La La Land

[zico]

5/10.

I had very high expectations of this as the critics are going crazy about it.
The first 15-20 minutes is promising. We have a huge song & dance number in a traffic jam on an elevated freeway, there's some clever and snappy dialogue, good new modern twists on the musical genre, and a clever technique where the film removes everything except the chief character in the scene, who is then highlighted. The two lead characters are engaging and all looks promising.

After the first 20 minutes however, it's like different (worse) directors and writers takes charge of most of the rest of the film. It virtually abandons the musical theme for a plodding and hackneyed romance based around a theme of how difficult it is to make it in Hollywood, where you just get bored with the two main characters. Dullness abounds, and I found myself frequently checking my watch.

Apparently the original director comes back for the last 10 minutes which are visually arresting and has clever plot ideas, but it's all a bit late by this point to save the film.
"Moulin Rouge" was in a similar vein, but much much better and creative. La La Land lifts ideas from quite a few others. It pays homage to "Umbrellas of Cherbourg" with vivid colours and lots of visual references to umbrellas (and even parapluies).

Wondering why it's had such great reviews. I can only think that Hollywood often loves films about Hollywood, especially when there's a subtext of how important artistic dreamy types are in livening up all of our humdrum little lives.

Massively disappointed.

[Slarti]

I was somewhat surprised to hear about this winning so many awards recently as it had not even troubled my horizon in any way shape or form.

Mrs S and the lad both said the same.


Slarti

[Clitheroekid]

I've been `persuaded' to go and see it on Thursday evening. I must admit my initial reaction was that it's not likely to be my cup of tea (sugared or otherwise!) but having read some very strong reviews from critics that I respect I'm now quite looking forward to it.

I'll report back!

[didds]

Brother and our mum went Wednesday night and loved it.

Wife and daughter went last night and agreed with Zico.


On balance glad I was at rugby coaching and half-a-sixpence rehearsals instead!

didds

[Clitheroekid]

As promised, reporting back.

Yes, overall I did enjoy it, but for me it was definitely a film of two halves. After a really good opening scene on the freeway it quickly drifted into a pretty standard romantic movie, with the plucky would-be actress eking out a living serving coffee and being turned down for one audition after another and the talented musician who is selling his soul playing background music in bars instead of following his dream.

And it was also just too `American' for my tastes. Bearing in mind it's an American film about American life this can hardly be justified as a complaint, but it just felt like a pretty conventional hymn to the wonder that is Hollywood. No doubt to many Americans Hollywood is a dream come true, but to a slightly cynical Brit it was all a bit icky.

We also had all the clichés about looking at the stars, daring to dream etc, and it all felt rather superficial. I know it's a romantic musical and about the willing suspension of disbelief, and I did try to shake off my cynicism, but I just wasn't feeling involved in it. I was finding it hard to be interested in the outcome, which was not encouraging.

The music, cinematography and choreography were all good to very good and managed to hold my attention, but after the opening scene it was nothing I'd not seen before.

The main thing I noticed (as did my companion) was that I just wasn't at all engaged with either of the principal characters. They came across as mildly likeable for most of the time, mildly annoying for some of the time and on the whole pretty forgettable. I didn’t even find Mia - the character played by Emma Stone - particularly attractive, and it always helps in a romantic movie if you can fall at least slightly in love with the lead actress!

So all in all I was feeling rather deflated.

But there was then a scene where Mia went for yet another audition and was asked to tell a story. By way of response she sang a song called The Fools Who Dream. She simply faced the camera for the full length of the song and she sang it beautifully, and very movingly.

From that point forward I began to understand what the critics had seen in it. There was a very clever - and again, very moving - sequence at the end of the film which I thought was brilliant. I won't explain it so as not to spoil it for those who are yet to see it, but it lifted the film out of the pleasant but nothing special category into the really rather good category.

So no, it's not as brilliant as the critics have made it out to be, and I suspect that’s because most film critics are just so much in love with Hollywood that any film that glorifies Hollywood and pays homage to the great days of Hollywood is always going to get great reviews. But if you do go to see it stick with it and I hope you'll come out of the cinema as I did, feeling better than when I went in.

[zico]

It's been mentioned there's a fair bit of jazz music in this film, but if you don't like jazz, don't let this put you off seeing it, as there's not that much.

There's a lot more jazz in the director Damien Chazelle''s previous film, "Whiplash", but it's all part of the plot, and for my money, Whiplash was a much better film - see it if you get the chance. For me, it was the most impressive film I've seen for years, with a great story, great characters and dazzling cinematography, particularly the finale of the film.

[todthedog]

Zico +1
I thought it was me.