Brilliant and touching

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

3/3 Damien Chazelle films for me. Tap dancing and jazz at its finest. The youngest director to win an Academy Award for "La La Land" and first discovered by most with his sophomore film, "Whiplash", this is his debut from when he was still attending Harvard University. This reminds me considerably of John Carney's "Once". A heartfelt, character driven, low budget musical that has the inklings of a true artist about to inevitably succeed in the mainstream, refining their craft slowly but surely. It should be appreciated even more for this, for their later award winning masterpieces will be far more influenced by Hollywood. Nothing much happens, but that is perfectly fine- because it is focused on the exceptional score and soundtrack. Cherish it.

Damien Chazelle's first feature length film isn't an easy one to dissect. Filmed like an early John Cassavetes' movie and told with little to no dialogue at all, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is much more so an exploration into how difficult it is to maintain love than it is a musical like Chazelle's latest feature, La La Land. But it's Chazelle's grasp on the ups and down's of relationships that make this yet another interesting directorial effort from him. All 3 of his films to this point have involved Jazz, and all 3 of them have also dealt with characters trying to balance their love life with pursuing their Jazz related dreams. 'Guy and Madeline' isn't as intense as Whiplash nor as viscerally memorable as La La Land, but for a first- time feature, it definitely impresses. An occasional dance number, unique camera movement, and long unedited takes make for quite the viewing experience. Again, there's little dialogue, so I can't say I was as invested in the characters as I should have been, but sometimes scenes are more powerful when less is said (see: the final scene). If anything, this was an interesting watch considering all we know about Chazelle's career up to this point.6.7/10

I'll start with full disclosure: this review is based on the first 30 minutes of this movie, because that's as much time as I was willing to waste on it. When the girl started singing--not quite in tune--I gave up.This movie is all about being pretentious--the filmmakers, not the characters. The jerky hand-held camera work is just trying to be cool; it does nothing for the film. The same goes for the lack of dialog, the random dance numbers (filmed so you can't see the dancers' feet), the disconnected storytelling, the grainy black-and-white look, and of course the ultimate I'm-so-hip posing of hiring an ultra-cheap symphony orchestra to provide a score. ("Look at me! I've heard of Bratislava! I'm so much better than all you people who think Boston musicians are just fine!) Save your money. Or go see the latest Chipmunks movie; at least that's schlock with a plot.

I thought the conceit of the film was to juxtapose a micro budget with a lush symphonic score and Godardish realism with tap dance numbers, but that never really happens. The musical numbers are few and far between, and the only real one (Boy in the Park) doesn't come until 3/4 of the way into the film.If you establish a premise in a film (characters break into song to express their feelings), you must be true to it, not afraid of it. It felt like the filmmaker couldn't decide whether to go all the way - I wish he had. It would've made for a far more watchable film. What we get is a film that is unsatisfying for those watching for the fantasy and for those watching for the realism.