Minority view of "La La Land" (horror, oscar, musical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the only surprise about The Artist was that it beat out the darling of that year, "The Help." I don't think any of the others were serious contendors. Most of them were okay movies that were riding on big names (The Descendants, Midnight in Paris, Tree of Life)
But anyway, I don't think The Artist is considered a musical, and seems to be more drama than comedy. (Even though it was classified by the GGs as a comedy ... so was The Martian, and even Matt Damon thought that was ridiculous)
I think "The Fools Who Dream" was by far the best moment in the movie, and frankly, the only place where I felt any emotion whatsoever.
That whole scene was done by Emma live, with Justin Hurwitz playing piano and following her lead. That scene was enough to land her the Oscar, IMO. I can understand the differing opinions on the movie, but I went into it not really being a fan of past musicals and absolutely loved it.
I just went to see "La La Land." I admit I'm not a fan of musicals, but I'd heard it was so great that I was willing to give it a try. After all, there are a few I do like.
But it was worse than I ever dreamed. Tepid, bland, shallow, dull. It seems like most musicals are basically romances, but usually there is something - an intriguing story, an unusual setting, some unforgettable characters, a villain to propel the plot. This had nothing. No interesting characters. No touching relationship. No memorable dialogue (or lyrics). Even the cinematography was less than mediocre. (There's an opening number where all the faces are in shadow.) The only thing that enabled me to sit through it was Ryan Gosling, whom I really like. But this is one of the worst movie I've seen this year.
... that opening number should have blown us away. It was an incredible piece of choreography with amazing visuals. But the singers were all so weak they detracted from the whole number. And the rest of the movie followed that path. Neither of the leads were strong enough singers to carry the movie.
It doesn't sound as if they were supposed to. Apparently the message was that all of us could relate to them.
"(Gene) Kelly was a gifted hoofer; (Debbie) Reynolds was primarily a singer, though she certainly kept up with Kelly. Those days of the triple-threat singer-dancer-actor in the movies seem largely behind us.
Audiences of 60 years ago would have expected their dancing stars to partner better and do steps and moves that the average person couldn’t do. We now live in a world where we’re more likely to envision ourselves in their position. It seems like anyone can be a star, and “America’s Got Talent,” after all. Perhaps we want to believe we could jump up and do those steps too."
I thought the singing wasn't very good, and it did take me out of the moment. I've actually spoken to multiple people who said their favorite song in the whole film was the rock group, and they supposed it was probably because an actual singer was singing it.
I liked the story a lot, though. I especially liked that it was bittersweet. I think too often we're left with cliffhangers (gotta get that sequel!) or happy endings that are too predictable. Overall, I thought the movie was good - I wouldn't watch it over and over again, but it was a really nice, new and modern musical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.