User Reviews

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.

Who would've thought director Damien Chazelle, following his low-key, festival-success with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, would go on to be something of a hot commodity in the film world just five years later with the release of his sophomore effort Whiplash, meriting several Oscar nominations and wins and a whirlwind of positive buzz? To say Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is a different film from Whiplash is an understatement. While I obviously did not go into this film expecting to see a film similar in style or quality to Whiplash, judging simply by the plot and the poster, I think it's worth noting that I'm not particularly sure both of these films exist in the same universe together. I highly doubt there's anything resembling a Terence Fletcher in the whimsical world of Guy and Madeline.

The film takes place in Boston, centering on the titular characters (Jason Palmer and Desiree Garcia, respectively), who've been dating for about three months. Guy is a jazz trumpeter, obtaining whatever work he can get in jazz clubs or underground subways, just to make end's meet, and Madeline is an introverted soul who can't seem to find any kind of work. The immediate shock of meeting one another and falling in love has faded for both of them, to say the least, as Guy is now pursuing the likes of Elena (Sandha Khin), a more adventurous soul with a more outgoing personality. This leaves Madeline out tremendously, to which she responds by trying to get her own life on track with a new boyfriend whilst Guy continues to play his nightclubs and make a living as a jazz musician.

Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is like a cross between contemporary mumblecore filmmaking and the classic, Hollywood musicals of the 1950's, which featured enough whimsy and warmth for an entire franchise. Chazelle employs the directorial style of shooting close to the subjects, using extreme close ups or traditional close ups in order to presumably conjure intimacy within its subjects. Combine this with the grainy black and white cinematography and method of shooting and you have a film that's more enjoyable as an exercise in style than anything else. The aforementioned qualities that seem to be extracted from 1950's Hollywood musicals, however, poses a nice change in pace for the mumblecore style, rather than the traditional band of twentysomethings talking and rambling about their existence and their lives in closed, tight-knit settings like lofts and apartments.

It seems whenever the genre of mumblecore - and by "mumblecore," I mean the cinematic subgenre/style of shooting with lower budgets, low-quality cameras, amateur actors, and an emphasis on naturalistic writing and acting, traditionally by way of improvisation - decides to increase its playing field by pursuing genres such as musicals and horror films that they're mostly enjoyable as stylistic exercises and little else. Mumblecore is such a difficult subject to explain, and, more often, recommend, because its ability to be likable starts and ends with the focus it puts on its characters and the qualities of their personalities. If you have a film of the genre with lackluster characters that don't do much else other than lackadaisically converse and don't exchange anything of noteworthy insight or ideas, than you have a film that's fairly stagnant in its likability.

That's more or less what happens with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench; the actors here are uniformly capable and Chazelle's close ups along with self-executed cinematography make for a film that takes on a new life all its own in terms of look, feel, and mood. However, in the process, there's little to no character or philosophical development for the film's titular characters, leaving them lost in the shuffle while the environment and the film's own atmosphere engulf them entirely. What we have here, again, is another mumblecore film that is much more intriguing to speak about and discuss rather than actually view.

Starring: Jordan Palmer, Desiree Garcia, and Sandha Khin. Directed by: Damien Chazelle.

I definitely sought this out because of a particular reason- Damian Chazelle and Whiplash. Whiplash is an amazing film, intense, full of passion, and so I wanted to see his debut. It's a solid debut, if unremarkable and sort of dull at times. It's very natural and there's really nothing that would indicate the strong intensity in Whiplash. The only similarities are really that instruments and music are at the core (just like, also, the film he co-wrote grand Piano). Yeah, I could see many not liking this at all or liking Whiplash, or even, liking this or not Whiplash because both are so different in style so there's no telling which way the passion will go. I recommend it slightly, but it's not totally recommended and not a home run by any means

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 debut feels somewhere between a Jim Jarmusch indie and an Astaire-Roger musical. Here's a filmmaker with a deep love of the movie musical trying to make it work on a shoestring budget. The musical genre begs for rich production, so Chazelle tries to circumvent it with a nontraditional script; the central relationship is told in undefined fragments and almost exclusively in the less-sexy aftermath of their love. The musical elements are instead used as flourishes - sometimes daydreams, sometimes as breaks from the story. It's a mess, but one with its charms.

Chazelle's directorial strength is in detail shots and closeups that evoke a tenderness and the vulnerability of the characters. The film excels in these little character moments far more than it does in telling a complete story. Despite Chazelle's decision not to build the characters from the ground up, every so often he strikes a deeply familiar chord with just a few well-executed shots that it becomes possible to connect to Guy, Madeline and Elena's emotions.

The centerpiece of the film though is Justin Hurwitz's score, which feels timeless yet not overly cliche and predictable. The quality of the music, including what was presumably Jason Palmer's (Guy) own trumpet playing, puts the score in a class that the movie's visual quality can't keep up with to the point that you might assume Chazelle just purchased or borrowed professional music.

It's always nice to see how a now-esteemed director pulled together a project with minimal resources. Chazelle wanted to tell a love story that married jazz and musicals and he finds a way to do it, even if the finished project is rough around the edges and a little defiant of mainstream tastes.

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

It seems unfair to review this film for the simple reason that it didn't start as a work that was looking for theatrical distribution; like Scorsese before him with Who's That Knocking at my Door, Damien Chazelle made Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench as a student film, and probably due to some encouragement submitted it to some festivals and got in, most notably to Tribeca and AFI.

I have to wonder if he was surprised by that since, frankly, this movie is a mess. However this is also the kind of mess that is filled with passion, and a few truly wonderful scenes, so it's hard to really evaluate it unless not even so much if I put on my critics hat but if I put on my film professor hat; writing a review of this is akin to writing down marks on a paper and submitting a letter grade (in this case it would be near a B- or C+).

The movie doesn't lack heart and a somewhat unique way of taking a genre film, for Chazelle the musical in his first three outings is all (I feel like there's sort of a career trajectory with Tarantino, whether unintentional or not, and one can see this in a more forgiving light as like Chazelle's My Best Friend's Birthday - clearly enough elements here will work there way into La La Land as that film had parts that would be retrofitted for True Romance).

This is shot in 16mm at a time when digital movie-making is at least seemingly much simpler. He goes back into the realm of super-duper cinema verite, as he operates the camera himself and so much of the film feels improvised that I'm nearly surprised there's a script credit. Moments just happen here, like when Madeline (or is it the other woman, Elena) gets asked by a stranger to buy some flowers, or another stranger, some old cop, keeps pestering here like a borderline (or just) cat-caller and she comes up to his place for no reason AT ALL.

There is barely a story here. We don't know why Guy and Madeline are together, and often they're seen apart in this story. As with everything else here, things just happen without much concern for any development or character arcs or things that go into the *story* of the film. We do see them sort of argue at one point - she is woken up early one morning as he's practicing, he asks her to hear something he's written, she's walked out of the room back into bed, he annoys her with playing right up to her ear, and... why is this happening? What did they do to grow apart?

It's basically like in Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench Chazelle got so much right, or at least was daring in experimenting in a blend of Cassavetes-Shadows-era improvisational filmmaking with his un-abiding love of musicals (credit must also be due to Justin Hurwitz as composer and lyricist, damn is he good), that he either forgot or intentionally neglected the things that keep us (or at least could keep me) engaged past the various shots of characters walking around a city or playing alone in a room or at a party, like giving us likable people or anything that relates back to a start and end for these people. Compared to this, Shadows is chock-full of incident.

So it it does fail or at least falter when it comes to basic storytelling and giving us interesting characters, I do appreciate and love when it breaks out into its musical numbers; if this had been a short film with Madeline singing "Boy in the Park" and doing a dance number, I would say it's great, and you can check that one section on Youtube currently and see what I mean. This is overall so tedious and at the same time fascinating, and, again, I almost feel bad giving it the rating and review I am. Artists like Chazelle need to be encouraged when they're starting out, and clearly the festival run and (small) release by Film Movement did just that. So as a start to what now seems to be one of the strongest careers for a young filmmaker in this industry, more power to him. But there IS a reason we don't return to watch most student films, you know?

There are so many similarities between this movie and the later La La Land: the perils of a relationship during times of rapid changing professional fortunes, the overall narrative tones, and the music score.

It is a fundamental movie to start the arc of Chazelle creativity, and while the obvious budgetary constraints are interfering with the narrative, there are many great shots and great Music.

Definitely recommended if watching movie is for you not exclusively entertainment but also part of an investigation of the true quality of the Art: expressing something fresh that can only be conveyed by potion pictures.

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.

Damien Chazelle's feature film debut may not hold a candle to his subsequent films but it does showcase many of the themes & trademarks that he would go on to refine & perfect in his later works, especially the role of music in driving his narratives and his penchant for talented & ambitious protagonists. Not a memorable start by any means but a start nonetheless. And the creative leaps he's made since this film only speaks of his quick grasp & understanding of the filmmaking medium.

The defamation and exposure of Chazelle's dirty little secrets continues. This film is another rip off of Jacques Demy's work. He rips off the restaurant dance sequences straight from Young Girls of Rochefort. It's also another two character romance story that rips exactly off of Umbrellas of Cherbourg. Why is this guy allowed to make three of the same movies about the same message: obsession with art and ambition, while making the same three remakes that rip off of a true artist? Picasso truly has ruined art. This is embarrassing how this guy has manipulated everyone into thinking he is some original genius, but he is just as much of a hack as Tarantino.

I give this film a fat 0/10.

After loving both Whiplash and La La Land more than just about any movie that came out in the respective years they were released, I looked through Chazelle's filmography, keen to watch more. First Man was a pretty good follow-up, but finding another music-related film, that was apparently a musical? And had great reviews? I tried to keep my expectations tempered because of the tiny budget and the fact that it was something of a student film, but even then... finally getting around to this proved disappointing.

There's technically a story here about young people falling in and out and then maybe in love again, but it's weak, and the characters fail to make an impression. I love his other movies because Chazelle has an uncanny ability to make you understand the passion the characters feel towards whatever they're doing. Here, I didn't get that. The acting didn't seem awful, and neither was the cinematography or music... it's just that none of it elevated a mostly non-existent story, and I neither cared nor really understood what was going on.

For something haphazard and with a tiny budget, it's not awful. If it were a student film, it'd probably get a decent mark. But now that he's made such a name for himself, I think it's going to be difficult for new viewers to approach this movie and find it genuinely enjoyable. I can say this though: it's made me appreciate his other films all the more, because the improvement present from this to Whiplash and La La Land is staggering.

I could only suggest this movie to diehard fans, and even then, not too enthusiastically. Gives you a good idea of where Chazelle started, and the themes of his later films are sort of present here, which is neat- they're just less compelling and not as effectively explored.

It isn't very often that a film delves into the art of conversation. The impetuous passion and exuberance to depict the romantic angle of flawed behavior was succinctly illustrated in this movie! The film "Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench" accentuates the bittersweet reality between the visceral portrayal of who we are, as opposed to the idealistic image on how we perceive ourselves. A low budget, film such as "Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench" dwells on people living on a struggling budget in New York City, and how Jazz, Dancing, and Conversations about stuff, influence the lives of two very impressionable people. So frequently, we as a movie audience are barraged with high cost sensationalism and fusillades of fire explosions to mesmerize our sense of immediate gratification. "Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench" ruminates the human element to exact people's insecurities, and purport those insecurities as being an aspect of comedic relief to the movie audience! I felt that the unpolished demeanor to this film left an indelible mark of positive energy for the artistically imbued! The acting, direction and overall production of this movie underlined the real purpose for making a film. This purpose being that "Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench" evoked a humanism that many discerning critics deem as necessary to expand the dynamic of innovative movie making. I highly tout this independent diamond in the rough as being a mandatory précis in the paradigm of film making. See this movie when you are in the mood to feel like a human being, and nothing else! I give it a faulted five stars! I think you'll know what I am talking about after you see this movie!

It gives me great hope as a director to know that Damien Chazelle went from ... This... To an amazing film like La La Land in only 7 years. An impressive improvement. The music for this film was definitely the strong point, with some numbers working well. But the attempt at the realistic dialogue was unfortunately ruined by the actors. This film felt like it was trying so hard to be so unique, yet it seemed like the movie had confidence issues.

I like this film because it is almost an omage to "Shadows" - a Film by John Cassavetes done in 1959, exactly 50 years ago. But no matter how it looks simmilar with "Shadows" because of improvised dialogue (read: free dialogue on previously "fixed" concept), and cinema-verite style in camera-work, there is a definite proof that director knows how to build a solid scene out of a few fragments, how to direct and build up certain degree of emotion without going into cliche, and how to deal with the details. It is also important to notice how Damian Chazelle develops as a director, starting with "author" low budget film like this, than steps into mainstream with more ariculate Whiplash, going to mature on artistic LaLaLand and finaly nails into big budget with First Man, all in 9 years. Building his craft on the foundations and legacy of the old master directors, he still has his vivid "own" approach to the genre, quality that we could find in Bryan De Palma, Martin Scorcesse, Tim Burton, Cohen Brothers and the similar "big timers". This movie is not a materpiece, but it carries a mark of a man with the vision. Film has it's "microcosmos", it's tone, it's look, things that are not easy to achieve. I might be subjective, but 10 stars.

This is a sweet film. I was very impressed with the film editing because the film is beautifully set to a jazz soundtrack motivated by the narrative since the male protagonist ("Guy" of the title) is a jazz trumpet player. The film not only depicts the romance of the leads (Guy and Madeline), but also the city in which they live. I really enjoyed the beautiful city shots, both in Boston and New York. The soundtrack is great - especially the jazz, including that played by Guy, but not only. The film is full of references to French post-war films so it's added fun to watch for the expert as well. The director did a lot with the camera, so it works well that the film is rather sparse in dialog. The actors' faces say everything. The lead performers, in particular, were outstanding: their faces are extraordinarily expressive. The moments when the actors break out in song and dance were just pure fun.

Shot in black and white on a hand-held 35 mm DXL Supreme MP, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench is a period piece without a period, a beautiful glimpse into a world without beauty, a heart-rending portrayal of the heartless. The film swings (no pun intended :)!!) between tortured silences and undistilled brassy mirth, with a fantastic debut performance from trumpeter and lead man Jason Palmer.

Chazelle's entrance onto the scene is nothing short of momentous, an omen of good things to come in a struggling industry. He brings art and subtlety back to a genre that has recent been diluted by big Oscar grabs (Chicago, Dreamgirls, Cadillac Records) and will be sure to make an impression at Tribeca.

This film would be a perfect ten, were it not for Bernard Chazelle's somewhat tepid makeout scene. Go for it, man! When else will you find yourself with a beautiful and eager girl half your age ... on camera?! Other than this one shortcoming, which will be sure to draw a few tsk-tsks from the monocled section at Tribeca, the film is FLAWLESS.

Bravo.

Not a review, just wanted to saw that the user lalalandsucks writes the most hateful, poorly informed garbage I have ever had the misfortune of reading on this website.

Lalalandsucks shows that watching 3 YouTube videos about filmmaking and looking up the Wikipedia page of umbrellas of Cherbourg does not make you a competent film critic

Please delete your account.

Guy and Madeline was quite good and had some interesting moments , although I wouldn't be in a rush to watch it again.

Finally here I am, after years of not finding it anywhere. Obviously I already knew all the songs by heart. Understandably so, this is one of those cases where the score is a thousand times better than the image, already (!) pretty good. The way in which Damien seems to create alternate worlds where life and romance and music and jazz and everything becomes one amazes me everyday, and that's what makes me so close to him, as I myself am part of that world the moment I watch or listen (spoiler: everyday) anything done by the golden duo. Everything he touches is magic. What I love most about this is seeing the progress that he has done in such few years, how his central artistic idea never died and then found a new life and the deserved success in 2016. The inspiration this gives me goes beyond words. The inspiration Damien has given me in all these years is unexplainable.