kevintporter’s review published on Letterboxd:
Here's a critical defense of La La Land I remember often; A good amount of people criticized putting Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling in the center of the movie, as they have less than stellar singing voices. They can carry a tune, sure! But when it comes a lavish Hollywood musical why would you settle for tune-carriers rather than folks with PIPES?
The most frequent rebuttal went something along the lines of: "I think that was the point! Chazelle wanted to cast every-people that the audience could relate to rather than inaccessible Broadway superstars. They're REAL people. This is a GROUNDED musical, so their voices are grounded too"
So in my head the last 5 years "The La La Land Defense" is when someone highlights something they didn't like about a movie and the defense is that the element is actually SUPPOSED to be lacking, that the thing that is bad in the movie is something the director intended to be bad. Maybe it should be called something else.
All this to say the discourse about Resurrections is rife with La La Land Defense. In the safe space of letterboxd dot com we can admit to ourselves that this movie looked foul and the action was more than sub-par. And to that point I've read more than one take outlining how subversive and beautiful it is that Lana refused to give audiences satisfying action sequences, instead highlighting the emotionality of the story. Also read how, in contrast to the original trilogy's gorgeous noir film grain, the garish digital gloss of Resurrections is actually a nod to Instagram and the over-filtered reality we all live in now. I mean, maybe gang! It's nice to be so generous!
It wasn't NOT interesting, some good ideas in there right? But maybe give those truly compelling ideas a crumb of aesthetic. Maybe I'm stupid. Yuh oh! Two and a half stars!