my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » La La Land (2016) (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: La La Land (2016) Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 12-18-2016 07:55 PM                     An down-on-his-luck jazz pianist and an aspiring actress/playwright sing and dance to their Hollywood dreams . . . but whether they can have their dreams and still stay together is another story. As seen at the Cineplex Scotiabank Theatre, Toronto, Ontario. ***** This is an attempt to callback to the great Hollywood musicals from years ago, it mixes classic visual tropes like nightclub montages with more contemporary staging to tell the story of a couple trying to make their show business dreams come true. And it’s nice and everything, and very well intentioned, but kind of a let-down as well. Save for the opening number, there is nothing especially memorable about the songs, the score or the choreography, there is no real stand-out number that most good movie musicals have. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are fine players and serviceable in their roles, but they don’t have the singing or dancing chops to threaten the ghosts of Astaire, O’Connor, Sinatra or Reynolds (who actually isn’t dead yet). I did enjoy the storyline, though, and the “five years later” epilog is beautifully done and very emotional, in fact the last ten or so minutes pretty much salvage the entire picture. The lighting, 35mm cinematography and post-color work are very well done. It has some pretty good laughs, too. Two hours of reasonable entertainment. Didn’t love it, didn’t hate it.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 12-18-2016 09:01 PM                     it's funny, the movie didn't wow me the first time I saw it at the end of October, but having seen it a second time (and in Dolby Atmos sound) my appreciation was enhanced further - the charm and characters grew on me. I really like how the movie was shot and composed for 'Cinemscope' 2.55 aspect ratio.  |  IP: Logged Terry Monohan Master Film Handler Posts: 379 From: San Francisco CA USA Registered: May 2014 posted 12-24-2016 11:13 AM                     It was great at the opening how the CinemaScope® opening logo came on when the screen opened up. The movie dragged in places but I did enjoy seeing It on the giant XD screen in SF at the Cinemark/Century 9 in San Francisco on Friday in the rain. It played on the XD screen that only has 7.1 sound. They have the Auro 11.1 system in the other XD screen. Even though the white screen showed as they have no masking I got into the film. They needed to shoot a dance number in the forecourt of the Chinese Theatre on Hollywood Blvd or the Egyptian Theatre down the street. I will have to see It in the Dolby Atmos sound system soon. It is still only playing in the SF Bay Area in limited run. A nice film well shot with great technicolor. LA LA will win many awards I bet come Oscar time.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 01-03-2017 08:51 PM                        If you cried at Beaches and Somewhere in Time, you will LOVE this. While the other two certainly had their appeal, this one pulls at anyone who has ever lost a great love. Great European ending!. Looonnnng shots with either no edits or edits done so well I couldn't tell. Beautifully composed shots and audio so clear that I could hear the musicians breathe (in the not-live recordings.) Best live music I have heard in a film ever. I await a Stu Jamison review.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Goeldner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1360 From: Washington, District of Columbia Registered: Jun 2008 posted 01-05-2017 04:23 PM                     in regards to the music mixing Louis - I was really surprised at the Atmos mix on how the object mixing was done 'horizontally' running music along the walls, and creating a very wide sounding sound field - I wish Arclight had put this on their 65 foot 'widescreen' screen which has five front channels/speaker setup, but even on their smaller auditorium the sound was still quite remarkable.  |  IP: Logged Dennis Benjamin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1445 From: Denton, MD Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-05-2017 04:54 PM                        quote: but they don’t have the singing or dancing chops to threaten the ghosts of Astaire, O’Connor, Sinatra or Reynolds (who actually isn’t dead yet). IRONY.  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 01-10-2017 09:53 AM                     Meh. The fact it was composed in 2.55 actually bugged me quite a bit. The theater I saw it in was properly masked for scope (2.39, of course) and yet there was still visible blank screen at the top and bottom. I realize using 2.55 is an artistic choice, but it irritates me that the they deliberately chose a format that virtually no modern cinema is capable of properly showing. I think seeing this on an unmasked screen or one masked for flat would have been preferable to a screen masked for scope and still having "black bars."  |  IP: Logged Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 01-10-2017 10:19 PM                     quote: Ken Lackner The theater I saw it in was properly masked for scope (2.39, of course) and yet there was still visible blank screen at the top and bottom Actually, Ken- This wasn't entirely the fault of the theater & screen design or a lazy projectionist. The La-La-Land drive came with the following instructional note enclosed: The LA LA LAND feature is formatted 2.55 within the scope DCP container. This will create a slight top and bottom matte on the picture when presented in the scope format. This is the preferred original aspect ratio of the filmmakers. **Please DO NOT adjust the feature image to fill out the screen** Please accept the non-rectangular image when projecting on curved screens.  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 01-11-2017 03:19 PM                     Nothing about my post is blaming the theater. The first thing I say is, "The fact it was composed in 2.55...." This acknowledges the film maker is at fault and not the theater. Adding the part about this screen being masked for Scope is acknowledging that many theaters are not properly masked but pointing out that this is not one of them.  |  IP: Logged Frank Cox Film God Posts: 2234 From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada Registered: Apr 2011 posted 02-09-2017 05:48 PM                        Since this thing specifically says Cinemascope at the start, is it really? It seems to me that 2.55 isn't actually Cinemascope, or is that just one of those words that means whatever they say it means, no more and no less.  |  IP: Logged Mark Ogden Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 943 From: Little Falls, N.J. Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-09-2017 06:49 PM                     The original mag-striped (no optical track) Cinemascope was 2.55.  |  IP: Logged Bill Brandenstein Master Film Handler Posts: 413 From: Santa Clarita, CA Registered: Jul 2013 posted 02-16-2017 08:12 PM                     Saw it last night with my bride. A lot to like, but also felt the choreography and a few portions of the script left things to be desired. Good, but overrated. Our presentation (dual-port Sony, filters off) was just not crisp at all. Bad production? Projector miscalibration? I'm assuming it's the theater's fault, as was the crappy screen alignment so the bottom edge of the picture smiled menacingly at us.  |  IP: Logged Sascha F. Roll Expert Film Handler Posts: 140 From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany Registered: Sep 2015 posted 02-16-2017 08:15 PM                     The 2k DCP of LaLaLand ist VERY soft, I'd say that 50% of all shots are more or less out of focus. Color / Contrast ist great though.  |  IP: Logged Connor Wilson Expert Film Handler Posts: 190 From: Sterling, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2011 posted 02-17-2017 03:16 PM                     The cinematography of La La Land was supposed to imitate the CinemaScope musicals of the 1950s, so a soft picture was most likely an aesthetic choice. The second time I saw La La Land was with my sister at the AMC Bay Terrace 6, which had a renovation about a year ago that couldn't save its poor presentation standards. You can complain about their reluctance to properly mask a film (I don't expect La La Land getting fully masked for being 2.55:1) and have the picture give us a menacing grin (due to the screen being curved at the edges), but I was insulted by the 3D lenses being left on for this film. Really ruins the massive contrast this film offered.  |  IP: Logged Bill Brandenstein Master Film Handler Posts: 413 From: Santa Clarita, CA Registered: Jul 2013 posted 02-17-2017 03:59 PM                     Compare Hidden Figures, also shot on Kodak film, also in 2K: night and day. It had a lovely look to it but was extremely crisp in a natural-looking way. La La might as well have been 720P. Being a date day, my date and I also went to the Fathom/TCM screening of "An Affair to Remember." Some weird gamma issues with that, but let me tell you, if La La Land wanted to look like a 50s movie, they needed some grain. "Affair" had plenty but even in that state was a pleasure to see on a big screen for the first time. And it didn't look soft in focus. Yes, the La La Land contrast was really good, even on that crazy Sony projector. Or shall I say, well-utilized? That part was a "win."  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.