Understanding Ted in The "Lasso" Finale

*Spoilers if you haven't finished Ted Lasso. Turn around and come back later*

Aside from some pieces on How I Met Your Mother and Community from almost a decade ago, I don't often talk about television on here. But I wanted to take a moment to discuss one of my favorite new shows in recent years, Ted Lasso.

Ted Lasso was an adrenaline shot of positivity that came into my life at just at the right time. Arguably I think it did the same thing for a lot of people. The series dropped on Apple TV+ in the middle of 2020, a time when we collectively were all at our low point. Saying Ted Lasso is a feel-good show is an understatement. This show taught its viewers so much about self-love, mental health, our obligation to our fellow man. Ted Lasso's (Jason Sudeikis) wisdom and teachings had just as much effect on its viewers as it did the other characters in the show. I would go so far as to say Ted changed lives on and off the screen.

Which is probably why it hit so hard on May 31, 2023 when Ted resigned as Head Coach from AFC Richmond and returned home to the states to be closer to his son in the series(?) finale. Full disclosure I ugly cried. Overall I really enjoyed the series (?) finale, although I took some issues with it, which I won't get into here. Like many television finales, Ted Lasso's seems to have divided its fanbase. Some liked it. Others didn't. One particular criticism of the finale I want to address is the notion that Ted himself was very cold and emotionless, and seemed rather unfazed by his leaving.

Now what I'm about to share with you is in no means a definitive explanation for it. This is just my own personal opinion and analysis of it. First of all, I want to take a look at Ted's final note to Trent Crimm (James Lance). For perspective, Trent was writing a book on AFC Richmond's season, and he gave a copy of the manuscript to Ted to look over before it went to the publishers. Ted's note to Trent reads "One small suggestion. I'd change the title. It's not about me. It never was."

It's not about me. It never was.

While Trent's book (and the series) may have been named after Coach Lasso, this story was never his. It was about the people whose lives he touched and changed forever. I've seen many comparisons of Ted Lasso to The Wizard of Oz online. Ted is essentially Dorothy, he's from Kansas, so naturally he returns to Kansas at the end of the series. Jamie (Phil Dunster) is The Scarecrow, no brain, Roy Kent (Brett Goldstein) is The Tin Man, no heart, a few characters could be The Cowardly Lion or a Witch, I digress. Feel free to look this up and come back here later. But I would like to draw comparison to a different film, and that is Mary Poppins.

For those of you that don't know (LOL), Mary Poppins is the story of a magical nanny who arrives in London to help take care of the two children of The Banks Family. Through her teachings, she not only helps the children, but she helps their father understand what's really important in life, and that's his family. By the end of the film the bond of The Banks Family is stronger than ever, and Mary Poppins takes her leave, rather unceremoniously, and without a big, heartfelt goodbye...maybe you see where I'm going with this.

At the start of the series, a bitter and cynical Rebecca (Hannah Waddingham) has taken over the club from her ex-husband Rupert (Anthony Head) with the intention of destroying the one thing he loved the most. To do that, she hires the worst possible person as head coach, Ted. Naturally it backfires on her, and not only does Ted improve the team, and eventually lead them to victory, he helps improves her own life. Ted also brings the team closer together, and makes them a found family. Jamie and Roy go from enemies to friends, as do Jamie and Sam (Toheeb Jimoh), and everyone comes to value Nate (Nick Mohammed). Plus let's talk about how they all celebrate Christmas together in one of the best holiday episodes in recent years. Ted very much is like AFC Richmond's own Mary Poppins. He flies in from God knows where, and helps them all to become better, and when they all do become better, it's time for him to leave.

Now I think in most finales, or episodes where a main character is leaving, it becomes like an "emotional road-trip" if you will, where they have a poignant final moment with every other major character. (See Frasier, see Michael Scott's last episode of The Office, etc.) Is this a nice thing to do? Yes. Is it a bit cliche'? Yes. Here's why I don't think Ted Lasso did it...because they were doing it every other episode. Ted was having important, emotional moments with the other characters from the very beginning. That was his deal. Helping everyone see the best version of themselves. He once told Dr. Sharon (Sarah Niles) that after his father's suicide, he would never let anyone get by him without understanding their worth and what they meant to him. So I think to do that all again with every character in the finale just would've been a bit redundant. To me Ted's final locker room speech to the team hit all the right notes.

But that still begs the question, why did he seem so cold in the finale? Well simply because his goal was to get back to his son. But let's get back to that Mary Poppins connection. As Mary (Julie Andrews) packs up her things, the Banks children, Jane and Micheal (Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber) plead with her to stay, and ask her "don't you love us?" to which Mary replies "And what would happen to me, may I ask, if I loved all the children I said goodbye to?"

Ted's goal was to never make AFC Richmond his new home. Like he told Trent Crimm long ago when they first went out to dinner, he loves coaching, and it was never about winning or losing but "helping these young fellas be the best version of themselves on and off the field." That's just what Ted did, and when the mission was complete, it was time for Teddy Loppins (Ugh...) to fly away, off to next people that needed him.

Mary Poppins may be the titular character, but it's not her story. The story is about a family learning to grow and be better together. Just like Ted Lasso may be the titular character, but as he told Trent in his note "It's not about me. It never was." Ted Lasso and Mary Poppins both focus on a person that comes into the lives of a group of troubled people, and by simply being themselves, make their world a better place.

Again, this is all just my own interpretation and couldn't amount to anything more than a crumbly box of biscuits....HOWEVER, I do think it's interesting that in the third episode of season 3, when the guys are sharing their favorite Julie Andrews performances, Ted agrees with Higgins (Jeremy Swift) and selects Mary Poppins. And maybe, just maybe this is why he wasn't totally breaking down at the team's performance of "So Long, Farewell" from The Sound of Music, because it's not his favorite Julie Andrews film (It is Roy's though).

Ted Lasso definitely left an impact on anyone who watched it. I haven't met anyone that hasn't resonated with the series. It's definitely something you can rewatch over and over and still get that feel-good feeling from...just like Mary Poppins.

Film Review - "The Little Mermaid" (2023)

The Little Mermaid

Directed by Rob Marshall

Starring Halle Bailey, John Hauer-King, and Melissa McCarthy

Somehow, the Disney live-action remakes continue to survive in this new decade. For a hot minute, it seemed like they were going the way of the Disney Direct-to-Video Sequels, and becoming the Disney Direct-to-Streaming Remakes. Thanks to a little something called COVID-19, theaters no longer became the safest nor most ideal way to watch new releases. Disney and other studios had to try new ways to get their major releases to audiences. 

While releasing three live-action remakes to theaters in 2019 (Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King), they decided to have the next one, Lady & The Tramp, go to their new streaming service when it launched later that year. About a year's worth of COVID later, Disney scrapped the theatrical release of the Mulan remake in the states, and dropped it on Disney Plus via Premier Access ($30 on top of the monthly subscription fee).

As time went on, the world started to bounce back, and more films were being released to theaters again. However, Disney remakes such as Pinocchio and Peter Pan & Wendy were unceremoniously dropped on Disney Plus, with no Premier Access fee, and to critical backlash (Shocking, I know...)

It looked like the Disney remake was going to slip into a state of obscurity, until last month when Rob Marshall's new take on The Little Mermaid became the first Disney remake released to theaters in four years. The film has done fairly well with critics and audiences alike...

...Now you're probably expecting what comes next is I do the usual tearing this film to shreds, and get on my soapbox about how these remakes are the death of Disney and cinema as we know it...No, I actually enjoyed this...well, most of it.

You know the story. I know the story. But for the sake of formality, The Little Mermaid tells the story of a young mermaid named Ariel (Bailey), who is the youngest daughter of Triton (Javier Bardem), the king of the sea. Triton forbids any contact with the surface world, which is unfortunate because Ariel is fascinated with it, and that only increases when she rescues Prince Eric (Hayer-King) from a shipwreck. While Ariel strives to be "part of that world", Ursula the Sea Witch (McCarthy) sees this as an opportunity to seize power from Titron and take control of the seas.

The Little Mermaid doesn't stray too far from the blueprint of the original until about the second-act, which is when the film really starts to stand on its own two legs (Heh). The films spends more time building up the relationship between Ariel and Eric. There's much more depth (Ha) to Eric's character this time around. He has more wants, more motivation, and importantly more of a real connection with Ariel. That's pretty much all the new ground Mermaid 2023 covers. There's hints about what happened to Ariel's mother (Allusion to the direct-to-video prequel Ariel's Beginning?) and a deeper connection to  Triton and Ursula (Borrowed from the Broadway musical) but neither additions are explored too much to leave an impact. Also there's a rather confusing addition to Ursula's spell that turns Ariel human that ultimately serves no purpose.

Halle Bailey is absolutely amazing as Ariel. She carries this film, and nails every aspect of the character. The innate curiosity and radiant positivity of the titular mermaid are all on display here. There's more agency and maturity to the character this time around, which I can admire and respect. Bailey is also a powerhouse of a singer. I'm ashamed to admit that her rendition of "Part of Your World" brought a tear or two to my eye. She commands the attention of the audience every time she's on screen. This is a career-making performance.

Casting has never been a major problem for these Disney remakes. Melissa McCarthy is an absolute delight as Ursula, and you can tell she's having a ton of fun playing one of Disney's most bodacious villains. Her performance is both inspired by the original Ursula, Pat Caroll, and her own unique take.

Daveed Diggs is a very charming and comical Sebastian. He has great comedic timing with Akwafina's Scuttle, who is also quite funny in her own right. Jacob Tremblay makes a fine and cute Flounder, but his role is rather limited in this film. John Hauer-King is great as Prince Eric and has undeniable chemistry with Bailey. His performance is almost as commanding as hers. Unfortunately the only cast member that did not work for me was Javier Bardem as King Triton. His performance is very wooden and a little too subtle for a character that has unchecked rage and the burden of being a single father to seven. Maybe it was the CGI and wire-work that stunted him. 

Speaking of CGI, let's talk about it. The hyper-realistic CGI animals in these remakes has always been questionable. I don't know how they pulled it off in The Jungle Book, it didn't work in The Lion King, and I didn't see Lady & The Tramp. Here...it's not that bad. Scuttle is very expressive. Sebastian it's about 50-50. Flotsam and Jetsam (Ursula's pair of eels) are pretty creepy, and rightfully so, but I'm sorry to say to all the Flotsam and Jetsam fans out there, that they get the "Iago in Aladdin 2019" treatment. They don't talk, and are more of a plot device than actual characters.  The CGI doesn't work at all for hyper-realistic, Jacob Tremblay-voiced Flounder, which probably makes it a blessing that he's not in the film very much. 

That's a perfect segue into the underwater effects of the film. It's pretty hit and miss. Sometimes its rather pretty, other times it's a little distracting. There are times where it's pretty clear the actors are just floating in front of a green screen. Also, the design of the underwater kingdom is pretty unimaginative. It's just generic coral reef. Conversely, the visuals on the surface world are pretty spectacular, particularly the fiery shipwreck scene, and the "Kiss The Girl" sequence. The sets for Eric's kingdom are all very impressive, and give off a nice combination of tropical and classical vibes.

Now we have to talk about the music. This is (mostly) some of the best music a Disney remake has had in awhile. Which isn't that high of a compliment because it's just the classic work of Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman rearranged, but damn is it effective here. Again, Halle crushes "Part of Your World". McCarthy's rendition of "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is infectiously catchy. "Under The Sea" is again a show-stopper, but the visuals don't quite match the song's energy. "Kiss The Girl" is one of my favorite Disney songs and I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed with it. 

Lin-Manuel Miranda was brought in to compose some new songs. Prince Eric's new song "Wild Uncharted Waters" is like a gender-swapped, Disney Princess"I want song", with grand orchestrations and sweeping camera movements. It's like an Alan Menken version of "Bet On It" from High School Musical 2. "For The First Time" is a new song for Ariel to sing when she gets on land, and it's a low-key bop. Scuttle and Sebastian's new...rap..."The Scuttlebutt"...is incredibly out-of-place and stops the film dead in its tracks. Just because you got two rappers in your cast and Lin Manuel doing the music doesn't mean you should, guys. You girl-bossed too close to the sun...

I can confidently say that The Little Mermaid is the most I've enjoyed a Disney remake since the 2017 Beauty & The Beast. I look at it very much in the same light. It's not a perfect film, but it is a lovely tribute to the animated original, and a fine cornerstone in its legacy. It has enough to warrant your time, including wonderful performances and new renditions of beloved Disney tunes. 

This is arguably the new gold standard for Disney remakes, wether they go to theaters or Disney Plus (Sounds like it's going to be a film-by-film basis). We can only hope they can be as respectful and entertaining as The Little Mermaid.

 

Film Review - "The Super Mario Bros. Movie"

The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic

Starring Chris Pratt, Anya Taylor-Joy, Charlie Day, and Jack Black

I really don't understand movie critics sometimes. Why are we tearing down a film that's based off an over forty-year-old video-game franchise, where an Italian plumber, goes off to rescue a princess, from an evil turtle? A "thinly plotted animated adventure". Did you really expect to walk out of here forever changed, emotionally rocked to your core at the Pixar level? Anyway The Super Mario Bros. Movie is goddamn delightful and it gave me the biggest smile I've had in theaters for awhile.

Mario and Luigi (Pratt and Day) are two Italian-American brothers in Brooklyn struggling to get their plumbing business off the ground. One night when they go into the underground to fix a water leak, they get sucked down a Warp Pipe into another dimension. Mario lands in the Mushroom Kingdom, and Luigi in the Dark Lands, which are ruled by King Bowser (Black). Bowser is determined to marry Princess Peach (Taylor-Joy) and will destroy the Mushroom Kingdom if she refuses. Mario teams up with Peach to save his brother and the Mushroom Kingdom from Bowser and his army.

Simple but effective is the best way to describe this film. It knows its source material and speaks its truth. This was a Mario video-game come to life in the best way. The film wastes no time in explaining power-ups or Koopas or Rainbow Roads. It just goes "No. This is the world of a video-game. Deal with it. Let's-a-go." The animation is spectacular, and probably some of Illumination's best. They stay close to the style of the games and all the characters look amazing. The set pieces are gorgeous and filled with vibrant colors. It's a true feast for the eyes. 

There's so many Easter eggs and visual nods to the games. You have to watch this film in slow motion to catch them all. One particular scene where Mario and Luigi are rushing to a job-site and its framed like a level on the games is so much fun, the sequence where the characters drive on Rainbow Road triggered me in ways I didn't know possible (Mario Kart!!), and I won't spoil it but the ringtone on Luigi's cellphone put such a stupid smile on my face. 

I know I said this film is "simple but effective" and no one should expect a Pixar-level narrative here, but the film does have a lot of heart, especially when it comes to the relationship of Mario and Luigi. You really believe these two brothers love and care for one another. It's unfortunate that they're apart for most of the film. But at the same time you sympathize with Mario's own character journey. It's basic Joseph Campbell, hero-journey stuff. He dreams of a better life, he's called to action, and he's given the opportunity to be a part of something bigger, to be something greater. I might get shot for this but in some ways its structure isn't that different from the original Star Wars!

Really all the characters in the film are wonderful, and now's a good time to transition into the voice-acting. I think when this cast was announced a lot of people were worried, especially about Chris Pratt. Honestly though he was pretty good. We shouldn't be totally surprised this isn't his first animated film*. There's a lot of surprising subtly to his Mario. I completely understand them not going hard on the Italian accent. It's the same with John Mulaney and Andy Samberg voicing Chip and Dale. Hearing their original stylized voices over an extended period of time could get kind of grating.

Charlie Day was super fun as Luigi. Seth Rogen, despite giving his very distinctive voice to an animated character for like the twelfth time, is a really good Donkey Kong, and I love the reluctant friendship he has with Pratt's Mario here. They play off each other so well. Keegan-Micheal Key is a real scene-stealer as Toad. Anya Taylor-Joy is sweet and charming as Princess Peach. The real MVP of the film though is Jack Black as Bowser. This is one of the best villain performances in animation ever. You can tell he is just having so much fun behind the mic being completely over-the-top evil.

One thing that brought this film down for me was its jukebox soundtrack. It relies way too much on popular hits from the 70s and 80s, which is a shame because there's so much rich music from the video games they could've adapted (or in some cases did adapt and then cut in favor of using a popular song). I've said this before but one too many "needle drop" moments can really take you out of the viewing experience. Let's all agree to not use "Holding Out For A Hero" in film anymore. This was the second instance in one month. Don't use AC/DC you're just asking us to remember Iron Man. Also..."Take On Me" by A-Ha? Just compose your own music! 

Maybe the majority of the critics out there didn't play Mario video-games growing up, or just forgot to have fun with a film. The Super Mario Bros. Movie is a real treat for audiences young and old, no matter how much you did or didn't play the games. I was never a big gamer but this film brought me so much joy with its simple story, wonderful characters, and dazzling animation. This is another mark in the win column for Illumination as far as I'm concerned.

But please...can we just let the "Peaches" song go for a little bit? Before the Academy decides to have Jack Black perform it in costume at next year's Oscars?

*Do not come for me I wasn't originally sold on The Lego Movie and now I love it.

"Into The Woods" A Fine Film and Flawed Adaptation

I can say with confidence that my favorite musical is Stephen Sondheim's Into The Woods. Now I admit I haven't seen a ton of Broadway shows, in fact most of the ones I've seen have been adapted from Disney films. So there's some irony in that I was introduced to my favorite musical...through its film adaptation by Disney!

Long ago I placed Into The Woods sixth in my Top 10 Films of 2014, which I don't know if I would do again. Frankly I'm a little appalled at my past self for not including How To Train Your Dragon 2, and embarrassed for not seeing John Wick or Whiplash at the time (still haven't seen the latter). The point is, the more I've learned about Into The Woods the musical, the less I've enjoyed Into The Woods the film.

Before we go any further I'm just going to let everyone know I'm not here to trash James Corden...but I get it. Also this will contain spoilers so...don't go any further if you care about those.

For those that don't know, Into The Woods is what I describe as an "ensemble adaptation" that takes multiple fairy tales like Cinderella, Jack and The Beanstalk, and Red Riding Hood, and intertwines them into one narrative. At the center are the original characters of The Baker and his wife, who are cursed by their witch neighbor due to past misdeeds of The Baker's father, and preventing them from having a child. The witch tells them she can create a potion to lift the curse if they collect four specific ingredients in three day's time: the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slipper as pure as gold. These ingredients are where the other fairy tale characters come in. 

The Baker sets out into the titular woods to retrieve the items, while at the same time Cinderella, Jack, and Red also set out into the woods (Ahaha!) to achieve their specific goals (go to the ball, sell the cow, etc.) There's also Rapunzel, a couple of Prince Charming's, and an omniscient narrator. Now "Happily Ever After" does come for these fairy tale characters, but that is not where Into The Woods ends. That's just the first act.

Some time has passed, and as the narrator tells the audience, despite some minor inconveniences, the cast is still happy. Cinderella is bored with the princess life, meanwhile her Prince Charming (and his brother) are becoming unhappy with married life. Jack longs for more adventures atop the beanstalk. The Baker and his wife, now with their infant son, need more space in their home. But these characters keep singing they're "so happy" as if to convince the audience (and themselves) that they are living happily ever after.

The majority of the second act has the characters dealing with an attack from a second giant, who is the wife of the giant Jack killed. To make a long story short, this conflict leads to the deaths of Jack's mother, Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother, Rapunzel, and The Baker's wife (who falls to her death after having a brief fling with Cinderella's Prince. Interesting chain of events there, Sondheim...). Eventually this lady giant is defeated, and the story ends with Cinderella, Jack, and Little Red moving in with The Baker and his son. I'm really not doing the second act much justice with this summary but I'm trying not to waste too much time on the recap.

So, this sounds like a pretty bleak ending right? A bit bittersweet isn't it? Yes, but...that's kind of the point. Sondheim is making the point that "Happily Ever After" is a false construct. "The End" is not the end. There will always be more more giants, wolves, and witches. There will always be more obstacles, more consequences, and more hardships. That's life. People have to continue to grow, to learn, to go "into the woods". Pinning the blame on a fairy tale villain like a giant or an evil witch is not going to make your problems go away, nor is a magic slipper or bean going to make your life perfect. 

Through Into The Woods, Sondheim masterfully uses fairy tales to tell his audience, not to believe fairy tales. It's genius. But...is it cinema?

Translating a story from one medium to another is always going to present challenges. Creatives have to be willing to make changes to the source material in order for their adaptation to work. Into The Woods fits perfectly into a two-act play structure. The first act is the regular fairy tale, and the second is what happens after. Disney's 2014 film adaptation really stumbles here. Not counting the credits, it's an hour and fifty-seven minute film, but we don't get to the second act until an hour and fifteen minutes in. 

Now you're probably saying "Chris that's not that egregious." Well it is, and it isn't. On the stage, we get an intermission, and act two starts with a rearrangement of the opening song. Some time has passed for the characters, and they're not super content with their current situations. There is no intermission in a film, and the filmmakers decided to cut the time jump. Just as Cinderella and Rapunzel have married their princes, Mrs. Giant attacks and we're right back into the fray (or...woods).

Omitting songs from film adaptations is not a new practice, however, eliminating the time jump and the second-act prologue changes the message of Into The Woods for the film. The characters do not get the chance to lament their happily ever afters, much less enjoy them. Instead they find themselves having to continue to fight for them, and as I mentioned earlier, that comes at the cost of some lives. Suddenly the message isn't so much "There is no such thing as a happily ever after" as much as "Be careful what you wish for" which while that is still an important message, it is a very tired and cliche one.

Another song omission from act two really messes up the flow of the film, and that's the reprise of "Agony" (You know that upsets me...). The reprise has the two princes getting tired of their wives (Cinderella and Rapunzel) and becoming smitten with two other princesses (Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). Eliminating this song totally makes the Prince's fling with The Baker's Wife seem completely out of left field, and sort of makes it seems like the film is punishing her for cheating...because she dies immediately after? Yeah I'm still not sure what purpose her death serves if anyone wants to help me out here, please. Sure, earlier in the film (played by Chris Pine and Emily Blunt) they share a few moments but it's not enough for us to "ship it" as the kids say.

Side-note, the characterization of The Baker's Wife in the film misses the mark, too. In the musical she clearly wears the pants in the marriage and has to push The Baker to do more. In the film she's a much more gentle character and far more his biggest cheerleader. The musical makes it more believable for her to cheat. 

There is one more detail from the film I want to touch on, and that's how they handled The Narrator and The Baker's Father. They're played by the same actor on stage, but they're not the same character...at least that's how I interpreted it. Anyway, on stage The Narrator is an actual character that interacts with the audience, and in the second act, the other characters. When Mrs. Giant is hunting for Jack, the characters turn on him and offer him up as a sacrifice. The Narrator pleads with them to spare his life, because they'll be lost without him telling the story. It's very clever because once the Narrator is gone, that's when the characters have to start taking responsibility for their own actions, hence Princes and Wives having flings, the four main characters screaming at each other in a song called "Your Fault" etc.

The film has no narrator character. Instead The Baker (Corden) acts as narrator. Now that's kind of a nice change. It brings the film full circle when he tells the story to the baby at the end. But again, the message of the musical is lost. 

Now his father. His father is a supporting player in the first act, acting as an unnamed mysterious stranger helping the characters through the woods. When the curse is finally lifted, he passes away having paid for his misdeeds. In the second act, after his wife has died and the witch has abandoned the group, The Baker retreats and leaves his son with the others. It is then when a vision of his late father comes to him, and through the song "No More" (Mad the film cut this one), he realizes he hasn't learned anything, he is jus repeating the cycle, and it's time to take responsibility for his own life. The father doesn't appear in the first half of the film, save for a brief flashback in the prologue, but does show up in the second act. He appears as a vision to his son, but only through a brief pep talk does he tell his son to be "better than me". This just feels tacked on because the character was cut out of the rest of the film.

That's kind of the whole problem with how this film handles act two of the musical. It just tacks it on at the end and breezes through it (Was I trying to make that point with my quick recap of it earlier? I'll never tell!). Eliminating too much from this portion of the musical undercut the whole message and point of Into The Woods and thus the film fails at being a proper adaptation.

Now, I've bashed the film quite a lot here, and I could go on...but I really do enjoy it. The performances are great. The production design is top-notch, and the arrangements of the songs are really wonderful. I just came to this epiphany...in many ways this is the Disney live-action remake of Into The Woods. It takes a lot out of the source material, doesn't add much, but still enjoyable at the surface level because it's well casted and the new arrangements of the songs are good. 

Really how much you like the musical of Into The Woods will determine how much you like the film Into The Woods. As I've grown to love the musical more over time, I've lost interest in the film. Does that mean I hate it? No. I still enjoying watching the 2017 remake of Beauty & The Beast, but I'll never take it over the original 1991 classic. That's sort of how I look at Into The Woods the film. It's not perfect, but at times, it can satisfy.

Could another film adaptation of Into The Woods work? Perhaps, but it's not clear we'll ever see it in this lifetime, and maybe that's a good thing. As the film said, and not the musical, be careful what you wish for.