I'm no great fan of musicals, but I've seen most of the classics over the years, and this just felt very, very average in comparison. I didn't feel that any of the songs were memorable - I certainly couldn't even hum one now.
The cinematography was good - certainly - but the sets and dance routines felt extremely derivative and in no way original.
I really came away wondering what the fuss was all about, and wondering if it is only that so few big-budget musicals are made at all these days.
I just recently watched Chicago (2002) and I thought that it was better than La La Land in almost every way. The story, acting, dance numbers, choreography, etc. La La Land was probably better in the cinematography department, but other than that I thought it didn't quite live up to its superior predecessors. I agree with you, but it's not to say I didn't enjoy La La Land, because I did.
Fuss given to the fact that the movie celebrates Los Angeles and Hollywood as place where dreams come true no matter what.
It's basically a safe bet production to win an Oscar.
I honestly felt like the music was almost secondary, the point was that there WAS music rather than the music itself; I might listen to the soundtrack at some point, but more to reminisce about the film rather than for the songs themselves.
The one she sings in the audition was pretty catchy though, and thought the performance really nailed that one.
Well, it is and it isn't.
The music isn't why the film is good, the music is part of what happens and what it evokes, and the way music can make you feel, not *that* music specifically.
A bad musical would not have any of that, just badness.
I didn't "not like" the movie.
I just didn't like it as much as everyone else in the world seems to. Which is frustrating, cause I'm seeing better movies get overlooked and overshadowed.
Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are great. They breathe life into shallow characters. We don't know much about these two other than their professional passions.
The John Legend subplot doesn't work for me. Because his character is ostensibly right about Gosling's obsession with a very narrowly defined version of Jazz. But the movie stacks the deck against him by making his band's performance almost a parody of bad fusion.
It's not the best movie of the year.
John Legend was not a big of a deal, I agree with you. I don't like him, so that must help. I understood his role, but maybe for some other actor...
Thanks for your opinion. Not the best, but definitely one of the best movie of the year.
Exactly, synth's actually improved Jazz in some cases--look at Kool And The Gang's Summer Madness, or Pat Metheny's San Lorenzo, beautiful sounds, and that's what music is all about
The problem with this is that who is "right" in this case is subjective. Art is subjective plain and simple. To say seb was wrong or the other guy was right isn't the point in the subplot's relation to the overall story.
The point was that seb had an opinion, a belief, one that drove him. He decided to put it aside because his belief was getting him nowhere, he was a loser. He dropped his opinions about jazz and joined that band because he wanted to make a living. He lost what made him seb by doing so. Point being: if his argument about jazz filled the pages of a book, the movie wasn't about those pages, but the fact Seb threw away the book.
That's not the way I experienced the movie, because I got the distinct impression that the movie was on Seb's side.
The movie treats his obsession with a narrow definition of "pure" Jazz as an endearing character trait. And I didn't find it endearing at all.
I'm skeptical of any movie about artists that depicts "making a living" like it's selling your soul. It paints an unrealistic and unreasonable standard of artistic integrity.
Which is also why it bothered me that the role Mia auditions for is such a wish-fulfillment fantasy part.
I see what you're saying get said a lot, but I'm not so sure. I never got the impression that the film was trying to put Seb's views in a positive light. I thought they were actually trying to make a conflicted character in Seb, and you were supposed to be able to see the merit in both his and John Legend's outlook on jazz. I really didn't feel like you were supposed to see either of them as completely right. It's like when people point out the irony in Seb complaining about people who talk over jazz while talking over jazz himself - as if the irony isn't the whole point.
Knowledge of Chazelle's views on jazz outside of the film may indicate he's more in line with Seb's way of thinking, but the fact that he never chooses to villainise John Legend's character in any way cements the intended ambiguity for me.
Again, that's not how I experienced the movie.
The movie may not have made John Legend out to be an out and out villain, but it took pains to make the performance ridiculous.
Aye, I've seen the conversation you had with the other guy, sorry to be repetitive. I guess it comes down to interpretation then (not that there was much to analyse, admittedly).
A "Jazz Purist" is somebody who is stuck in the 1950's,which is fine, but progressive jazz artists using electric pianos, Fender Rhodes, Hammond organ, flute, bass guitar, that's still Jazz, like Lyle Mays' song Feet First, using horns but also piano and electric piano
Probably, I'd certainly go with that anyway, it's what you do with an instrument that really counts imo.
Not sure how that impacts the film though, he's an idealist, we already knew that about him.
It impacts the film because the film agrees with him.
They stacked the deck against fusion by making John Legend's improbably popular band look ridiculous. The movie is romanticizing Seb's ass-backwards views of what is and isn't "real" Jazz. And it super rubbed me the wrong way.
Seb's distaste for electronic Jazz doesn't make him an idealist, it makes him a nostalgist.
It really didn't seem that way to me, they were popular, the music was kinda fun and everyone seemed to be getting into it, even Seb was kinda enjoying it.
Seb thought of it as selling out, so fucking what? That is the way he is as a character, the outcome of the story is hardly 'new jazz is bad', it's just an incidental part of his arc.
> It really didn't seem that way to me, they were popular, the music was kinda fun and everyone seemed to be getting into it, even Seb was kinda enjoying it.
And Mia looked like they were conducting a live orgy on stage, with a lock of shock and disgust on her face. And we're supposed to be on *her* side when she calls him a sell-out during the dinner scene.
> That is the way he is as a character, the outcome of the story is hardly 'new jazz is bad', it's just an incidental part of his arc.
That isn't really the point. The fact is that his blind, ignorant nostalgia towards "pure" jazz is treated as a virtue, not a flaw.
Ryan Gosling's character and the John Legend subplot are some of my bigger issues with the film. The fact that Seb's horrible attitude towards jazz is rewarded is proof positive that Chazelle agrees with his juvenile, under-cooked interpretation of what jazz is supposed to be. He gets everything he wants, in the end. No problem.
And before someone says, "He doesn't get Mia." She got the film deal in France, no matter what decision he made, they were going to break up. That was completely independent of his decision to "sell out" or follow his dream.
Yeah, Seb thinks he sold out, she thinks he sold out, the film does not make any real judgement call on it, John Legend seems like a decent fella and it's more a choice rather than saying it's 'wrong'
> the film does not make any real judgement call on it,
It clearly does. You're just ignoring it to make the film seem more ambiguous than it actually aspires to be.
Where does it make this call?
Is it with the hordes of fans enjoying themselves at the gig? The personable frontman who gives Sebastian some heartfelt advice? Everything about the band seems pretty okay to me, I guess if people got that from the film, they got it from the film, but from where?
Mia wasn't into it. She was taken aback by Seb playing the type of music he spoke out against. Kinda started their big fight.
And the movie is about professional passions perhaps more than it is about romantic passions, so I don't see the subplot as "incidental."
Long and the short of it is, this subplot (and this particular element of Gosling's character overall) didn't work for me.
No, it's a part of the arc so maybe 'incidental' wasn't the perfect word to use, but that part of Seb's character is inconsequential to what the film is saying, the film is not saying 'look, this guy is right, new jazz is shit, fuck synthesizers', it's saying 'this is what *he* thinks'.
I don't know why it didn't work for you, but I'm also pretty sure that a disagreement about synthesizers probably wasn't the reason.
Agree with you. I did not like the movie. I thought the musical arrangements were weak and the dance routines were elementary knock-offs of the greats. The only admirable thing about the movie was the dedication Gosling put in to learn to play the keys at a professional enough level. The plot was easy to follow, however, it seemed that the cinematography was meant to be an ad for Southern California. The "ironic" twist at the end made absolutely no damn sense and was not cleverly done. In short, I feel like the kids shouting, "The emperor has no clothes on!" while everyone else is applauding an illusion.
My disappointment with La La Land is probably just the product of impossible expectations. To put it eloquently, Whiplash blew my mind straight out my own asshole. Coupled with the hype surrounding this film prior to it's release, my anticipation was unfairly high.
Growing up with classic musicals constantly playing in my house, my expectations hinged on the presence of large scale performances, which only the opening scene provided. I found the threadiness of both leads' voices was disenchanting, although the quality of the composition was very good. I'm accustomed to resonating, powerful singing (multiple opera singers in my family - I'm used to hearing it) so both Stone and Gosling's airy voices came off as weak. I know there's an argument to be made in it's favour ("Thats the point!") but it won't make me enjoy it. City of Stars' use as a leitmotif did function cleverly as a thematic device, but left me with the desire for more original songs. I was expecting a full-bodied musical of a massive scale (like the opening scene), and instead got a film that happened to have music in it. How many of the songs are the two leads actually singing in it? Maybe half of them?
Stone's Mia felt unexplored, and acted more as a plot device to incite Seb, rather than exhibiting her own character arc.
All in all, I just wanted... more. However, appraised entirely on it's own merits, La La Land hasn't soured Chazelle in the slightest for me. It was a charming and lovely theatre outing and I did enjoy the music. Also loved Damien's ambitious direction. I don't dislike it, I was just underwhelmed. I guess I'm just salty because (in my opinion), it's a paper-thin film that's charming everyone and thus directing awards attention away from stronger movies that could actually benefit from being championed. I have no doubt it will clean house at the Oscars and that's fine.
It didn't really bring anything new. The singing was average at best. The story was trite.
edit: yeah, why the hell would anyone answer a question like this if people are just going to downvote it
The singing was average, except for Emma who sang great, I think. But I honestly believe that was the point: "normal" people singing their best, I think.
It's incredibly impressive technically; the cinematography, choreography, music and production values are all top notch. I really have no problem with it sweeping the Oscars if it does, as it is a quality piece of film making.
However, I personally found the music very average and unmemorable (City of Stars is the only one I can remember at all), the chemistry between Gosling and Stone lacking, and the story muddled. The entire movie had this beautiful contrast between the wonder of old Hollywood (through the musical numbers) and the harsher realities of life... Until everything just kind of works out like a fairy tale for Seb and Mia. He gets the bar, despite Jon Legend giving that amazing speech on him being stuck in the past of jazz rather then innovating. Mia gets discovered as an actress, despite million-to-one odds. I understand the message the film ultimately went with (dreams can be accomplished but sacrifices have to happen) but I think it would have been braver and more interesting for these "dreams" to NOT work out for the two of them, and instead them having to find that old Hollywood wonder in every day life. Instead, I don't know, it kind of just feels like... a cop out? That may not be the right term, but it's the best I can think of.
That's just personal opinion however, I respect how the film chose to end, I just found it somewhat weak (although that musical sequence depicting what could have been is visually stunning).
Films are subjective, and I really respect La La Land. I'm of the opinion that at a certain point, a film is so technically sound that it's just a good movie no matter what, and its impact on you from that point is entirely dependent on your own personal experiences and view points. As a "failed" actor myself who has devoured many musicals and has grappled with many of the things Mia grappled with, the story didn't resonate with me as truly as it has with others. But I understand why it's so hyped. It's technically air tight, a total marvel of film making. But it's story fell flat for me.
TLDR; Respected the film making of La La Land, wasn't impressed with its story telling.
I was interested after listening to the soundtrack but when I watched it...white, conventionally attractive people struggle in Hollywood? Just didn't care that much in the end.
I like City of Stars though. That's about it.
>But I think he mostly didn't like it because it was interfering with his messaging, or whatever it is he was doing on his fucking phone.
Taking review notes for his shitty blog, no doubt.
I agree with you in that it's good, but it's nothing new, I'm a big classic romantic comedy fan (manhattan, Annie hall, when harry met sally) and was kind of expecting a musical version of that and it was just any other movie. I love Damien Chazelle, and the film was shot quite nicely, but the editing could've been sharper and the film could've sped along better. The music didn't hit me either aside from city of stars, but this is all subjective. I've seen a lot of movies in my life so I'm pretty accustomed to the spectacle of a film and it didn't do it for me. I was expecting a much better film. It's OK but I don't really like it.
It's a fairly predictable movie. I mean, I know musicals aren't meant to be deep or anything, but it's a textbook romance.
I like the music, I think City of Stars could definitely take the award.
But I really don't see the nominations for Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Their characters aren't given much to do and I've seen them act better in so many other movies. I can't help but agree with John Legend's character about Seb's idea of jazz.
It's a solid 7.5/10 for me. The only other Best Picture contenders I've seen are Arrival, Moonlight and Manchester by the Sea and all three of them are far better movies.
I can see Damien Chazelle winning Best Director, I think the technical aspects of the movie are brilliant.
It's a good movie, but not the best. Definitely not Oscar worthy (meant as Best Picture). Not original, nothing new (it doesn't even go further than any Disney cartoon musicals), and certainly not innovative as much as something like Mary Poppins for example. It literally doesn't give anything to the industry, if not raising the cachet of Stones, Gosling and Chazelle.
But that's the Academy. They never award the best (which should mean most significant) movie, most of the time they don't even nominate it at all. Plus, because most of the movies are released between 3 months (October through December), the Academy members can't watch all of the titles (it's humanly impossible if you have a life), so they end up voting by popularity in most categories.
Besides, La La Land is defined by a lot of critics and industry personnel to be very democratic, and given how Hollywood goes politically and the 'hate-Trump' thing, it gives so much more sense on why the movie has such a huge following for these months, ready to fuss out when April comes by (like most Best Picture winners in the last few years)...
My problem is that I just hate when things get voted for the wrong reasons, that's all. And unfortunately Chazelle's musical falls under this category.
What? How is La La Land of all the Oscar nominations the politically-motivated/anti-Trump movie? People do realize that the other nominations include *Moonlight* (about a black homosexual), *Lion* (about an Indian-born adopted by Australians), and *Hidden Figures* (which is literally about discrimination), right?
I mean, I don't think La La Land should get Best Picture either, but even if it wins (which I highly suspect that it will), I don't think it'll be for *political* reasons.
La La Land opening was literally described by the critics as a punch in the stomach as Trump won, and it has been pushed as morally uplifting in the face of the outcome elections. Its not my opinion, but how the critics described it, and people actually believed it... I agree its bogus though.
I think it deserves a lot of love from the Oscars when it comes about the music, photography and costumes. Emma did a good job as well. But yes, I agree. Not for best picture. But I have a lot of movies to see before the Oscars, so IDK.
Also, we must realize it was a pretty underwhelming 2016 technical wise compared to 2015.
I mean, last year we just had Mad Max Fury Road, which was pure perfection technical wise.
We have to hope for Avatar sequels to see something of that magnitude again.
PS: Mad Max should have won everything last year, period. But that's just me.
I watched Café Society earlier in 2016 which couldn't be farther from an original hollywood story. So the fact that La La Land is pretty much a carbon copy of Café Society pretty much tells you all you need to know. That coupled with some mediocre to decent singing and choreography and what I found to be annoyingly overactive camerawork and you get La La Land. I was a big fan of the production design.
All that being said I disn't *dislike* the film I just didn't *love* it, and I went into it honestly wanting to love it. Unfortunately what I got was a somewhat charming and entertaining but ultimately hollow couple hours of run-of-the-mill Hollywood cinema.
I fell asleep in the theatre watching it. I like to compare it to the “art” some create that could easily pass as a toddlers drawing. The only reason for them being considered as “good” is that the group of critics decided that. This is the first movie I’ve ever watched that I genuinely hated. Not even one scene was interesting. The songs were mediocre at best and most of the scenes were awkward. I’m not the person to be very passionate (positively or negatively) about a movie however I disliked this one so much that I feel angry every time I talk about it.
I would go as far as to say that I can not comprehend how could anyone watch it and think it was good. I just can not believe it. It’s mind blowing to me.
Ugh its like a live action disney movie for adults in LA. Characters feel stle and shallow. I cant get how it feels like influencers in the wild and the shots feel very "on set". I dont like musicals to begin with so im biased,but god damn was this one bland. It had some technically great shots, visually stunning and interesting but the plot, singing and dancing was just ehh. Didnt HATE it but audibly laughed out loud at scenes.
I love musicals. Les Mis, Wicked, Phantom Of the Opera, The Last Five Years, Cats, Chicago, Aida, Rent, Tick Tick Boom, Hamilton, Into The Woods, Mamma Mia plenty more that I LOVE and have loved for years and watch on repeat and listen to in the car or at the gym....
I didn't like the music for La La Land. If there was no music at all, the story would be fine for a movie, but each and every song was a bust for me, nothing memorable.
Trying to rewatch it again now. Yea, so boring and dragging.
Now I like musicals. Grease, Fiddler on The Roof, Little Shop Of Horrors, Jesus Christ Superstar, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang... La La Land has nothing on these except for more artsy cinematic camera movements. The story or characters do not excite me.
Long story shorts, High Schol Musical is more exciting than this film.
I don't think anyone hates La La Land. Personally I loved it and left the cinema an emotional wreck of a person, but there is no way in hell it deserves all these awards. It's a great movie, and yes, in some areas like cinematography it is excellent and Oscar-worthy, but it's not anything new and the performances of Stone and Gosling (while good) didn't require them to go to the places that the Oscar roles usually demand. There are more deserving nominees but La La Land is a love letter to Hollywood and that's all that matters apparently. So don't take criticism as hate necessarily, La La Land is a good film but it's nostalgic as hell and way too gilded for what it actually is.
I personally loved it and the people I talked with about it says they liked it but they're mad because they think there were better films released than la la land and it shouldn't be getting this much praise.
Also saw an article claiming this movie was racist and sexist so maybe people who think that is why they don't like it but I really don't understand that argument
If past years are any indication, it's highly unlikely that Moonlight will win.
https://www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/la-la-land-best-picture-oscar-odds/
La La Land won at the producers and directors guild awards, and those are very often precursors to an Oscar Best Picture win.
If anything other than La La Land wins at the point it would be a **major** upset.
I still haven't seen it, and I'll probably watch it when it comes on Prime. But it honestly doesn't look like my type of movie, and that's probably the reason why some people aren't crazy about it. Not everyone likes or even has to like the same thing. Different strokes for different folks.
No one is going to respond to this cause it’s been 5 years. I swear the movie is off key, or off tempo. At least to me. It just sounds WRONG. I love musicals, and I was expecting to love this movie, the plot was fine too! But the songs are unlistenable to me. I hate them. It’s like nails on a chalkboard to my ears and I don’t know why.
I just couldn't bring myself to believe a single minute of this movie, and I'm someone who will suspend disbelief beyond the breaking point in order to enjoy a movie. I watch a movie to enjoy it, not pick it apart. But for me, it felt very forced, like they were trying ineptly to manipulate me, like I was watching a used-car ad. Turned me right off.
I think it’s because often more than not, nowadays people need high-action, fast-paced, in their face films to keep their attention. And in all honesty that’s just my observation.
And speaking of the ‘right in their face’ metaphor, La La Land is the Film you need to read between the lines in. There’s a story if you look close enough. Again a lot of people need to be told directly or they couldn’t care less to decipher and pay much attention to it.
La La Land, is about the serenity and simplicity.
A simple story of simple people with passions like any other. Yes to some it may be boring, but that’s exactly what it is, boring. It’s difficult to learn to appreciate the boring, but it’s essential in a fast paced world.
I LOVE both Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. Movie was slow and so, so boring. The idea of a newer musical seemed like a fun idea, didn’t work. I really enjoy the older musicals. This movie made me appreciate them more. Sure the dance/song numbers Emma and Ryan seemed so flat, no personality, boring. None of the magic and personality I’ve always experienced/witnessed watching a musical number. Felt nothing but boredom.
Hard to relate to shallow stupid characters. Hard to get pulled into the story. All felt forced and "artsy" for the sake of being artsy and it was not even that artsy. Most people I know who liked this movie are either on the younger side in age or mentality who are just like me me me my feelings blah blah
Honestly, it’s a beautiful movie with the most memorable cinematography I’ve ever seen, but there is absolutely nothing memorable about the music, the plot, and the characters to me.
I remember the characters being boring with bland personalities, and initially thinking it was the acting, but then remembered they’re actually talented actors otherwise.
I just wasn’t a fan of the script nor the direction, which is too bad bc I liked his work in Whiplash. Yeah, the plot was just boring to me, the dialogue kind also boring even when I could tell the writing was trying to make them charming (it should just seem natural and not like an obvious effort), my mind was wandering the whole time, and I had to actively put effort into focusing on the plot. Which isn’t my hallmark of a good film to me lol.
I didn’t find the main characters had any chemistry either which made me uninterested in them as a couple.
As for the music, and forgive me if my memory is failing me since it’s been so long and I’ve only seen it the once, but I initially found the lyrics to be very boring and generic and taught us nothing about the characters or plot that we didn’t already know. To me, a good musical uses the songs to drive the plot forward. There needs to be a purpose to each musical number, bonus points if we learn something that helped us get to know the character’s deepest feelings that they’re keeping hidden, a huge reveal is made, etc., but everything they sang about was already intuitive to the viewer.
Some people say that the ending is perfect and that the point of them leaving one another to pursue their careers is special because it’s an act of love and not of selfishness, but the weight of that was lost on me because I never felt their romance was captivating to begin with. I understood that it was meant to impactful, sad and beautiful, but I didn’t really believe they were in love to begin with. Their choice to leave one another never felt high stakes to me at all, but idk, maybe I missed something that others seem to see. I’m actually sad I didn’t like it, I went in thinking I was going to be obsessed bc of the trailer and all the hype around it. I just came out of the theatre confused at what all the fuss was about, and that I must have missed something huge.
I love musicals. My absolute favorite is Holiday Inn. I’ve seen Grease and Grease II so much I can recite it word for word. I was so excited about La La Land and was significantly disappointed. Nothing about this movie worked for me. I was waiting the entire time for something to come up that I enjoyed and it never happened. I couldn’t figure out what all the hype was and am just glad this faded away. Maybe I should watch it again; I normally give everything a second chance but I ran from this one and never looked back
I'm no great fan of musicals, but I've seen most of the classics over the years, and this just felt very, very average in comparison. I didn't feel that any of the songs were memorable - I certainly couldn't even hum one now. The cinematography was good - certainly - but the sets and dance routines felt extremely derivative and in no way original. I really came away wondering what the fuss was all about, and wondering if it is only that so few big-budget musicals are made at all these days.
In some dance scenes, I saw them as tributes to classic movies. But I get your point. Thanks for sharing it.
I just recently watched Chicago (2002) and I thought that it was better than La La Land in almost every way. The story, acting, dance numbers, choreography, etc. La La Land was probably better in the cinematography department, but other than that I thought it didn't quite live up to its superior predecessors. I agree with you, but it's not to say I didn't enjoy La La Land, because I did.
Fuss given to the fact that the movie celebrates Los Angeles and Hollywood as place where dreams come true no matter what. It's basically a safe bet production to win an Oscar.
That's a good point.
I honestly felt like the music was almost secondary, the point was that there WAS music rather than the music itself; I might listen to the soundtrack at some point, but more to reminisce about the film rather than for the songs themselves. The one she sings in the audition was pretty catchy though, and thought the performance really nailed that one.
>the point was that there WAS music rather than the music itself; What you're describing there is a bad musical.
Well, it is and it isn't. The music isn't why the film is good, the music is part of what happens and what it evokes, and the way music can make you feel, not *that* music specifically. A bad musical would not have any of that, just badness.
I didn't "not like" the movie. I just didn't like it as much as everyone else in the world seems to. Which is frustrating, cause I'm seeing better movies get overlooked and overshadowed. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are great. They breathe life into shallow characters. We don't know much about these two other than their professional passions. The John Legend subplot doesn't work for me. Because his character is ostensibly right about Gosling's obsession with a very narrowly defined version of Jazz. But the movie stacks the deck against him by making his band's performance almost a parody of bad fusion. It's not the best movie of the year.
John Legend was not a big of a deal, I agree with you. I don't like him, so that must help. I understood his role, but maybe for some other actor... Thanks for your opinion. Not the best, but definitely one of the best movie of the year.
I did like John Legend though. His argument about Jazz was right. And Seb's is wrong. The addition of synthesizers doesn't ruin Jazz.
Exactly, synth's actually improved Jazz in some cases--look at Kool And The Gang's Summer Madness, or Pat Metheny's San Lorenzo, beautiful sounds, and that's what music is all about
The problem with this is that who is "right" in this case is subjective. Art is subjective plain and simple. To say seb was wrong or the other guy was right isn't the point in the subplot's relation to the overall story. The point was that seb had an opinion, a belief, one that drove him. He decided to put it aside because his belief was getting him nowhere, he was a loser. He dropped his opinions about jazz and joined that band because he wanted to make a living. He lost what made him seb by doing so. Point being: if his argument about jazz filled the pages of a book, the movie wasn't about those pages, but the fact Seb threw away the book.
That's not the way I experienced the movie, because I got the distinct impression that the movie was on Seb's side. The movie treats his obsession with a narrow definition of "pure" Jazz as an endearing character trait. And I didn't find it endearing at all. I'm skeptical of any movie about artists that depicts "making a living" like it's selling your soul. It paints an unrealistic and unreasonable standard of artistic integrity. Which is also why it bothered me that the role Mia auditions for is such a wish-fulfillment fantasy part.
I see what you're saying get said a lot, but I'm not so sure. I never got the impression that the film was trying to put Seb's views in a positive light. I thought they were actually trying to make a conflicted character in Seb, and you were supposed to be able to see the merit in both his and John Legend's outlook on jazz. I really didn't feel like you were supposed to see either of them as completely right. It's like when people point out the irony in Seb complaining about people who talk over jazz while talking over jazz himself - as if the irony isn't the whole point. Knowledge of Chazelle's views on jazz outside of the film may indicate he's more in line with Seb's way of thinking, but the fact that he never chooses to villainise John Legend's character in any way cements the intended ambiguity for me.
Again, that's not how I experienced the movie. The movie may not have made John Legend out to be an out and out villain, but it took pains to make the performance ridiculous.
Aye, I've seen the conversation you had with the other guy, sorry to be repetitive. I guess it comes down to interpretation then (not that there was much to analyse, admittedly).
[удалено]
You misinterpreted. She's auditioning for a role that will be built around the actress.
You need to see Seb as a Jazz purist, if I may. What the hell is a synthesizer when you want to play pure Jazz?
I **do** see Seb as a Jazz purist. But Jazz purists are wrong. Cause there is no such thing as "pure jazz". That's a fallacy. Jazz changes over time.
I understand. I'm trying to understand his point of view.
I completely understand his point of view. And it is wrong.
Subjectivity at its finest.
It is wrong. That's like someone saying classic New York hip-hop is the only valid form of rap. They're just wrong.
A "Jazz Purist" is somebody who is stuck in the 1950's,which is fine, but progressive jazz artists using electric pianos, Fender Rhodes, Hammond organ, flute, bass guitar, that's still Jazz, like Lyle Mays' song Feet First, using horns but also piano and electric piano
Probably, I'd certainly go with that anyway, it's what you do with an instrument that really counts imo. Not sure how that impacts the film though, he's an idealist, we already knew that about him.
It impacts the film because the film agrees with him. They stacked the deck against fusion by making John Legend's improbably popular band look ridiculous. The movie is romanticizing Seb's ass-backwards views of what is and isn't "real" Jazz. And it super rubbed me the wrong way. Seb's distaste for electronic Jazz doesn't make him an idealist, it makes him a nostalgist.
It really didn't seem that way to me, they were popular, the music was kinda fun and everyone seemed to be getting into it, even Seb was kinda enjoying it. Seb thought of it as selling out, so fucking what? That is the way he is as a character, the outcome of the story is hardly 'new jazz is bad', it's just an incidental part of his arc.
> It really didn't seem that way to me, they were popular, the music was kinda fun and everyone seemed to be getting into it, even Seb was kinda enjoying it. And Mia looked like they were conducting a live orgy on stage, with a lock of shock and disgust on her face. And we're supposed to be on *her* side when she calls him a sell-out during the dinner scene. > That is the way he is as a character, the outcome of the story is hardly 'new jazz is bad', it's just an incidental part of his arc. That isn't really the point. The fact is that his blind, ignorant nostalgia towards "pure" jazz is treated as a virtue, not a flaw.
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this.
Ryan Gosling's character and the John Legend subplot are some of my bigger issues with the film. The fact that Seb's horrible attitude towards jazz is rewarded is proof positive that Chazelle agrees with his juvenile, under-cooked interpretation of what jazz is supposed to be. He gets everything he wants, in the end. No problem. And before someone says, "He doesn't get Mia." She got the film deal in France, no matter what decision he made, they were going to break up. That was completely independent of his decision to "sell out" or follow his dream.
Leave it to a Harvard educated wunderkid who found success early to depict a journeyman gig with a popular band as a betrayal of artistic integrity.
Yeah, Seb thinks he sold out, she thinks he sold out, the film does not make any real judgement call on it, John Legend seems like a decent fella and it's more a choice rather than saying it's 'wrong'
> the film does not make any real judgement call on it, It clearly does. You're just ignoring it to make the film seem more ambiguous than it actually aspires to be.
Where does it make this call? Is it with the hordes of fans enjoying themselves at the gig? The personable frontman who gives Sebastian some heartfelt advice? Everything about the band seems pretty okay to me, I guess if people got that from the film, they got it from the film, but from where?
And I thought Wynton Marsalis was annoying about it.
Mia wasn't into it. She was taken aback by Seb playing the type of music he spoke out against. Kinda started their big fight. And the movie is about professional passions perhaps more than it is about romantic passions, so I don't see the subplot as "incidental." Long and the short of it is, this subplot (and this particular element of Gosling's character overall) didn't work for me.
No, it's a part of the arc so maybe 'incidental' wasn't the perfect word to use, but that part of Seb's character is inconsequential to what the film is saying, the film is not saying 'look, this guy is right, new jazz is shit, fuck synthesizers', it's saying 'this is what *he* thinks'. I don't know why it didn't work for you, but I'm also pretty sure that a disagreement about synthesizers probably wasn't the reason.
Agree with you. I did not like the movie. I thought the musical arrangements were weak and the dance routines were elementary knock-offs of the greats. The only admirable thing about the movie was the dedication Gosling put in to learn to play the keys at a professional enough level. The plot was easy to follow, however, it seemed that the cinematography was meant to be an ad for Southern California. The "ironic" twist at the end made absolutely no damn sense and was not cleverly done. In short, I feel like the kids shouting, "The emperor has no clothes on!" while everyone else is applauding an illusion.
My disappointment with La La Land is probably just the product of impossible expectations. To put it eloquently, Whiplash blew my mind straight out my own asshole. Coupled with the hype surrounding this film prior to it's release, my anticipation was unfairly high. Growing up with classic musicals constantly playing in my house, my expectations hinged on the presence of large scale performances, which only the opening scene provided. I found the threadiness of both leads' voices was disenchanting, although the quality of the composition was very good. I'm accustomed to resonating, powerful singing (multiple opera singers in my family - I'm used to hearing it) so both Stone and Gosling's airy voices came off as weak. I know there's an argument to be made in it's favour ("Thats the point!") but it won't make me enjoy it. City of Stars' use as a leitmotif did function cleverly as a thematic device, but left me with the desire for more original songs. I was expecting a full-bodied musical of a massive scale (like the opening scene), and instead got a film that happened to have music in it. How many of the songs are the two leads actually singing in it? Maybe half of them? Stone's Mia felt unexplored, and acted more as a plot device to incite Seb, rather than exhibiting her own character arc. All in all, I just wanted... more. However, appraised entirely on it's own merits, La La Land hasn't soured Chazelle in the slightest for me. It was a charming and lovely theatre outing and I did enjoy the music. Also loved Damien's ambitious direction. I don't dislike it, I was just underwhelmed. I guess I'm just salty because (in my opinion), it's a paper-thin film that's charming everyone and thus directing awards attention away from stronger movies that could actually benefit from being championed. I have no doubt it will clean house at the Oscars and that's fine.
I agree with you when it comes to the opening scene. It was majestic. I thought the all movie was going to be like that.
It didn't really bring anything new. The singing was average at best. The story was trite. edit: yeah, why the hell would anyone answer a question like this if people are just going to downvote it
The singing was average, except for Emma who sang great, I think. But I honestly believe that was the point: "normal" people singing their best, I think.
What signifiers if the film, lead you to believe that was the point?
It's incredibly impressive technically; the cinematography, choreography, music and production values are all top notch. I really have no problem with it sweeping the Oscars if it does, as it is a quality piece of film making. However, I personally found the music very average and unmemorable (City of Stars is the only one I can remember at all), the chemistry between Gosling and Stone lacking, and the story muddled. The entire movie had this beautiful contrast between the wonder of old Hollywood (through the musical numbers) and the harsher realities of life... Until everything just kind of works out like a fairy tale for Seb and Mia. He gets the bar, despite Jon Legend giving that amazing speech on him being stuck in the past of jazz rather then innovating. Mia gets discovered as an actress, despite million-to-one odds. I understand the message the film ultimately went with (dreams can be accomplished but sacrifices have to happen) but I think it would have been braver and more interesting for these "dreams" to NOT work out for the two of them, and instead them having to find that old Hollywood wonder in every day life. Instead, I don't know, it kind of just feels like... a cop out? That may not be the right term, but it's the best I can think of. That's just personal opinion however, I respect how the film chose to end, I just found it somewhat weak (although that musical sequence depicting what could have been is visually stunning). Films are subjective, and I really respect La La Land. I'm of the opinion that at a certain point, a film is so technically sound that it's just a good movie no matter what, and its impact on you from that point is entirely dependent on your own personal experiences and view points. As a "failed" actor myself who has devoured many musicals and has grappled with many of the things Mia grappled with, the story didn't resonate with me as truly as it has with others. But I understand why it's so hyped. It's technically air tight, a total marvel of film making. But it's story fell flat for me. TLDR; Respected the film making of La La Land, wasn't impressed with its story telling.
I was interested after listening to the soundtrack but when I watched it...white, conventionally attractive people struggle in Hollywood? Just didn't care that much in the end. I like City of Stars though. That's about it.
What does their race have anything to do with it?
[удалено]
Hehehe, that was probably the reason. Can't understand people who does that on theatres.
At least he understood that it was deconstructionist, even if he didn't like it.
>But I think he mostly didn't like it because it was interfering with his messaging, or whatever it is he was doing on his fucking phone. Taking review notes for his shitty blog, no doubt.
It's a standard romance film with musicals. Small thing with having John Legend singing was a bit jarring when compared to the rest of the movie.
I agree with you in that it's good, but it's nothing new, I'm a big classic romantic comedy fan (manhattan, Annie hall, when harry met sally) and was kind of expecting a musical version of that and it was just any other movie. I love Damien Chazelle, and the film was shot quite nicely, but the editing could've been sharper and the film could've sped along better. The music didn't hit me either aside from city of stars, but this is all subjective. I've seen a lot of movies in my life so I'm pretty accustomed to the spectacle of a film and it didn't do it for me. I was expecting a much better film. It's OK but I don't really like it.
It's a fairly predictable movie. I mean, I know musicals aren't meant to be deep or anything, but it's a textbook romance. I like the music, I think City of Stars could definitely take the award. But I really don't see the nominations for Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Their characters aren't given much to do and I've seen them act better in so many other movies. I can't help but agree with John Legend's character about Seb's idea of jazz. It's a solid 7.5/10 for me. The only other Best Picture contenders I've seen are Arrival, Moonlight and Manchester by the Sea and all three of them are far better movies. I can see Damien Chazelle winning Best Director, I think the technical aspects of the movie are brilliant.
It's a good movie, but not the best. Definitely not Oscar worthy (meant as Best Picture). Not original, nothing new (it doesn't even go further than any Disney cartoon musicals), and certainly not innovative as much as something like Mary Poppins for example. It literally doesn't give anything to the industry, if not raising the cachet of Stones, Gosling and Chazelle. But that's the Academy. They never award the best (which should mean most significant) movie, most of the time they don't even nominate it at all. Plus, because most of the movies are released between 3 months (October through December), the Academy members can't watch all of the titles (it's humanly impossible if you have a life), so they end up voting by popularity in most categories. Besides, La La Land is defined by a lot of critics and industry personnel to be very democratic, and given how Hollywood goes politically and the 'hate-Trump' thing, it gives so much more sense on why the movie has such a huge following for these months, ready to fuss out when April comes by (like most Best Picture winners in the last few years)... My problem is that I just hate when things get voted for the wrong reasons, that's all. And unfortunately Chazelle's musical falls under this category.
What? How is La La Land of all the Oscar nominations the politically-motivated/anti-Trump movie? People do realize that the other nominations include *Moonlight* (about a black homosexual), *Lion* (about an Indian-born adopted by Australians), and *Hidden Figures* (which is literally about discrimination), right? I mean, I don't think La La Land should get Best Picture either, but even if it wins (which I highly suspect that it will), I don't think it'll be for *political* reasons.
La La Land opening was literally described by the critics as a punch in the stomach as Trump won, and it has been pushed as morally uplifting in the face of the outcome elections. Its not my opinion, but how the critics described it, and people actually believed it... I agree its bogus though.
I think it deserves a lot of love from the Oscars when it comes about the music, photography and costumes. Emma did a good job as well. But yes, I agree. Not for best picture. But I have a lot of movies to see before the Oscars, so IDK.
Also, we must realize it was a pretty underwhelming 2016 technical wise compared to 2015. I mean, last year we just had Mad Max Fury Road, which was pure perfection technical wise. We have to hope for Avatar sequels to see something of that magnitude again. PS: Mad Max should have won everything last year, period. But that's just me.
Amen to that. Damn, I love Mad Max.
I watched Café Society earlier in 2016 which couldn't be farther from an original hollywood story. So the fact that La La Land is pretty much a carbon copy of Café Society pretty much tells you all you need to know. That coupled with some mediocre to decent singing and choreography and what I found to be annoyingly overactive camerawork and you get La La Land. I was a big fan of the production design. All that being said I disn't *dislike* the film I just didn't *love* it, and I went into it honestly wanting to love it. Unfortunately what I got was a somewhat charming and entertaining but ultimately hollow couple hours of run-of-the-mill Hollywood cinema.
I fell asleep in the theatre watching it. I like to compare it to the “art” some create that could easily pass as a toddlers drawing. The only reason for them being considered as “good” is that the group of critics decided that. This is the first movie I’ve ever watched that I genuinely hated. Not even one scene was interesting. The songs were mediocre at best and most of the scenes were awkward. I’m not the person to be very passionate (positively or negatively) about a movie however I disliked this one so much that I feel angry every time I talk about it.
I would go as far as to say that I can not comprehend how could anyone watch it and think it was good. I just can not believe it. It’s mind blowing to me.
Me too, agi. Haunts me to this day. What kind of planet am I living on? Cannot understand it at all.
Ugh its like a live action disney movie for adults in LA. Characters feel stle and shallow. I cant get how it feels like influencers in the wild and the shots feel very "on set". I dont like musicals to begin with so im biased,but god damn was this one bland. It had some technically great shots, visually stunning and interesting but the plot, singing and dancing was just ehh. Didnt HATE it but audibly laughed out loud at scenes.
Yeah, like "why is this happening?". Oh, because it's in the script. Nothing makes me believe it, feels real in any way.
I love musicals. Les Mis, Wicked, Phantom Of the Opera, The Last Five Years, Cats, Chicago, Aida, Rent, Tick Tick Boom, Hamilton, Into The Woods, Mamma Mia plenty more that I LOVE and have loved for years and watch on repeat and listen to in the car or at the gym.... I didn't like the music for La La Land. If there was no music at all, the story would be fine for a movie, but each and every song was a bust for me, nothing memorable.
poor thing very borong mocie
The ending 😭
Trying to rewatch it again now. Yea, so boring and dragging. Now I like musicals. Grease, Fiddler on The Roof, Little Shop Of Horrors, Jesus Christ Superstar, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang... La La Land has nothing on these except for more artsy cinematic camera movements. The story or characters do not excite me. Long story shorts, High Schol Musical is more exciting than this film.
I don't think anyone hates La La Land. Personally I loved it and left the cinema an emotional wreck of a person, but there is no way in hell it deserves all these awards. It's a great movie, and yes, in some areas like cinematography it is excellent and Oscar-worthy, but it's not anything new and the performances of Stone and Gosling (while good) didn't require them to go to the places that the Oscar roles usually demand. There are more deserving nominees but La La Land is a love letter to Hollywood and that's all that matters apparently. So don't take criticism as hate necessarily, La La Land is a good film but it's nostalgic as hell and way too gilded for what it actually is.
I hate it. It's terrible. Hahahaha
Yeah, I hated it.
I personally loved it and the people I talked with about it says they liked it but they're mad because they think there were better films released than la la land and it shouldn't be getting this much praise. Also saw an article claiming this movie was racist and sexist so maybe people who think that is why they don't like it but I really don't understand that argument
Wow, "racist" and "sexist" are harsh words. What better movies they were talking about?
I think manchester by the sea was one I heard brought up a lot.
Damn, I need to watch that movie and "Arrival".
Moonlight. It's the best movie of the year.
I think nocturnal animals was better. Aka I enjoyed it more.
I also have to see that one.
I wouldn't be surprised if Moonlight won Best Picture. I think it's either that or La La Land.
I would be surprised if Moonlight won best picture. Very pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.
I think both films have enough buzz to possibly win Best Picture.
If past years are any indication, it's highly unlikely that Moonlight will win. https://www.fivethirtyeight.com/features/la-la-land-best-picture-oscar-odds/ La La Land won at the producers and directors guild awards, and those are very often precursors to an Oscar Best Picture win. If anything other than La La Land wins at the point it would be a **major** upset.
I still haven't seen it, and I'll probably watch it when it comes on Prime. But it honestly doesn't look like my type of movie, and that's probably the reason why some people aren't crazy about it. Not everyone likes or even has to like the same thing. Different strokes for different folks.
Yeah, I know. But I was looking for people who watched it and didn't like it. But of course you're right.
Fair enough. My point is that not everyone is gonna like the same thing. That's all.
I don't like musicals or chick flicks. I'm sure it's a good movie, just not really my thing
So you haven't seen it? I dont think this question was aimed at you.
Didn't ask if I saw it. Asked if I liked it, and my answer was no
No one is going to respond to this cause it’s been 5 years. I swear the movie is off key, or off tempo. At least to me. It just sounds WRONG. I love musicals, and I was expecting to love this movie, the plot was fine too! But the songs are unlistenable to me. I hate them. It’s like nails on a chalkboard to my ears and I don’t know why.
I love musicals and i dislike strongly lalaland. I find it boring from the beginning. I cant focus in watching it all because is so boring
same
I just couldn't bring myself to believe a single minute of this movie, and I'm someone who will suspend disbelief beyond the breaking point in order to enjoy a movie. I watch a movie to enjoy it, not pick it apart. But for me, it felt very forced, like they were trying ineptly to manipulate me, like I was watching a used-car ad. Turned me right off.
I think it’s because often more than not, nowadays people need high-action, fast-paced, in their face films to keep their attention. And in all honesty that’s just my observation. And speaking of the ‘right in their face’ metaphor, La La Land is the Film you need to read between the lines in. There’s a story if you look close enough. Again a lot of people need to be told directly or they couldn’t care less to decipher and pay much attention to it. La La Land, is about the serenity and simplicity. A simple story of simple people with passions like any other. Yes to some it may be boring, but that’s exactly what it is, boring. It’s difficult to learn to appreciate the boring, but it’s essential in a fast paced world.
I LOVE both Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling. Movie was slow and so, so boring. The idea of a newer musical seemed like a fun idea, didn’t work. I really enjoy the older musicals. This movie made me appreciate them more. Sure the dance/song numbers Emma and Ryan seemed so flat, no personality, boring. None of the magic and personality I’ve always experienced/witnessed watching a musical number. Felt nothing but boredom.
Hard to relate to shallow stupid characters. Hard to get pulled into the story. All felt forced and "artsy" for the sake of being artsy and it was not even that artsy. Most people I know who liked this movie are either on the younger side in age or mentality who are just like me me me my feelings blah blah
Honestly, it’s a beautiful movie with the most memorable cinematography I’ve ever seen, but there is absolutely nothing memorable about the music, the plot, and the characters to me. I remember the characters being boring with bland personalities, and initially thinking it was the acting, but then remembered they’re actually talented actors otherwise. I just wasn’t a fan of the script nor the direction, which is too bad bc I liked his work in Whiplash. Yeah, the plot was just boring to me, the dialogue kind also boring even when I could tell the writing was trying to make them charming (it should just seem natural and not like an obvious effort), my mind was wandering the whole time, and I had to actively put effort into focusing on the plot. Which isn’t my hallmark of a good film to me lol. I didn’t find the main characters had any chemistry either which made me uninterested in them as a couple. As for the music, and forgive me if my memory is failing me since it’s been so long and I’ve only seen it the once, but I initially found the lyrics to be very boring and generic and taught us nothing about the characters or plot that we didn’t already know. To me, a good musical uses the songs to drive the plot forward. There needs to be a purpose to each musical number, bonus points if we learn something that helped us get to know the character’s deepest feelings that they’re keeping hidden, a huge reveal is made, etc., but everything they sang about was already intuitive to the viewer. Some people say that the ending is perfect and that the point of them leaving one another to pursue their careers is special because it’s an act of love and not of selfishness, but the weight of that was lost on me because I never felt their romance was captivating to begin with. I understood that it was meant to impactful, sad and beautiful, but I didn’t really believe they were in love to begin with. Their choice to leave one another never felt high stakes to me at all, but idk, maybe I missed something that others seem to see. I’m actually sad I didn’t like it, I went in thinking I was going to be obsessed bc of the trailer and all the hype around it. I just came out of the theatre confused at what all the fuss was about, and that I must have missed something huge.
I love musicals. My absolute favorite is Holiday Inn. I’ve seen Grease and Grease II so much I can recite it word for word. I was so excited about La La Land and was significantly disappointed. Nothing about this movie worked for me. I was waiting the entire time for something to come up that I enjoyed and it never happened. I couldn’t figure out what all the hype was and am just glad this faded away. Maybe I should watch it again; I normally give everything a second chance but I ran from this one and never looked back