Fundamental problems with conflict and story logic. Music is hit or miss. Tons of motion blur.

Rating: 2/10 (12 December 2016)

In Whiplash, Chazelle's first feature, excellent cinematography, editing, music and design combined with great acting and gripping scenes. However, it was marred by some serious disconnects with realism while purporting to be essentially realistic: some of the character psychologies and story logic were stretched too thin. Ultimately, one could enjoy the acting and the edit/shot rhythms, and forgive the flaws.
Those same flaws from his first picture absolutely devastate La La Land, and they aren't counterbalanced by much more than two very good set pieces (Gosling and Stone's number while he walks her to her car, and Stone's audition number).
There is not an interesting conflict in a scene for the first ninety minutes of this movie. Much of the early tension is based on two good-looking 'characters' who "don't like each other", and on them coincidentally running into each other a few times. ALL of the later conflict between the two main characters hinges on conveniently concocted scene logic that boils down to fighting and breaking up instead of simple solutions like a) sending a text or b) getting out of a work thing or c) saying "I'll see you in a few months". The logic flaws and wholly unearned story points are so bad that it's not really a story; it's more of a unpolished frame to hang a bunch of set pieces on. It intends to be a string of pearls.
But when half of those set pieces are mediocre, particularly the opening number, one is left with uncomfortable waits between the good parts: the story and characters are nothing, and half of the scenes neither deepen the story nor wholly delight. It makes you aware of your butt on the chair in the theater.
Maybe worst of all is this movie's attempt to do with motion blur what Easy Rider did with lens flares. The difference is that 'avoid lens flares' was just a rule about 'professional' cinematography that was broken by a few rebels in the right movie for that. Motion blur is a fairly upsetting thing to look at, let alone on a big screen for shots that last two or three seconds, repeated seven or eight times in the movie. One of them is quite effective: up to some palm trees, 180 degree twist, and back down to the leads as they walk around a fountain. And there are some simple whip pans that are too fast to be upsetting. But this leaves multiple medium-speed motion blur pans, and the movie loses more than it could gain, multiple times, by breaking this rule. (If you feel that there is no 'rule' that says not to do long motion-blur shots when they don't add anything, I'll grant you your point, and counter by saying that the movie looks hideous and nauseating during those shots)