I saw it today, The IT MOVIE that’s getting all this buzz, etc. I thought it was meant to be a parody of musicals and references to old movies, and that the plot was a joke on all the typical musical and romantic comedies. If they were picking an actor to play the part like she’s not a person but a kind of cardboard poster of any happy go lucky old style films, they did it right.
There were a lot of moments that seemed like a joke. Every kiss seemed to be imitating the big typical kiss of the romantic comedy that is wholesome. The profiles of each of them and the tilt of the head and placement of lips.
Whoops! Wait, am I really supposed to care about these two people who are mostly in montages for the real life part of time continuing but they are like advertisements of a life and of a relationship? There are three parts to this kind of movie relationships : meeting and rubbing each other the wrong way, suddenly realizing they’re in love, being in love and having things to talk about and care about, telling each other they’re talented and believe in each other and that their dreams will come true, living out the dreams and realizing they can’t go down the road together any more and have to choose separate paths due to their successful careers. Oh how sad and bittersweet. Are you for real in 2016. I thought I went to sleep and woke up in the early 60’s but then got bored and went back to sleep.
It was like the whole movie was a clever ad, the kind where you’re wondering what exactly is the product they are trying to get me to buy? The colors are great and some of the visuals and movement of scenes have more of a cool movement than any of the boring dances and songs I can’t remember.
Here’s a fun quote about the costumes. She wears dresses in almost every scene of the movie,in bright primary colors that swing for dancing around in la la land. He wears the thin ties of the serious artist/musician as opposed to the husband character who wears regular ties for their regular life which she sacrificed the romance for.
I wanted women in the audience to be wooed by Ryan, and the men to feel romantic about Emma,” says costume designer Mary Zophres.gh
Are you kidding me? Is it actually 2017 or the 1950’s? I’ms supposed to be “wooed” by the guy and if i’m a male, I’m supposed to feel romantic about her through their boring typical musical sort of retro costumes? The costumes give the movie good pops of color but they’re hardly anything you’d swoon over or feel anything about these people. For sure nobody is sexy. It’s one of those movies where sex doesn’t exist even though were’ supposed to be so emotional about the characters arc of relationships etc.
Watch “Splendor in the Grass”. I can admit that movie makes me cry and feel the tragedy of how life can interfere with some kind of intense true love, but younger than the people in this movie. There is more going on in it anyway. The girl gets in a fight with her mother about sex while she’s taking a bath. It’s Natalie Wood and Warren Beatty. I’ve seen it at least 3 times.
They go to see Rebel Without a Cause. It’s like Annie Hall where the Woody Allen character takes her to see terrible movies about the Nazies. This is Two Couples with no Cause in search of an Author and some Academy Awards.
“La La Land reeks of mothballs”. What a great sentence by one of the few film expert/critics who haven’t drunk the Koolaid.
What is the big deal about the acting in this movie? I used to be annoyed by people oohing and aaing over great performances where the actor had to play someone mentally ill or some other extreme and people went on and on about it. At least there the actor has to deal with real circumstances like schizophrenia or being blind. What kind of acting can you get out of a person who has maybe two or three facial expressions. There are a few versions of smiling, mostly done by having her perfect mouth closed, slightly open or open big. There’s the biting the lip on the outside to stop herself from bursting into tears. She is able to get her eyes wet and look emotional but really her face is blank and one dimensional. She’s very good at the blinking and not blinking at the right moments in very close closeups and that’s about it. I don’t get the big hype.
Go back and actually watch any of the movies this movie seems to reference to, either on purpose or accidentally. Bye Bye Birdie is more complicated with the same kind of wholesome feel good ness.
I saw the movie with a 9 year old who liked it but wasn’t absolutely in love with it. She commented that basically there were only 2 characters in the whole movie. Exactly. The only romantic movies with only 2 characters and a few background ones that works is the series about the man and woman that meet only for a day, and again in several movies, sort of a copy of the plot of Same Time Next Year: Before Sunset, Before Sunrise and Before Midnight. Guess one reason why we want to watch these 2 people in 3 movies? I’m not sure, but it feels way more realistic and romantic/nostalgia/sad. It helps that the woman in it, Julie Delpy writes the screenplays of the second two movies with Richard Linklater.
I liked the colors and the editing of the movie. I just told a friend maybe it would be fun to watch the movie without the sound on. There are these great cuts, unexpected, funny, meant to confuse between real life and “movie” life, and seem like a funny joke about the movie itself being so fake you think it’s done on purpose
Emma Stone has not written anything, thank goodness. I do not understand how everyone is swooning about this performance. I don’t get it. You would think singing and dancing was practically impossible in most movies that she is so great at it.
Once you’ve seen Charlie Chaplin in anything you can’t argue with the fact that in comedies especially, facial expression is everything. Ryan Gosling doesn’t have an expressive face either. People like Jim Carrey maybe go too far in the other direction. There’s Sean Penn, Kate Winslet, Helena Bonham Carter, Robert Downey Jr. and hosts of others who actually have faces that move and can carry an emotion or idea where the camera is on them and they do something magical. I don’t see that with the Stone face smile of Emma Stone.
The editing and composition of the scenes is great. I got pretty dizzy in a lot of the film with a lot of sudden cuts and the camera’s movement.
I’d say that was the most moving part of the movie, being moved around like that.
Supposedly the scene where the break up is happening is supposed to be so “real”. The lighting and choice of no music etc yes, but the plot is so boring and typical, it’s like real celebrities complaining about how they can’t sustain a relationship because both people travel so much for their jobs and don’t see each other. Oh no, she has to choose between her own success and seeing him less or just going around with him and giving up on her own career. Wow. i’m so sad for them. I won’t even list the real life celebrities that had this problem, touring for music and acting in movies all over the place. So tragic.
The whole plot is built on cliche. You can’t see the mold and the mothballs through the shiny feeling of this movie.
I just hate when everyone swoons over something that really is just not that great and not even good.
Sorry but I just don’t get it. I’m going to have to deliberately not watch the Academy Awards. By the way, I did for sure notice the weird racism in the movie; you’d have to be an idiot not to. I won’t even get into that. This review captures most of it: