La La Land — Page 2

It sounds very white.

Manchester by the Sea focuses on a white family.

La La Land has less of an excuse for how white it is.

It's not a very big part. He sings a song with a band but the focus is not on him and we get to know very little about his character.

It's me not you. I'm just not sure a return to the golden age of musicals that perpetuated such an ideal fantasy world totally removed from reality is such a great idea. I'm sure it makes people feel good to forget the horrors that are enveloping our country and the world by focusing on two privileged people and their supposed trials and struggles. Again, it's me not you. I'm sure it's very well done.

Saw the movie on Friday -- thought it was beautiful and a great film. Emma Stone, per usual, is the highlight of the film bringing the laughs and the tears making Mia feel extremely real. Ryan Gosling, while a great actor and dancer, could have been dubbed. His singing felt a little flat and off key -- but I get that the film wasn't trying to have amazing singers. The dance numbers are excellent and it's brilliantly directed. The final song by Emma Stone is an absolute stand out.

Easily will win Golden Globes for best film comedy/musical; best actress comedy/musical.

TotallyEffed said: "Gosling's singing was average at best but if he was really playing the piano and dancing like that then I am very impressed. If there were fancy cuts or CGI tricks then they were masterfully done.



"According to Vulture, he really did:

http://www.vulture.com/2016/12/can-ryan-gosling-really-sing-and-dance.html

I don't think there's anything silly about debating which is a better film. Yes they're aiming to do different things but in my eyes one completely achieves what it set out to do and the other only mostly does. LLL's screenplay falls apart somewhat in the second half and then luckily the ending is fantastic enough to bring it back and make you forget about the weaknesses. People shouldn't fret anyway, there's no way a movie about black, gay men will beat a movie about Hollywood at the Oscars.

I'd be interested in what could possibly have been confusing about Moonlight.

ColortheHours, you are absolutely right. It's impossible to compare Land to Moonlight because they both embody the two distinct things that art is meant to do. That is- to both take us out of reality AND teach us about it. We need both.

This film and "Moonlight" are both gorgeous, personal, ambitious films. They have nothing in common. Not a thing. The idea that they must compete is just part of the inherent dishonesty in award season. We need both films, desperately.

JP2 said: "I thought the first two acts were strong, but then act three left me cold. I personally lost all investment in the characters by then."

And the third act was by far my favorite.

-

I just don't understand the argument that because two films are about completely different things, one can't be judged to be better than the other. Putting aside subject matter, one can judge which has the better structure, acting, direction, screenplay etc. I agree, they're both great movies and I'm really glad both got made and are getting attention. That doesn't change my opinion that one deserves an award for Best Picture more than the other...and it's the one with more critical acclaim.

I'd give this movie a second watch to see if I change my mind, but the thought of listening to Ryan Gosling seduce a girl by explaining jazz at her again makes me break out in a cold sweat.

Jordan Catalano said: "Otherwise I definitely would have compared it to MOONLIGHT (huh???)"

Not sure why that confuses you. They are the two frontrunners in Best Picture and Best Director. They have already been compared in quality numerous times in other places.