Considering the 14 nominations, expectations for this year's predicted best film, "La La Land," were obviously higher than for the other lesser films currently playing in movie theaters around the country. It's not often that all the bases are covered when it comes to movie nominations, and the interest of those who enjoy watching the best picture nominees is currently piqued enough for many to leave their homes and pay the $10 for surround sound and leather chairs.
Telling of two artists trying to make their way in competitive Los Angeles, the movie itself is rather aesthetically satisfying, with a bright color scheme to grab viewers' attention and an upbeat opening theme that has feet tapping. The entire soundtrack itself is unlikely to leave your head for the next few hours after leaving the theater. The protagonists are lovable and relatable, and the plot has the typical romance that many thoroughly enjoy. On the surface, these aspects alone seem like enough to make a strong case for why this film is so successful.
What one fails to take into account, however, are the deeper levels that usually give a film the credentials needed to be considered one of the greats. The script, camera work, lighting, and all the minor details that are enough to either amuse or annoy, enough to create the difference between "I loved it!" and "It could have been better." In the case of "La La Land" it turns out to be the unfortunate latter.
With the loving characters the classic, artistic aesthetic, and the unique soundtrack comes blurry shots, awkward lighting, and a script that doesn't live up to the height that has been associated with the flick. A slow build leads to a rapid, heavy finale that, while interesting to think about and original in its own right, seems long awaited and drawn out. It seems as if the colorful lights and the score is compensating for this plot that is rather dull and redundant.
Overall, the film is vibrant and comical, but only on the surface. With an excellent score comes a basic verbal script and plot line that leaves many shifting uncomfortably by the end, anxious to get through to the end credits, and with lovable characters comes shaky camera work and blurry sequences that require more concentration than any audience member wants to exert. While it isn't the worst film, it certainly isn't the best, and rather undeserving of the exaggerated hype the academy has created for them.
With the loving characters the classic, artistic aesthetic, and the unique soundtrack comes blurry shots, awkward lighting, and a script that doesn't live up to the height that has been associated with the flick. A slow build leads to a rapid, heavy finale that, while interesting to think about and original in its own right, seems long awaited and drawn out. It seems as if the colorful lights and the score is compensating for this plot that is rather dull and redundant.
Overall, the film is vibrant and comical, but only on the surface. With an excellent score comes a basic verbal script and plot line that leaves many shifting uncomfortably by the end, anxious to get through to the end credits, and with lovable characters comes shaky camera work and blurry sequences that require more concentration than any audience member wants to exert. While it isn't the worst film, it certainly isn't the best, and rather undeserving of the exaggerated hype the academy has created for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment