La La Land- Page 11

[petewk87]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 3:14pm

Has anyone seen it in IMAX? Wonder if it's worth checking it out in that format...

[illiniparkie]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 3:15pm

I, too, felt the movie was pleasant but not worth a lot of the hype.  The production design, cinematography, and direction were good.  Emma and Ryan were an attractive couple.  The opening two group numbers were creative but the vocals were so soft and lacking in individuality that the movie didn't engage me until it focused on the couple..  I liked Emma's audition song, probably because I was engaged in her story by that time (and it did remind me of "Rainbow Connection".

My wife did not like it much at all:  

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

They don't get together at the end, even with that fantastic "what if" musical segment.

 

Regardless, I am sure it will do well at the Oscars.  Hollywood loves movies about itself.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 3:20pm

newsflash: not all movies need happy endings

[MyFavoriteBrunette]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 5:01pm

petewk87 said: "Has anyone seen it in IMAX? Wonder if it's worth checking it out in that format...

I watched it in a Dolby screening room at a theater in Times Square last night.  The screen was very large, I don't think it needs to be seen in IMAX, that may be too big.  The sound was a bit intense in this theater.  During some of the audio, pre-movie, my chair would vibrate with the sounds.  Made for hearing the piano parts nice but some of the other music was like "whoa!".  

Since the Dolby room had the lounge chairs, I had to pick seats beforehand and I think I sat too close (unfamiliar with venue and not expecting the screen size).  That coupled with the sound, I joked with friends I went with that La La Land has rendered me blind and deaf!  

It was a different movie experience than what I've seen in recent years.  I can't remember the last musical I saw at the movies, Grease?????  

EDITED:  Chicago.  I saw that at the movies.
 

Updated On: 1/18/17 at 05:01 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 5:37pm

Regarding the ending....

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Tony and Maria didn't end up together in the end of West Side Story.  
The King of Siam and Anna didn't end up together in the end of The King & I.
Sally doesn't end up with Clifford in the end of Cabaret.
Charity doesn't end up with Oscar in the end of Sweet Charity.
Fanny doesn't end up with Nick in the end of Funny Girl.  
The three sailors didn't end up with the three girls in the end of On the Town.
Guy and Girl don't end up together in the end of Once.
Felicia and Huey don't end up together in the end of Memphis.
Melchior and Wendlha don't end up together in the end of Spring Awakening.
Kim and Chris don't end up together in the end of Miss Saigon.
Ti Moune and Daniel don't end up together in the end of Once On This Island.
The Phantom and Christine don't end up together in the end of Phantom of the Opera.
Dot doesn't end up with George in Sunday in the end of Park With George.
Florence doesn't end up with Anatoly in the end of Chess.
Effie doesn't end up with Curtis or much of a career in the end of Dreamgirls.
Giorgio doesn't end up with Clara OR Fosca in the end of Passion.
Both couples DO end up back together in the end of Follies (which is even worse).
Nearly everyone dies by the end of Les Miserables.

Why do people make such a big deal about it with La La Land?

 

Updated On: 1/18/17 at 05:37 PM

[BrightLights3]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 5:48pm

I just saw it in IMAX but can't really tell what difference it makes. Had the same sound mix issues as disneybroadwayfan22. All through Another Day of Sun I was straining to hear the lyrics and had to check them up online afterwards. 

The movie itself I found cute and ultimately underwhelming. The music is hummable but with very wispy vocals from Emma Stone most of the time, and the less said about Gosling's singing the better. As a fan of his, it also pains me to say he generally sleepwalked through this role. Yes, he won the GG but so did Lady Gaga. Actingwise, his good role was in The Nice Guys. In my opinion, neither of the leads should be winning Oscars this year against the competition.

Agree with the accolades about the cinematography and production. Liked the ending, it makes up for some of the issues with the story and script. It may be a vestige of the "homages" approach, but at this time the white guy savior trope is more than tired. Girl apparently lost her smartphone so the agent couldn't get in touch with the 11th hour offer, or she screened all her calls or whatever, so let's pretend the plot twist Guy saves Girl isn't anachronistic? 

 

[illiniparkie]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 6:05pm

Hey, I agree not all movies need a happy ending to be good.  There are other problems with LA LA LAND that (in my and my wife's opinions) make LA LA LAND less than satisfying.  Underdeveloped characters and lack of complexity to the story being a couple of problems.  We have liked other movie musicals that don't quite end happily-ever-after (SWEENEY TODD, LES MIZ, INTO THE WOODS).   If you like the movie, fine.  I am glad movie musicals are being made, particularly original movie musicals.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 8:09pm

Thank you Mister Matt, that list was terrific.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 8:46pm

Regarding the question of whether Sebastian should have been played by a black man, I think it was pointed that he wasn't. While a gifted performer, Sebastian is also a traditionalist, a purist and a stick in the mud about what jazz is and how it should sound. John Legend represents the sound of jazz music as an evolving and living medium, while Sebastian, despite his talent, is stagnant and frozen in 1967. He's not the White Savior of jazz, he's a "le wrong generation" hipster who happens to have the chops to back that up.  The contrast between Sebastian and Legend seemed racially pointed to me.

[PepperedShepherd]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 9:40pm

petewk87 said: "Has anyone seen it in IMAX? Wonder if it's worth checking it out in that format..."

Contrary to what BrightLights3 posted above, I thought La La Land was even more glorious in IMAX.  The aspect ratio is the same as the regular theatrical release (2.55:1) but the increased visual definition makes the colors really pop -- seriously, it's gorgeous -- and the sound was incredibly sharp and detailed.

I guess it depends on how good your local IMAX theater is, but I would highly recommend seeing it in that format. (You've only got another day, however, as Vin Diesel will be taking over, and IMAX will be going back to highlighting explosions, gunfire, and action hero antics.)

 

[theatreguy12]

Posted: 1/18/17 at 10:51pm

Apparently it must depend on the theater because I saw it in IMAX this afternoon and the lyrics in the opening number, and the song the ladies are singing when they're getting ready to go out, were still pretty slushy in places. Still a good movie.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 1/21/17 at 6:51am

I LOVED the pre-recorded tracks. This is what creates some kind of "better than reality" quality, which lifts the scenes and emotions. I cried almost 7 times during the film, just because of the sheer beauty. There is a scene where they sing "live" and that one actually took me out of the film, because suddenly it felt like I saw 2 actors struggling with the material and feeling uncomfortable. That scene was too literal. While the rest of the film is a triumph of the fantasy, which is what this artform should be.

I also loved the moments that has no specific reason, other than just conveying a certain mood/feeling, such as the opening number, the scene in the hills on the bench, certain montages, the scene on the pier,  it kind of reminded me of Disney classics like "Sleeping Beauty". Where scenes as Gifts of beauty, I wonder/do you hear that' have the same kind of approach. It was extremely refreshing to see a film that dared to go there and embrace that. Taking a moment to appreciate the beauty instead of constant action, oneliners or throwing every moment away with a joke. This approach really supported the way the pre-recorded tracks worked so well.

It was a triumph of the fantasy and therefore it felt very raw, real and emotional. That is how this artform works.
I have missed this understanding in most recent (musical)films.

In addition to that, I thought it was very well acted, there were so many clever nuances in their scenes and loved the "could have been" montage and that (spoiler) even though they don't end up together, some bonds in life are different and good in another way. I loved the ending. And then the whole story of the struggle to achieve your career goals, the whole film actually was the opposite of a classic hollywood film.

I really hope other directors of future musicalfilms learn something from this.

 

Edit: I do agree with the wispy singing/lack of individual voices singing comments. What saved them is the pre-recorded tracks I think. I think it would have been even better with stronger singing, to elevate the scenes even more. And it would have been (a lot) worse with live singing. Mainly because the magic and emotion is created by the illusion.

Updated On: 1/30/17 at 06:51 AM

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/21/17 at 4:54pm

color me shocked, Dave19 liked something. this is a momentous day folks.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 1/21/17 at 5:37pm

After years of trash with the deepest point being the Les Miserables tragedy, approaching this artform from the complete opposite, wrong way, because of directors that do not at all understand the importance of the fantasyworld of sung thoughts and filmic editing, it is extremely refreshing and very welcome to see a director who understands the art of musical filmmaking.

 

 

 

 

[3NU]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 1:10am

Since seeing this film a couple of weeks back (and feeling quite "Eh" about it, as I wrote in my earlier review), I feel like I've been excessively bombarded with La La Land publicity -- everything from YouTube to my morning news read to even NPR's A Prairie Home Companion.  While mass adulation for something even fantastic drives me up the wall, I had to admit that there was something special about La La Land that kept me coming back to it. Though, for the longest time I couldn't put my finger on what that was.

After thinking about it a bit today, the light bulb finally went off, and I realized that what makes La La Land so irresistible is its song lyrics.  Yes, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling were charming.  Yes, the cinematography was crisp and on-point (though, oftentimes to its detriment).  And yes, the songs were (somewhat) catchy.  But what really brings the movie to life are the narratives conveyed in tracks like "Another Day of Sun" or "City of Stars".  It's sheer joy.  But, at least for me, such joy ultimately boils down to the fresh and spontaneous contributions of Pasek and Paul, who remain criminally under-appreciated this awards season (though that's hardly a surprise).  I try to think of what La La Land's songs would have been like with lyrics only half as good, and I can't imagine them standing well on their own.  Pasek and Paul really added a freeing element to what otherwise felt like a film trapped in overly choreographed pizzazz and forced nostalgia.

Just my two cents.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 1:42am

criminally under-appreciated? they won the Golden Globe and gave the speech for Best Song themselves without the composer saying anything. i assume they will win the oscar as well.

I agree that the songs are wonderful.

[3NU]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 1:54am

Oh, trust me, I was incredibly happy they were able to give the speech at the Golden Globes, but I do think winning and being widely appreciated are two totally separate things.  Justin Hurwitz is still far more recognizable (and credited with La La Land's success) than Pasek and Paul.  Also, I have the feeling that Pasek and Paul were able to give that speech (largely without the presence of Hurwitz) because Hurwitz had just won the Golden Globe for Best Score not 30 seconds earlier and was rushed off the stage to the press room afterwards.  Not to say that the La La Land team doesn't appreciate Pasek and Paul, but rather they are getting far less recognition from the public and the media than what I feel they contributed to the film.

Updated On: 1/23/17 at 01:54 AM

[hork]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 2:26am

Dave28282 said: "After years of trash with the deepest point being the Les Miserables tragedy, approaching this artform from the complete opposite, wrong way, because of directors that do not at all understand the importance of the fantasyworld of sung thoughts and filmic editing, it is extremely refreshing and very welcome to see a director who understands the art of musical filmmaking.

 
I'm usually in agreement with you about movie musicals, so I'm surprised you were so taken with this one, since I don't think Chazelle understands the art of musical filmmaking at all. He definitely doesn't understand the importance of filmic editing, judging by his choice to not use any during most of the musical numbers. The opening number is especially misguided, I feel, since everything that's "impressive" about it occurs behind the camera rather than in front of it. Sorry, I'm still not over how sloppy and ham-handed this movie turned out to be, in my opinion. 

[3NU]

Posted: 1/23/17 at 2:40am

hork said: "Dave28282 said: "After years of trash with the deepest point being the Les Miserables tragedy, approaching this artform from the complete opposite, wrong way, because of directors that do not at all understand the importance of the fantasyworld of sung thoughts and filmic editing, it is extremely refreshing and very welcome to see a director who understands the art of musical filmmaking.

 
I'm usually in agreement with you about movie musicals, so I'm surprised you were so taken with this one, since I don't think Chazelle understands the art of musical filmmaking at all. He definitely doesn't understand the importance of filmic editing, judging by his choice to not use any during most of the musical numbers. The opening number is especially misguided, I feel, since everything that's "impressive" about it occurs behind the camera rather than in front of it. Sorry, I'm still not over how sloppy and ham-handed this movie turned out to be, in my opinion. 

 

"

^ THIS. 100x over. 

[binau]

Posted: 1/27/17 at 5:49pm

I should have seen this before the hype because it's hard not to be a little disappointed. I enjoyed the acting performances (particularly Emma Stone) and it was a cute/sad/honest story (I found the extended montage of her replaying her life with Gosling's character particularly moving) - even if it felt a bit like Once at times - but I don't quite 'get' why it was even a musical. I realise it is probably exactly what they were going for, but it feels like a pre-R&H era musical with frivolous dancing and singing for the sake of it (I doubt I can think of any better example than the incredibly pointless "Another Day of Sun". 

It's interesting because it managed to be both dramatic, emotional and moving at times while also at other times being completely frivolous, shallow, candy escapism.

For me, musicals have evolved from the times that La La Land is nostalgically trying to tap into. If that is your kind of thing though, I guess I can see why you'd enjoy it. 

 If this opened as a stage musical in 2017 it would have been trashed here for sure. 

 

 

[3NU]

Posted: 1/27/17 at 6:19pm

qolbinau said: "...but I don't quite 'get' why it was even a musical. I realise it is probably exactly what they were going for, but it feels like a pre-R&H era musical with frivolous dancing and singing for the sake of it (I doubt I can think of any better example than the incredibly pointless "Another Day of Sun". 
 
 
These are my thoughts exactly.  It's like when I read a YouTube commenter post on the "Sing!" trailer, "But why do they have to be animals?"  I mean, the answer is obviously so that Illumination Entertainment can compete with Disney's Zootopia, but the commenter had a valid point.

By not justifying why La La Land needed to be a musical, the film evokes rather than commemorates; it imitates but doesn't emulate.  And because of that, it can come across as shallow.

Trust me: I really, REALLY wanted to like La La Land.  But I think it's for that very reason that I found myself so severely disappointed by the film.  Chazelle and Co. may have struck the right chords, but (apart from the lyrics and some of the music), the film never felt fully alive.

 

 

 

Updated On: 1/27/17 at 06:19 PM

[Fan123]

Posted: 1/27/17 at 6:45pm

A bit off-topic, but for those who were debating whether the character of Sebastian would have worked better if cast with an African-American actor, you might be interested in Damien Chazelle's first film, the low-budget musical 'Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench' (talk about the Umbrellas of Cherbourg references). I haven't seen it, but that film does have a black performer (trumpeter Jason Palmer) as the jazz musician and love interest in an interracial romance - http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/15/13966180/la-la-land-director-other-musical-guy-and-madeline-on-a-park-bench. Seems it's on iTunes, for anyone curious enough to give it a try.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 1/28/17 at 2:10am

So I just saw the movie. I liked it. I didn't love it. Maybe a second viewing is needed. My favorite songs were City of Stars and Audition. It's not perfect, but super visually appealing. The dances were terrific and Emma Stone is giving a great performance. I have to say though. Until I actually saw the movie I was under the impression Pasek and Paul did the music AND the lyrics. Apparently they only did the lyrics? 

[aaaaaa15]

Posted: 1/28/17 at 2:12am

Yes they only did the lyrics. Justin Hurwitz did the music, as well as the rest of the score.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 1/28/17 at 2:15am

yep, the music is by Justin Hurwitz who also wrote the score to Whiplash.