Rent La La Land (2016)

Forgettable - La La Land review by AS

Have the writer and director ever seen a musical? Has the composer ever heard a show tune? This is an old-as-the-hills cliché with not a spark of originality. The production is utterly tepid; there is no panache; there is no zing. Gosling and Stone can dance a bit but neither of them can sing: they look like drama class students doing their best- which isn't good enough; and they have no interpersonal chemistry whatsoever. Above all, there isn't a single number anyone will recall five minutes after leaving the cinema. Remember, the people who voted this an Oscar live in la la land.

So-so Land - La La Land review by WS

I enjoyed this a bit more than I was expecting to. The cinematography and production design is gorgeous, I found the characters relatable, Emma Stone's performance was very affecting and I felt she deserved her Oscar. Ryan Gosling doesn't dazzle to the same extent but again I was pleasantly surprised. I'd mainly seen him playing amiable rogues or tough guys (Ides of March, Place Beyond the Pines, Half-Nelson) and was sceptical of his being a convincing romantic lead, but was won over and thought the two of them made a very nice on-screen couple.

The dance routines were just okay (in Hollywood's Golden Age, I guess producers would have looked for dancers who could act rather than actors who could be taught to dance - clearly not the case here) - and the songs ranged from acceptable to quite good. The plot is well-structured but rather conventional.

But the real reason I can't give it more than three stars is this: the different elements just don't gel together. It doesn't ever really feel like a musical; it feels like a romantic drama with a few song and dance routines plonked into it. Some might say that's all a musical ever is. But in order to work, screen musicals need to have a sort of staginess or contrived artificiality to them - you don't want excessive naturalism because that just makes it look even more blatantly artificial when the characters break into song or start hoofing. And in the non-musical portions of La La Land, the style of direction and dialogue are quite naturalistic, and so the song and dance routines are bound to seem ever so slightly incongruous.

At one point, Ryan Gosling's character Sebastian, having earlier stated his passionate belief in the beauty and profundity of jazz as an art form, joins a touring band playing a sort of 80s-style jazz-inflected pop rock with as much likeness to true jazz as Dairylea has to real cheese. The band leader, Keith, tells Sebastian that jazz needs to change in order to survive, and that there's no point in "keeping it real" anymore if the kids won't listen to it. This may be intended as a criticism of the modern philistine obsession with making culture "accessible". But it inadvertently highlights what's wrong with this movie. Just as Keith's combo is producing jazz for people who don't like jazz, La La Land is a musical for people who aren't sure whether they like musicals.

Has Mark McPherson ever actually seen a musical? - La La Land review by JK

Over many years of film watching I have been known to say "This was probably the worst film I have ever seen." La La Land was just such an occasion. Almost everything about it annoyed me; The opening number was hardly Buzby Berkley - it's hard to look elegant jumping over a car bonnet and for all the ceaseless repetition of the chorus hook line - "Another Day Of.....schuwmmnnnmmmm", it was impossible to hear what they were saying. How come I can get an old 1940's or 30's film and be able to understand every word yet with all the technology at their disposal we were either straining to hear mumbled songs and speeches but deafened when it came to sound effects?

Neither character appeared to be able to sing or dance with any proficiency and neither of them appeared to even like each other - the chemistry wasn't just wrong it was non-existent. Apparently, Ryan Gosling 'actually learned to play the piano' to add to the authenticity. Well done Ryan. If you were in a Western you would probably have had to learn to sit on a horse.

I lost track of the plot about ten minutes in and really didn't care anyway - I was too busy being cross. Seemingly, in La La Land, four girls who work as waitresses and baristas whilst they await their big acting break can afford to live in a 20 room apartment, have a complete wardrobe of primary-coloured dresses and spend much of their time necking expensive cocktails in nightclubs with Olympic swimming pools. I suppose this was at least an example of the fairytale disbelief we were supposed to be immersing ourselves in.

The worst part for me was the whole premis that whatever-his-name-was (the male character) had high musical principles and was refusing to compromise his 'art' even if it meant he wasn't able to pay for the flat, the car, the clothes, the nights out etc. he seemed to be able to afford. He goes to his old job, warned by the manager not to play "any of that wild stuff" but to stick to the Xmas carols as a festive token to all the plebs who weren't listening anyway. Then he launches into "Jazz". What he launched into was a sanitised version of jazz whilst invoking names of jazz musicians 'ordinary people' may possibly have heard of to make it appear authentic. This movie is to Jazz what Ludivico Einaudi is to classical music. He then does "sell out" to play in what looked like Emerson Lake and Palmer meets Earth Wind and Fire sound-alike band.

What really beggars belief is how this totally underwhelming film in every way won so many plaudits? The sound was awful. The music was instantly forgettable. The colours were garish - I thought it was a take on the 1950's until she appeared on a mobile 'phone.... and there was nothing that didn't make me wish both protagonists wouldn't accidentally soft-shoe over the edge of a cliff.