscar noms for comedy and certainly not for musicals but I would not be surprised if he was on the list - he really is that good. If everyone else had matched his delivery, tone and performance, this movie would have been leagues better (and it's already not bad).
Billy Magnussen as The Other Prince (Rapunzel's): His performance was good. He was definitely a good foil for The Prince and should be given credit for being a key part of the best part of the movie (ie. Agony), but wasn't quite as good with comedy on his own. His scenes with Rapunzel were a bit on the dramatic side but I noticed that was also helped by how they were staged and filmed (a bit soap-like). Unfortunately, since the innuendo and subtext are largely absent, his character doesn't have a whole lot of reason for being there.

Tracey Ullman as Jack's Mother: Excellent. I think she was perfectly cast in this supporting role and hit almost all the right notes. The interaction between her and Jack at the beginning was a little odd at first but it felt directed to be so - a little rushed through.
Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Stepmother: I didn't like this casting at all. The tone was wrong, too hammy and felt cardboard.
Lucy Punch as Lucinda: She matched Baranski's performance but as a result, not the rest of the movie. (Once blinded, though, she was just the right amount of funny.)
Tammy Blanchard as Florinda: She was great. Just the right amount of everything. Her tone worked.
Note: I don't understand what was going on with all three stepmother/sister's wigs/hairstyles though - bizarre stylistic choices stood out in a distracting way in every scene.

Favorite thing/s about the movie?
Short answer: That an a-typical representation of fairy tales is doing REALLY WELL in the mainstream and the wonderful surprise that was Chris Pine.
Long answer: There are lots of little things in addition to the above. Seeing some of the magic be 'real' was fantastic (not all, by the way - some felt like filmic conceit as well). Costume details that illuminated characters (I want Emily Blunt's main 'woods' costume! Kind of Snow White-like, which sort of fit with her character arc), seeing known actors 'perform' and do it well, Milky White (what a lovely cow - I hope she was/is well cared for), the orchestration - wonderfully large and perfect for the film, that they were so faithful in the ways that they were. Extra points for keeping the Grimm's Cinderella aspects intact (mother's grave, the three nights, the pitch on the stairs, blood in the shoe - however ridiculously teeny, the sister's punishment etc)... there are so many good things.

Least favorite things?
Short answer: I think it's mostly been said above.
Long answer: it suffered from lack of innuendo, subtext and was no longer TRULY funny, in the best way that makes you laugh at yourself for doing so many of those same things/mistakes, as those characters. Most of the "magic" was too effect-y, which I expected. The one exception was that  there was NOT a profusion of glitter, for which I am ridiculously grateful (glitter has become a Disney plague!). By the time we made it to the wedding, it suddenly felt like a really long movie and the shift from happily-ever-after to "this isn't quite what I thought it would be like" was almost missing, complete with a timeline that made less and less sense, so it felt like the characters had switched movies all of a sudden. The end was just... uncomfortable, like they couldn't figure out how to resolve it properly. (What the heck happened James Lapine?!) It felt forced and, despite obvious devices inserted to make it more positive, finished on a downer.

Despite all the negative points, it was worth seeing and am glad I saw it on the big screen. I want to see it again and I'm actually looking forward to seeing it again from an enjoyment point of view and not just a pick-it-to-pieces point of view. I would have been exceptionally proud to be on this production if I were in the crew and overall am glad this movie was made.

French poster for Into The Woods

I'm going to notch it up as a good things for fairy tales in general!

Into The Woods Bonus of the Day:

Here's a brand new Into The Woods featurette, just released today (January 2nd), discussing the designing of the Woods, as well as what The Woods mean in fairy tales and to each character. It's a really neat one, worth watching!

Fairy Tale Extra of the Day:

While at the theater I saw TWO very different, fairy tale trailers:

1) Disney's live action Cinderella by Kenneth Branagh and

2) A completely revamped Jupiter Ascending trailer, which is, essentially, a sci-fi retelling of Snow White.

Re Cinderella, I hated it. Yes. That's right. I thought it was awful! Everything except Cate Blanchett, whose stepmother is EVERYTHING you want that stepmother to be. She alone may make it worth seeing. The mice are a (very) distant second pro and Cinderella is my reason NOT to see it. Yes, it's just a trailer, but it's the first time I've seen it in total (and so large). It looks more Disney than the animated movie does! (And I don't mean that in a good way.) I'm hoping this is just the marketing tactic, following the current revived perfect-princess-trend but... My skeptic hat is firmly on my head regarding this remake now (and I had such hopes).

Jupiter Ascending's new marketing approach (and greatly delayed release from July LAST year to the end of February) doesn't show much of the Snow White tale at all. But it looks like a better film than we were originally expecting. The big question is, if it holds as much of Snow White as it used to.
I'll guess we'll find out...