La La Land : Can anybody explain to me what is so great about this movie?

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.

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!!!

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.

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>

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.

It's absolutely euphoric.

You are right that the plot is a tale as old as Hollywood time and the dialogue nothing groundbreaking.

What makes the movie special is the visual and emotional aspects to it.

It's hard to really compare it with other musicals because it is an homage. It's obviously not going to beat Singin in the Rain, but for those who like those type of classics, it is a nostalgic experience and cool to see a modern movie acknowledging & appreciating Hollywood history. It's more than just the singing and dancing the ending captures the melodramatic romance that a lot of old movies had.

I've read a few of the original versions of the script and those were very cliche love-stories with Seb quitting the band to be with Mia, arguments about Seb's sister's love life, more "I love you" statements, etc. The final product was much less cliche than I anticipated.

The truly cliche thing to do would be to have them quit their jobs to be together. However, they restrained from doing that.

Noticed the 5 minute opening shot where about 50 people do an insane choreography? Or basically any other great piece of cinematography in this movie? This film manages where most other films fail: it gets me. Judging by the atmosphere in the cinema, it gets to a lot of people.

No point in discussing colors or taste, but I think it's also the 14 oscar nominations and the 5-star reviews that hightens people's expectations.

The cinematography, The choreography, The performances, The writing, The music and, not to mention, the direction. It was made because Damien Chazelle wanted to tell a story and not because they wanted to start a franchise or merchandise it. It won't have sequels or reboots (at least I hope it won't). It didn't have any unnecessary exposition or pointless filler. It was a nice, sweet, visual movie, full of heart. It was just so refreshing to see such a movie after a long time. That's all. It just hit me in the right spots. I'm sorry you didn't feel the same way..

I so agree! This was, at best, a zesty romp with some entertaining moments. I didn't hate it, thought it filled the time OK. It is NOT a great movie! Characters are thin and petty, the relationship is unrealistic and unengaging, the performances are ponderous. The song & dance numbers are mostly bland, and just cheap re-heats of REAL classic movie musicals.
It's very disappointing to see this fluffy movie getting so much critical praise and awards attention in a year with many important, stirring, and inspirational films.

I think the musical numbers and the behind the scenes stuff work. La la land deserves best picture of 2016. Stone and gosling have great chemistry on screen together. I believe the hype on this one is very positive.

There's nothing great about this movie.

Millenials think it's good because they've never seen the real thing. Dull story, zero character development, poor dancing and singing and totally overrated.

I don't know, but if you find out - please tell me.
The only reason I didn't walk out of this waste of time was that I had the wife with me. This "homage" is simply boring and actually insulting to the original Hollywood classics. If I want to see great musicals or a great dance sequence or a love story - I'll watch the originals, thank you, rather than watch Ryan Gosling trying to pretend he's Richard Beymer and Fred Astaire combined.

Hello, Ground!

nothing, just the critics love it because they're old..XD

And you don't love it because all you watch is crap.

14 oscar nominations for this movie is ridiculous. It has good songs, the cinematography was very nice and the actors where good but not great. Overall i think there are better musicals than this one. If a movie gets 14 nominations it must be an all time classic you wanna watch once a year. I don't think i'll ever watch this one again

You should watch it again, because the first time I watched it I wasn't all in either, but after the second time, I appreciated it much more. I think our expectations cloud our judgement the first time, so I recommend you give it another try.

It's an entertaining movie with a sour note at the end. I love the leading actors but I don't understand the hype about this movie, either.


If you're tangled up, just tango on.

Agree!!! Was bored to tears.

I agree, this movie is too much overrated.
Artist was much better, and Miles Teller in Whiplash was much better, who has never been nominated.

Why is everyone agreeing with the OP? He asked people to explain why it is great. You people just can't stop it with your negative posts. You didn't like it, move on, because this movie is going to win best picture and nothing you say is going to change that.

---

Why is everyone agreeing with the OP? He asked people to explain why it is great. You people just can't stop it with your negative posts. You didn't like it, move on, because this movie is going to win best picture and nothing you say is going to change that.

---

That's not really how discussion boards work. When you start a thread on a discussion board, regardless of your question and/or comment, you are inviting people to express any opinions related to that topic. You don't get to control which opinions are welcome and not welcome (barring offensive or insulting content, that is, and that's what moderators are for). This is not a La La Land fandom forum. The people who spent their time and money watching the film and didn't like it have just as much right to voice why they didn't like it as the people who love it have to talk about why they think it's great. Nobody thinks their opinion is going to "change" the results of the awards, but we absolutely are allowed to question their validity.

Yes, it is a discussion board, but expressing an opinion isn't a discussion. Someone says, "This film sucked", which is usually what we get from certain people(trolls). I am all for discussion, I am all for intelligent critique of a film; but I am not for simpletons to come on here and tell everyone "This film sucked". You talk about the rights of people coming on here to tell us why they did not like itI am all for that again. But please don't call a few words strung together a discussion, because I wouldn't want to link you in with those people.

To be fair, though, that's not what you said. You asked why everyone was agreeing with the OP, and then said "can you just stop with your negative posts", implying that anyone who had something negative to say about the film was not welcome here. Anyway, doesn't matter. I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of your message. Trolls are a pain, and the sad thing about them is they will never stop. You just have to ignore them (literally putting them on "ignore" has worked well for me).

Maybe I wasn't clear either. When I spoke of negative posts, I was speaking of people who just come on here to start a fire. Most of them probably haven't even seen the movie. I enjoy well thought out posts that vary from my opinion, because it makes me ponder what it is I liked and didn't like about a particular film. The others who think that their opinion on whether they liked it or not, without giving any reasons why, is really confounding, because we don't know those posters, so why should we even care. I think we do care, but only because they are trivializing something we hold near and dear to our hearts and that is the magic of film.

To be fair, there was no post saying just "It sucked", most of the people who posted negative things about the movie in this thread actually took the time to explain their reasons.

I saw this movie before the (ridiculous number of) 14 Oscars noms, yet knew it was getting hype. I don't think I was too clouded by bias. I'd give it a 7. It's a *good* movie. Its plot was nothing new or amazing - neither its message nor its details, but succeeded in being a feel-good type thing to waste a couple of hours on.

Emma Stone sweeping the acting awards is kind of ridiculous too. Tons of romantic dramedy performances exactly like hers (though maybe without a bit of singing) go unnoticed all the time. Right place right time for her I guess .

Sometimes it's not that you think the film is bad, but just the *level* of hype and acclaim it's getting is ridiculous. I totally agree with those saying it's going to go down as majorly overhyped and relatively forgotten pretty quickly. But ironically for myself, I may find I enjoy it more in a year or two when the hype has gone down. I also liked the non-traditional ending. Whiplash was much better.

Har ring molassis abounding
Common lap kitch sardin a poor floundin.

---

Emma Stone sweeping the acting awards is kind of ridiculous too. Tons of romantic dramedy performances exactly like hers (though maybe without a bit of singing) go unnoticed all the time. Right place right time for her I guess

---

There's some level of strategy in it too. The Academy and the critics love the Emma Stones, Ryan Goslings, and Jennifer Lawrences of Hollywood because they have the genuine acting talent to get the respect of the older demographic, and they make the "proper" movie choices, but they also appeal to the younger demographic, which helps with the ratings. It is the Academy's best interest, ratings-wise, to have Emma Stone do well on the awards circuit.

ya'll all go f//k yourselves, dig it? Bro?

Cop:"You think you're Rambo!"
Tango (Stallone): "Rambo's a pussy!"

Tango & Cash

No, it's not great at all. It has an impressive (but over the top) opening musical number and shortly after that a musical number that is at least likeable (the one in the apartment). But after that the movie shakily meanders through almost two hours of (nicely lit and filmed) stressed-out barrista and struggling actor/musician clishs and classic movie references. Whenever some form of magic starts to make itself known it is quickly chased away by the movie's constant need to explain itself. They even felt they had to include an excerpt from "Rebel Without A Cause" in order to drum up interest for the following Griffith Park Observatory scene and its cheesy special effects. The John Legend interlude seems like it was flown in from a cheap '80s rock biopic. Finally the tacked-on ending robs you of any emotional investment you might have made on behalf of the characters. 2 Academy Award nominations (cinematography and production design) would have been justified, but 14?

Of courses cynics won't like it, that's their thing. Only gritty dark realistic movies seem to work these days

Yes it's clich, yes it involves classic Hollywood but it's also well-made, well-acted,super charming and inspiring. We need positive movies like this in this gloomy era!

There's a place for them, for sure. But 14 Oscar nominations and the numerous other awards it's received? That is excessive praise for a film that has very little to it except charm. I don't think it's fair to label anyone who thinks it's over-hyped a cynic. I enjoy charming, inspiring films as much as the next person, but I don't like to watch them sweep awards categories when there are more substantial films in the running.

Let's face it, the Oscars doesn't always nominate substantial films. I have disagreed with most of films that have won over the past couple decades. If La La Land wins this year, it will be one of the few films(in the past 20 or so years) that I have agreed should win. Now there are many that feel that there are more deserving films that should win over La La Land, but there were many films that should have won over CRASH; specifically Brokeback Mountain. Hollywood still isn't as progressive as they think they are after that fiasco. That is why Moonlight doesn't have a chance. It is all political anyhow and what anyone thinks doesn't matter, because the best films rarely win and the history of best picture wins throughout the years shows us just that.

You all seem to think Best Picture should go to some impressive new film that pushes the boundaries. But that's not what the award is about. It's about the best movie, period. It doesn't matter if it has an impressing new story or a simple story told before, it's the appeal of the movie. And La La Land is the kind of movie that appeals to most voters. In the same way Moonlight or Manchester By The Sea don't appeal to most voters.

I have to agree with post above me that this would be the first time in many years that I would agree with the Academy over the choice. It was stunning!

But it's not the best movie, especially when compared with the other nominations.

People call it 'best ever' because in trailer it says 'best' If instead of 'best' was 'average' people would say movie is average.

Musicals were good 50-80 ago,but its not 1950 no more.Imagine if they brought back silent film.

Audience is made of old timers and miserable females who are romance suckers,and always lacked romance in life because they chose 'tough guys' for a husband,who abuse them 24/7.

They did bring back silent film. Have you not seen The Artist?

I'm neither an old timer nor a miserable female and loved this movie. Nor where the rest of the audience. Shocking as you may find it it was mostly young people. Way to generalise the audience!
Maybe people call it the best ever cause they simply think it's the best ever?

Musicals are still good. I mean it's like every other genre. Some good, some bad.

i agree with you Mariano.
Average at least.

I agree with you, I found it to be one of the most boring films I've seen for a while. I thought it had a beautiful art direction and cinematography and the opening scene was well choreographed. Otherwise, it was bland, lacking any characters to root for and no memorable songs, it didn't even seem like a musical, more a romantic drama with music. I know people will say it's about escapism, but it was so unrealistic. They both had poorly paid jobs, yet lived in luxury apartments, went to expensive bars and wore designer clothes. It didn't seem like any of them had anything to strive for as they already had it. The only reason I see this getting lauded critically, is because Hollywood is so full of pointless remakes and sequels, millennials will wrongly believe this is original. It isn't, it's just a throwback to old Hollywood movies, which the Oscars love, like The Artist, another terrible film. I guess millennials who have never watched a film that came out before their birth year will be raving about this.

I agree.

There is no movie this year I can label as the best picture out of the 9 nominated. They are all OK movies, but somehow lack the quality in one way or another.

The battle scenes in Hacksaw Ridge was quite realistic. Kudos to Gipson!

IMO low average.
Nice people, but bad singers and dancers.

Oscar
Hablo mejor espaol :)

If you know and love L.A., you cannot possibly ask such a question. But, sadly perhaps, you don't.

If you know and love L.A., you cannot possibly ask such a question. But, sadly perhaps, you don't.

if its a place where a barista can afford a prius and a flat, then I don't think anybody knows it

Actually, no. I don't believe anybody can. This is one of those films that you either feel or you don't. It's like Lost in Translation or The Artist. If it works for you, then it's truly wonderful, but if it doesn't, well, it just doesn't. There's nothing wrong with not feeling it, no film is all things to all people. But as someone who didn't like the Lord of the Rings films at all, I feel your frustration at not getting a spectacularly popular film!

Musicals. When the story is so scant they have to fill the space with *beep* singing and dancing.

I ask myself the same question. I liked this movie, gave it 7.
But just about a week ago i rewatched "Hairspray" and it's definitely better as a musical. I thought that phenomenon of LLL can be explained with the death of the genre and it just could be looking fresh for most of the under 40 people. But the metascore of 93 here shows that the critics also love it. And most of them i suppose watched all Astaire/Rogers and Gene Kelly movies (most of those movies are definitely better as musicals), and they still think that LLL is some kind of masterpiece.
So, i'll still looking for answers.

The movie isn't on the same level as other musicals, but it is really beautiful to look at and the relationship between the two leads and the ending make perfect sense in the world of Hollywood.

I didn't think the movie was great.

The singing was mediocre. The original score was nice, but if you aren't big on piano, it probably won't appeal as much.

The acting was okay. I think Stone was great, and probably deserving of a nomination. I can't see why it would get so many nominationswere so many of 2016's movies trash?

I would never have watched this if my wife didn't ask me to. I came here looking to see what others would say about why this movie is seen as being so greatno one has really answered that question to my satisfaction.

I learned long ago that awards mean nothing to how great a movie or actor actually islook at how long it took Leo to win one, and honestly that wasn't one of his best performances either

This movie will probably sweep the awardsI just don't get what others see in it compared to other movies