Movie Review: La La Land

     People are still talking about "La La Land".  If you think it's a great movie, YOU'RE in la la land (as the expression goes).  To me, it's a poor film.  
     Never in the history of Hollywood Musicals has one been made where the leading lady and leading man can neither sing nor dance... until now.  Why were those actors hired?  Not enough talent available?  Tune in to "So You Think You Can Dance", and you'll see plenty of ability--even tap dancers.  
     The advertisements for the film showcased the only three toe-tapping scenes.  The (slow-moving/depressing) film, "The Artist" did the same thing--to lure audiences.  In fact, the first three scenes are the ONLY ones that resemble a musical: random singing, characters burst into dance, time stands still.  After that, the movie drags.
     Speaking of which, there are only two dance scenes with the main characters.  The first involves them merely dragging their shoes on the ground--not really dancing at all.  That had the most potential for chemistry.  The second scene had them waltzing at a science museum, where they performed the steps poorly.  Didn't they have any choreographers?
     Next, musicals have Happy Endings.  Only operas might have tragedy.  This film alludes to "Casablanca", where the boy doesn't end up with the girl.  But, in that film, the boy and girl have closure.  It's also done so that the "right thing" can happen for the girl.  In this film, there is no closure.  In fact, the entire build-up of chemistry/suspense is wasted because the two main characters don't really become a couple.  What kind of story-telling is that?  In the last scene, they don't even speak to each other.  That's incredible!
     It's also ridiculous because it seems to encourage modern audiences (and Millennials) to continue their degeneration of manners.  The man is solely responsible for the woman becoming a success in her career.  If it wasn't for him (driving a great distance, tracking her down without an address, and pushing her to apply), she wouldn't've responded to her audition.  Furthermore, if he hadn't compromised his integrity to play with a modern jazz group (instead of classic jazz), she wouldn't've had income.  That "shelter" allowed her to create the script for her "one-night-only/one-person play", which got her noticed by a talent scout.  
     Of course, as soon as her career takes off, she forgets about the man--despite agreeing to keep in touch.  Typical.  Meanwhile, she's been on the receiving end of being ignored (by job interviewers) and knows that it's not nice.  Such a lack of gratitude!  The film's writers show us that she's forgetful, self-absorbed, and doesn't respect her commitments to others: ignoring messages, forgetting appointments, double-booking herself, ditching her job, acting snarky to the man, and being in "a daze" while driving.  
     So, when the film is ending, and she sees the man whom she's ignored (she started another life with another man), she makes eye contact... and that's it.  She turns and leaves him.  Not even a hug.  Not even a word of thanks.  Keeps him out of her life.
     What king of movie is this?  Is it telling people what NOT to do?  Meanwhile, the man still seems to be single and has named his nightclub after the woman (who stole his heart).  Considering this, there doesn't seem to be much romance in the film.  The "romantic parts" are flat, and the even the fight/squabble is brief ("going up in a cloud of smoke").  
     People with more talent should've been hired--even to support the plot.  Had they kept the girl's roommates (seen only in the second & third scenes), it might've enriched the storyline.  Had the man had a friend in his life, that would've helped.  The film lacks sparkle.