I don’t know if I’d ever call “La La Land” a masterpiece. I wouldn’t even call it a great movie. But it at least gets an A for effort, anxiously trying to evoke the classic musicals of Hollywood’s yesteryear that has a lot of first year theater students salivating over. “La La Land” is a neat and charming little novelty, and one I was thoroughly invested in, mainly for the fantastic photography. “La La Land” looks gorgeous, especially when characters Mia and Sebastian are sitting on a park bench at dawn, dancing and singing. But that’s about the entirety of the film’s merits. The cinematography and special effects are fantastic, but don’t actually compensate for a weak storyline, and forgettable musical numbers.
“La La Land” depicts Los Angeles as a town filled with opportunity, and drenched in missed opportunity. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are daring choices for what is something of an experiment in a classic musical, it’s just a shame that “La La Land” never rises above just being a fine movie. It’s a movie that’s merely going through the motions and makes a clear effort to evoke some sense of emotion through its nuanced direction and simple dance numbers. Stone, with her usual large saucer blue eyes plays Mia, an aspiring actress and barista in Los Angeles, who is struggling to make it in the business. After endless embarrassing auditions, she crosses paths with a club pianist named Sebastian who is also under appreciated and unnoticed.
Conveniently, they manage to cross paths and form a bond with one another that also elevates in to a romance, where Sebastian’s pursuit of music, and Mia’s pursuit of acting elevates their turmoil as lovers and kindred spirits. Stone and Gosling are usually brilliant actors, but the characters they play aren’t just one dimensional but awfully cliché. It’s like director Damien Chazelle chose two goofy LA archetypes and tried to make their tales rich and complex, when they feel more like old hat tropes doled out to appeal to a modern audience. Had “La La Land” spent more time exploring the struggles and poetic concept of living life as a struggling artist begging to be taken seriously, “La La Land” might just have been stellar. Instead it’s more of “Our generation is so misunderstood? Am I right, kids?” with two tired back stories.
Stone and Gosling’s singing and performing are adequate, while director Chazelle seems hell bent on mimicking a lot of the classic musical devices, including the dramatic camera movements. That said, Gosling is a charming leading man who can at least commit to looking like someone struggling to be noticed as a pianist, all the while folks like JK Simmons, and John Legend make brief appearances that don’t affect the overall movie for better or for worse. I’m all for escapism, and light hearted movie musicals, and great tributes to the classic musicals of golden age Hollywood, it’s just “La La Land” never rises above feeling like an imitation, when—if we make the effort—better musicals are always right there at our fingertips.
Good review. Saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it–sort of. Paying homage to musicals of yesteryear demands stellar dancing/singing. Stone and Gosling were good but not great, and this was the failing of the movie for me.
I found this film to be incredibly disappointing. The music was utterly forgettable. I love Emma Stone, but would not have cast her in this film. I am so tired of the young ingenue trying to make it in Hollywood; it has been done to death.
the best and most affecting moment was when those glorious words appeared, THE END.
Yeah, I think I agree with this.
The cinematography and camerawork is aces, and the best I’ve seen since last year’s Mad Max: Fury Road. Acting is great all around, if a little hokey and melodramatic at times The music is good, but it feels like there was some trickery behind the scenes to make the score feel more expansive than it really is.
The ending/epilogue is the biggest offender, and seems to throw out all of the development for what seems like an attempt to throw everything but the kitchen sink in. Same goes for John Legend, who can damn sure act, but was cast in a sort of anti-villain role where he’s advocating for the dissolution/removal of jazz in favor of fusion music while a white man tries to convince him to go back to his roots.
Otherwise, great film.
The homage gimmicks (Astaire shoes, the lamp post, playing with a fedora) only served to remind me of GOOD musicals. Gosling can’t dance, Stone can’t sing. How is this good in a musical? I was so disconnected to the main characters I didn’t know his name when I left the theater.
I did think it had a happy ending–she didn’t end up spending her life with her jerk of a boyfriend. Although she pretty much sabotaged the relationship by changing the goal posts in their argument about his so-called purity when it seemed way more as if he’d finally grown up and realized one really *must* pay the light bill. And yes, the struggling ingenue… done to death.
Very disappointing movie, a faux musical with mediocre dancing and totally unmemorable music. Good photography, though. There’s that.
Am I the only person in the world to be deeply disappointed by this film- poor singing, flabby choreography and lack lustre dancing, tedious plot, failed visual cliches and I could go on. where were the characters of interest? Only Emma Stone made any impact as an actor. A feeble homage to a great era of movie making.