Can anybody explain to me what is so great about this movie? - La La Land (2016) Discussion

[–] zee944 8 years ago

Because it is SO ROMANTIC, and has SO SMART dialogues, and SO WELL DONE choreographies, and SO WELL WRITTEN music numbers, and the chemistry between the two stars is SO GOOD.

There's no explanation in the movie itself. It's just about critics loving to praise themselves through an innocent but unimportant movie.

reply

[–] DangerManTX 8 years ago

We must have been watching two completely different movies...

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

Have you read the second part of my post?

reply

[–] Testamentum 8 years ago

Methinks zee944 was parodying the critics.

reply

[–] Dr_Saf_Wartofsky 8 years ago

Romantic? They don't even end up together
I didn't find anything smart about the movie either
I agree about the choreographies, but the music was average, I enjoyed the songs during the movie, but none of them stuck with me until the end, and many of them didn't even relate to what was happenning in the movie tbh.

reply

[–] archibald14 8 years ago

The most romantic movies are often those where they aren't together in the end. Casablanca, Titanic, Mulholland Dr.,...

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

You should read the second part of my post, too.

reply

[–] Terrygg (544) 8 years ago

Agreed.

reply

[–] powitzkyc-35076 8 years ago

If you see a movie after it has been nominated for 14 oscars and have everyone around you calling it "one of the greatest musicals ever made", you're bound to be disappointed when you see it because your expectations are impossibly high. I was one of those who where lucky enough to see it before the hype, so I was blown away at the theater.

reply

[–] marianoamezaga 8 years ago

Yes I understand but why does (nearly) everyone call it "one of the greatest musicals ever made", precisely? I´m not really a fan of musicals, so I can´t really compare the movie with similar ones. But I don´t get why it´s regarded as "outstanding".

reply

[–] OzOverTheRainbow 8 years ago

It's not "one of the greatest musicals ever made". It can't even begin to compare to great musicals like Singin' in the Rain, West Side Story, Les Miserables, Chicago, The Sound of Music, Cabaret, etc.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

reply

[–] luthien_tinuviel86 8 years ago

Yup. Don't forget most Disney movies have better music than this as well.

reply

[–] Rick-34 8 years ago

People are calling it a "great musical" because it's been 50 years since musicals were made regularly. It's getting lots of bonus points simply for being in a genre that is hardly ever seen.

La La Land is a good example of the genre, but it's hardly outstanding. Les Mis was better (if you could overlook Russell Crowe's singing). Chicago had a much more interesting story, but was held back a bit by the casting of Renee Zellwegger.

The casting in La La Land is good but not great. Both Gosling and Stone are solid actors, but neither is particularly noteworthy as a singer. The music itself is very good.

The story could hardly be less interesting.

This movie simply should not be elevated to the level of the great musicals: Singing in the Rain, West Side Story, the Umbrellas of Cherbourg, The Sound of Music, Grease, etc. I'm surprised that it's being considered a front-runner for Best Picture awards. This fact has to be viewed as a sign of Hollywood's narcissism. Hollywood overloves movies about itself. That was true with The Artist, with The Aviator (Howard Hughes was seen as a Hollywood figure), and with a good number of other movies.

It's a sad thing, since many good movies are going to be overlooked.

reply

[–] Dr_Saf_Wartofsky 8 years ago

People are calling it a "great musical" because it's been 50 years since musicals were made regularly. It's getting lots of bonus points simply for being in a genre that is hardly ever seen.

If that were the case, other better musicals would've gotten recognition, as 2004's The Phantom of the Opera or Burlesque.

reply

[–] wooody 8 years ago

It's being considered a great musical because significant number of critics and viewers enjoyed the songs and the singing...It's not that complicated.

reply

[–] bbethany7-699-48220 8 years ago

Bbethany7After long anticipation we had our chance to see La La Land, a much praised movie that turns out to be a stupendous disapointment, so poorly made it's difficult to describe. Let's start with the music: Jazz is a dominant theme that fails miserably. Not one note of "jazz" piano is remotely reminiscent of the real thing I know from 60 years of hearing Oscar Peterson, Tommy Flanagan,
Thelonius Monk, Red Garland, Hank Jones, and many others. Ryan Gosling is stuck with the thankless role of playing a jazz pianist. Everything is wrong, a million miles from authenticity. He's sadly misled in his performance, as is Emma Stone (aptly named) who projects the charisma of Zasu Pitts as an actress-playwright hoping to stage a one woman show. She's wooden (an insult to oak and cedar), a feeble vocalist, and an awkward dancer. I should condemn writer-director Damien Chazelle for this overblown travesty. Should? He made a thousand mistakes: for instance, he put together a combo "jazz" band who assault your ears with playing so rude that idiot actors dance to their fake "music". I nominate La La Land for #1 raspberry film of 2016, a bad year to have endured. Wait. Maybe it should be Ugli Fruit instead of raspberry

reply

[–] drjukebox 8 years ago

This would barely make it into the top 100 musicals if such a list was made.
The hype will go away.
But I symphatize with Chazelle and understand what he is trying to do; perhaps this is as good as it can get these days.

reply

[–] wooody 8 years ago

Given the critical acclaim, fan support and box office success I don't think Chazelle needs your sympathy. He nailed it!

reply

[–] tomholland2016 8 years ago

Oh my GOD, me too! I watched this movie with a very extremely low expectation that I didn't even know this was nominated for Golden Globes at that time, let alone watching the trailer!

I thought about watching Rogue One for the second time that day but I eventually decided for La La Land due to my limited time. It was on Thurs in the evening, the first day it came out in my country (Malaysia) and the hall was small and it was packed around 30 people but I sat at one of the most front row thinking that this is another musical movie. I came 10 minutes late, when I entered, Mia was already in the bathroom humming the notes.

WOW, I was so surprised by the movie, can't believe this is one of the few movies that triumphantly captured my heart.

Now, I have watched it 5 times and planning for the sixth and after the Golden Globes, people started to swarm in the hall for this movie.

I was planning to watch it today but unfortunately every showing in this country has sold out!

reply

[–] bbethany7-699-48220 8 years ago

Bbethany7 You were aghast by the movie? Look up "aghast" before you use the word. Also go to You Tube, type in
Dick Cavett Oscar Peterson jazz piano. You'll see how absurdly jazz piano was depicted in this bad movie. Also
watch available clips of Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Kathryn Grayson and Howard Keel, clips of Singing in The Rain, Anything Goes, or even West Side Story to get an idea of what a musical should be. Have fun.

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

Seen every one of those.

This kicks all their asses. Except West Side Story.

Sometimes people havre *GASP!!!!!* different TASTE!!!!!! THE HORROR

Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.

reply

[–] JoBelgravia 8 years ago

I wouldn't say that matters. Some movies hold up under these circumstances, some don't. Most genuine classics do in some way. I watched The Godfather under these circumstances and thought it was definitely a contender for best film ever made.

It also works the other way. The movie is so hyped that you actually believe it is as good as others say; you start to see greatness where there isn't any. In my experience this is a lot more common.

reply

[–] Gf6 8 years ago

I saw it before the Oscar noms and was not impressed at all. I mean I have seen the use of colours like this before and costumes. I guess the TMZ generation hasn't and can be easily impressed.

reply

[–] danloki 8 years ago

I guess the TMZ generation hasn't and can be easily impressed.

LOL. That's a creative insult for people who liked a movie you don't. Well done👏 I liked the colour palette and couldn't give a rat's ass about TMZ or any other gutter tabloids.

reply

[–] Gf6 8 years ago

LOL. That's a creative insult for people who liked a movie you don't. Well done👏 I liked the colour palette and couldn't give a rat's ass about TMZ or any other gutter tabloids.

Relax honey, it's a theory not a fact.

reply

[–] danloki 8 years ago

I never said you implied it was a fact. I had just never seen this as a put down before

TMZ generation

Infact, if you don't mind I think I'll steal that.

reply

[–] DangerManTX 8 years ago

My feelings exactly. I love musicals, but this was seriously missing a lot of things to make it a classic. The movie is not worthy of the hype. It will be quickly forgotten as a movie.

reply

[–] tomholland2016 8 years ago

It will be quickly forgotten as a movie.

You'll be surprised.

reply

[–] falconefans 8 years ago

I saw it before all the nominations and awards.

I thought it was okay but nothing groundbreaking. Certainly not a classic musical or anything that i would think deserves an award, except maybe for cinematography or for the sets.

That said, i did like it. I didn't hate it. But the story and the acting didn't move me at all. I enjoyed the music but not enough to run out and buy the soundtrack.

I liked that opening number. That was a pretty impressive dance routine. And i liked the way they shot it.

Even if this did get nominated for best picture (which i'm surprised at), it certainly doesn't deserve acting awards. The two leads had zero chemistry, i didn't believe they were in love at all.

This is all subjective. The movie has struck a chord with so many people and that's great. We need more good movies with nice stories and no gratuitous violence. I give the filmakers kudos for trying and succeeding to resurrect the musical genre. I hope we see more of them.

Fraaaank. FRANK! Get my jean bin. Susie wants my jeans.
No she doesnt.

reply

[–] max7171 8 years ago

TMZ generation? That's not really an accurate way to describe them. I call them the 'tracer' generation. Like when an artist traces over another artist's work, then calls it his own. That's 99% of all mellinials. Zero originality. While I did like the movie, there were many times where I thought to myself: havent I seen this before? and the answer is, yes I have. I wouldn't call it a bad movie, but it's definitely a carbon copy of every classic musical ever made.

And you are right about one thing, they are easily impressed.

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

have seen the use of colours like this before

You mean they didn't make up new colors for this film? As opposed to Moonlight that used Dorange and Scurple combinations? And Arrival that used Yillow and Gween? hOW DARE THEY NOT MAKE NEW COLORS!!! Since you know, there's an infinite number of colors the eyes can see and all. And no color ever clashes with any other colors either, so you could just as easily have two hot colors put together and not worry about eye strain. And color combinations are all equally pleasing too! That's why they're experimenting with Yellow and Chartreuse and hot pink for the next Michael Bay film...

In all seriousness...

There are only a VERY small amount of color combinations you can use in any visual art and if you use people in a shot, it gets smaller because the color has to match up with humans skin tone, so if the main people in your film have pinkish color tone (like this one) only blues and greens and a few other colors can be used to match up with them. That's why you "saw those colors before". There are very few colors you can use in filmmaking when using humans (one of the reasons why animated characters are different colors than human skin tones)

Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.

reply

[–] Theartofglese 8 years ago

Altho I agree with your first paragraph, as a concept artist I gotta disagree with the second part. Skintones don't matter when you are picking a color palette for the shots, it matters for the values because people either have darker or lighter skin, but hue wise every skin reflects the colors in the same way, and every human skin has subsurface scattering. Its not like theres humans with different skin materials.This is especially true for movies with a lot of saturation.

Animated movies are different, years ago the technology was really simple, it was basically simple ambient occlusion, diffuse and spectacular reflections, and even those were simplified compared to what we have now, there wasn't much to lightning and therefore hue suffered from it.
Technology advanced since then, you don't have to paint faces differently to adjust to different lightning or colors because the engine is coded to do it for you (in 3d, 2d is different). This doesn't mean that we don't need color key artists, it just means its easier to mimic their view. Skintones in animated movies in the current day are exactly the same as in real life, just a bit more saturated, most movies actually use skin shaders based on real life models, the textures, form and shape is what makes them animated, otherwise you'd call them cgi movies like the final fantasy (3d) movies.

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

Oh it matters. You have to match the colors to the skin, not the other way around.

it's displeasing to see certain color combinations, and while it can be done it's more expensive to adjust colors. That's why most films are colored either green or blue now.

I know colorists for films, basically all films are colored with the same combinations. It's not so much for artistic reasons but for $ you CAN adjust them, it's just expensive.

And I meant Animated characters like the smurfs or the Simpsons, not animated characters that were realistic.

Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Interesting post, Theartofglese.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] lajohn 8 years ago

It's an overrated movie made about Hollywood for Hollywood.
There is nothing great about this movie. No one is going to care about this movie in six months.
The oscars and other award shows has shown to be out of touch with real cinema, again and again.
Giving a movie a bunch of awards and saying it's great don't make it great.
This movie will not be a classic, no one is going to remember or care about it.

reply

[–] tomholland2016 8 years ago

The oscars and other award shows has shown to be out of touch with real cinema, again and again.

Wow, your taste must be great then, I want to know, what's your top 10 favorite movies in 2016?

reply

[–] wooody 8 years ago

You are assuming LAJohn can count to 10.

reply

[–] tomholland2016 8 years ago

Hhahahaha, LOL!

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

It's an overrated movie made about Hollywood for Hollywood

Not really...

It's about giving up on love to chase a dream *IE knowing you will never get all your dreams) and becoming an ADULT. It's actually got a very NONHollywood message.

It is a love letter to L.A., not Hollywood, only two locations in the film were in Hollywood. Part of what this film was doing was showing people that there is a whole beauty in L.A. taht is NOT Hollywood.

As for it "Not being a classic" it had a 93% rating from Posttrac this year--meaning 93% of people who saw it said they'd recommend it to a friend. It was the highest rated film by that rating in 2016. It's not just the Oscars and award shows that like it.

Also I think that you will soon realize this is my signature.

reply

[–] GypsyNomad 8 years ago

I love musicals but I agree with you. It looked really cool the first time I saw the preview but the more previews I see the more I feel like this is going to be greatly overrated. (I haven't seen it yet) but since the critics love it and it's up for an Oscar Nom. I feel like maybe it's going to be terrible or not live up to the hype, at all. I was going to go see it yesterday and then gave it a miss for something else (which ended up being a fantastic choice of a move (the alternative)).

reply

[–] wooody 8 years ago

So as a Gypsy Nomad you kind of drifted from one screening room to the next.

reply

[–] allofthegirls 8 years ago

Absolutely nothing but when you throw millions into PR and marketing that persuades / tricks people into thinking it's good, that'll do it.

reply

[–] himan-76716 8 years ago

Nothing? The cool long takes with gorgeous colors. Two characters whose struggles one can instantly get by behind, who we want to succeed so badly. As the movie progresses, we see as the characters begin finding success, but not together. They both sparked the other into succeeding, but were never able to enjoy that happiness together. And that's what's so heartbreaking and special about this movie. The two leads were magical together, but their dreams were so big that they were unable to live them together.

There's something special about that story and how it was presented musically and uniquely. You can clearly see a writer/director who let his imagination free. Movies like these are few and far between; something one can truly say is magical.

reply

[–] cyf222 8 years ago

You must have just started watching movies.

reply

[–] himan-76716 8 years ago

You must be feeling so high and mighty after that comment.

reply

[–] archibald14 8 years ago

Yeah sure, the Academy, critics and Imdb users are new to movies, everybody knows that.

reply

[–] archibald14 8 years ago

You can clearly see a writer/director who let his imagination free. Movies like these are few and far between; something one can truly say is magical.

Yeah, that's pretty much what separates good from great. People mistake "originality" with individual elements, when true originality in filmmaking is in the way everything comes together in a singular vision.

reply

[–] deantje 8 years ago

Exactly. Wanted to walk out 10 minutes in. So overhyped. Empty. Hollow.
Gosling and Stone are no singers, nor are they great dancers.
I hate this movie with a passion.

reply

[–] gcarras (2770) 8 years ago

I love this movie with a passion.

reply

[–] scruffbear 8 years ago

Its the ending that sets it apart

A film made in the great tradition of Hollywood that doesnt have the big Hollywood ending

I hate musicals as a rule but gave this a chance due to the 14 Oscar noms, and the last 20 munutes just blew me away

reply

[–] modica 8 years ago

The first time I saw it I wasn't blown away, but the last 20 minutes were fantastic. That is what sold the movie for me. I had to see it again, and the second viewing was much more satisfying. I have seen it 5 times now. I love the movie. Sorry that others didn't like it, but maybe now that your expectations are lowered, you might like it more seeing it a second time.

reply

[–] blackmickey45 8 years ago

When the movie first started with the girl singing in the car on the freeway I was rolling my eyes because I really don't like musicals. But as the movie was getting going on I became really invested with the Ryan Gosling & Emma Stone characters! This movie has everything: song, dance, drama,comedy, something for everyone. Persistence and never giving up is the pay off in this movie, which should be what we all live by.
Totally unexpected ending which I loved.
Kudos to everyone involved in this gem of a movie!!!

reply

[–] bigsofty0 8 years ago

I watched about 20 people walk out... before I succumbed. Fortunately we got our money back. Don't believe the hype people, this is total garbage.

reply

[–] wooody 8 years ago

I am 100% certain you are a lying troll. I have seen this film about 8 times and have yet to see 1 person exit early. You saw TWENTY people make an early departure??? You and the truth aren't on the same page. Back under the bridge for you TROLL>

reply

[–] modica 8 years ago

I agree. 20 people did not walk out. I have seen it 5 times and only two people walked out during my third viewing. Some people just love to exaggerate.

reply