Change Your Image
FoxGarrison
Reviews
The American (2010)
What A Surprise!
This is such a great movie! I love it to death. It's too bad that it was only of such a short duration, but now that I think of it, it IS perfectly balanced.
Some may find the pacing slow-moving, yet the movie was purposely made that way in an effort to illustrate the main character's detailed preoccupations. I found the pacing satisfactory (old style).
The movie is just a breath of fresh air. I can't say nothing more appropriate than to say that the movie is perfect as is without any modifications from the filmmakers.
Just wonderful!
Catfish (2010)
Utter Crap
It is my opinion that this awful crap-fest belongs on a dung-heap. What were the (ahem) filmmakers thinking? Honestly, really.
First of all, this is not a thriller at all. It is not suspenseful. It started out interesting but lost me after the deceptive reveal. Not the storyline's deceptive reveal--the marketing dept.'s deceptive reveal. But by that time, it's too late. I mean, come on, disguising this movie as a thriller was the first sin.
Secondly, once I was there, at the point where I knew it was too late, I was stuck watching a real bore of a documentary about real people with really boring lives. Okay, so the catfish story was pretty cool, but for crying out loud, I had to wait until the end of the movie to get the story? And...it was the only redeeming quality of the movie. Other than that, it was an otherwise absolute snorer.
Finally, this movie should be up there with some of the other bad movies on this site, including: Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2, Manos: The Hands of Fate, and Daniel - Der Zauberer. Although, this will probably never happen...not so long as there is vested interest in promoting this movie as a thriller and not as what it really is: a lame excuse for a documentary.
Mad Men (2007)
Advertisers Love This Show, Hence All The Awards
Let me make one thing perfectly clear--Mad Men is not The Sopranos. Now, with that out of the way, I think I can give an honest opinion about this overrated show. Yes, it's overrated, and it's overly hyped as well.
When Mad Men first came out, I read the reviews that stated the show was the next best thing to The Sopranos. After watching Season 1 and half of Season 2, I think not. Don't get me wrong, I'll give proper credit to where credit is due. Mad Men is an extremely colorful take of the Camelot years of the sixties, when the Kennedys were in power and The Rat Pack was conquering Las Vegas. The show is colorful, full of wonderful women to look at, gorgeous fashion styles, glossy cars, and lots of booze and smoking. Oh, and there are lots of affairs amongst the many beautiful characters.
But, that's not what the bother is.
Mad Men suffers from a lack of story, loss of basic thematic elements and mediocre plotting beats. In a word: dull. Some may argue that what is perceived as dull may just be the result of the senses' overexposure to romantic comedies and action flicks. This is not true. One can sit through The Sopranos, yet still feel the plot going forward.
This brings me to Mad Men's comparison to The Sopranos. The key protagonist to Mad Men, Don Draper, has a secret, is torn inside and is trying his best to keep the awkward dealings in his life together. Unfortunately, not only is the character fairly drab, but also the actor lacks the capability to express any type of emotion beyond a sneer or constipated grimace. His face can't seem to shape to articulate sadness, despair, anger or fury. His actions are even worse. It doesn't matter if the scene involves drama, romance or comedy, he just acts the same way in every scene without deviation.
James Gandolfini, who played Tony Soprano, however, has a vast range of twitches in his repertoire that he can express cruelty and love all with one glance. He can be subtle or in-your-face just by the way he squints his eyes.
By the same token, The Sopranos had a complex set of characters with their own quirks and their own historical story lines. It's only after vigilant research do we discover the intricate relationships between them all and their effect on subplots carefully added seasons prior by the writers. Also, The Sopranos had varying degrees of atmospheres, moods and weather patterns. Mad Men seems to miss out on all this.
Mad Men also lacks basic storytelling techniques. Regardless of all the rave reviews and awards being piled on this show, which is probably because of all the SPP (Strategic Product Placements), the show goes nowhere. Subplots begin, but never really resolve to much of anything. I think the advertisers love Mad Men because of all the notable mentions they receive throughout the show. Guess who pays for the awards shows? You got it, advertisers.
And finally, there is one more thing that needs to be said. Not to give away any storyline, but, when a parent dies, the reaction of an offspring character should be what they're feeling. It's not a monologue, discussing what they should be feeling. Even if the parent is unloved, the child should at least, for the sake of those observing their actions, show some sort of emotion of some kind—even an acknowledgment would suffice. It is not walking into the boss's office telling, and him that he didn't know how he should feel. I get better satisfaction watching Bugs Bunny cartoons than watching elementary school actors deliver empty lines from undeveloped scripts.
The Last Song (2010)
Girl meets boy. Girl becomes woman.
This is the kind of movie you would show someone from whom you wanted to extract information. To whom you wanted to torture with the undeniable goal of killing them slowly. In a nutshell, this is the kind of movie the Syrian government is looking to utilize for their rendition victims.
It is that painful.
The story is as thin as a thread. The characters are like blank pieces of paper, which if you stared at long enough have more character than the actors in this movie. God, even the script was bad. The dialogue was stilted, the characters never really finish their sentences and shall I go on? It was even as slow as watching a court case run through the justice system.
By the end of the movie I just wanted to drive a hole through my skull in an effort to erase the memory of that night.
Breaking Bad (2008)
Hot Show, Hot Cast
This is a great show. First of all the look of the show is just absolutely outstanding. It has this greenish-yellow tint to it that makes the desert scenes all the more gritty and hot. You can really feel the heat from those scenes. The acting is without question movie-quality. In fact, the whole show has this movie feel that can only be described as a mini-movie for TV (not a TV movie though). I love the fact the show perpetuates drama in the most ordinary circumstances. Only The Sopranos came close to the balance that Breaking Bad has with its story lines. Altogether, Breaking Bad is the next greatest thing to Meth!
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
You could hear crickets in the audience
Boy, what a sleeper this was. Ron Howard, Opie, along with fellow Hollywoodonian, Tom Hanks have sunken to a new low of innate boredom. I couldn't have thought it possible that even I, someone who really takes movies with a grain of salt, would walk out of a movie. And that is what I did with this one. It wasn't so much the fact that the movie didn't resemble the book--on the contrary. The movie stayed too close to the book. This in effect sapped out whatever life the movie could have had since it didn't have any direction whatsoever.
I'm really disappointed by the fact that this could have been a summer must-see-movie, something along the lines of National Treasure or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Instead it was an absolute mess. I really don't see it making past 3 weeks before the announcement of it going straight to DVD in a few months.
Anyway, about an hour into the movie, I walked out, got my money back and went and did something more creative...went home to pop in National Treasure into my DVD player.
Chicago (2002)
Save the dime and go dine.
I'm not a fan of the musical genre per se, however I do have my moments when I'm swept away by the gosh-darn song and dance so much so that I actually do fancy it now and again. Moulin Rouge did that for me with the extravagant costumes, enchanting melodies and the irresistible story. Chicago unfortunately did not. There are a number of reasons for this, but overall I thought the movie did not have a good story.
Now there are a number of good things with this movie I would like to highlight to let you know that I'm not completely negative about it all. The music for one is very period and appropriate for the era. Much like today, the music back then was a reflection of the general mood of the time. The costumes were fairly accurate and really enhanced the feel for the film. Although I did not agree with the Academy's lavish outpouring of trophies, I did agree with the award for Cinematography-this is rightly deserved.
This film does have its problems. Many of Chicago's flaws lie in the filmmaker's presumptions that all potential viewers of the movie are abase. Drawing a comparison with Moulin Rouge seems fitting since both are somewhat period and both are done with a fantasy type of theme. In Moulin Rouge the suggestion of sex went a long way even though the actual act was never seen. In Chicago much of the mystery is dispelled by the blatant act. This is a minor issue, but for it to not have an R' rating then it would be more than justifiable to leave the bedroom scenes out on the cutting floor-we're talking about a musical and not Fight Club.
Contrary to critics' opinion though I believe the singing, dancing and acting was average and not award-winning. Keeping in mind the film being a musical and comparing it to other musicals where Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland reigned in the field, the protagonists in this movie were mediocre at best average.
Finally, if I had to rate this I would give it a 4/10 for the great-looking ending. There was no excuse why this feature could not have operated within the bounds of morality to make it an enjoyable family film instead of being less than sub-par for a hollywood flick.
Fight Club (1999)
You are not to talk about Fight Club.
Imagine a year when the Sopranos were born, when a man goes through a rebirth in American Beauty, when Magnolia is more than just a flower-1999-the year Fight Club was started.
I am driven to believe 1999 was a hallmark year for movies and Fight Club was no exception. Edward Norton and Brad Pitt star in a movie about a bunch of guys living the vida loca in underground street fighting. At first glance the movie could be passed off as mere tripe hadn't you looked closer.
It's taken me a long time to figure out what to write for Fight Club. I mean it isn't everyday a movie comes out and changes who you are and makes you believe that there is more to life then just the breath away from death that we are. Indeed, I don't know how to explain it better than to say Fight Club makes you think about who you are and what your purpose in the world is irrespective of the fact that others around you are doing the same thing. In other words, it brings a sense of awe to life that it reduces you to the common gene pool we all came from at one point in history. Anyway, that is what I got out of it.
The film was shot with a gritty, green filter that renders everything aesthetically street-real. I can liken the filtering system to that of Hart's War. If you had seen Hart's War then you would know that it had a blue tinge that gave it a cold dark feel. In Fight Club the mood is more industrial and grimy, hence the filter. The film also features classic rebel costumes that are subdued by way of lighting. In fact much of the clothes are not out on display much like other movies since the clothes either have an unkempt look or are not being worn at all. This movie's costumes are definitely not the Grease type of clothing.
The sound is incredible, from sounds of fists hitting raw meat to blood splattering on the floor. This movie is not for the faint of heart. The sounds only enhance the realism of the fights in that if the fights aren't watched they can still be heard adequately to surmise the outcome.
The story is what makes this movie special. As I had mentioned, this movie came out in 1999, a time when the end of the world was at hand. I'd like to think though that 1999 was a time when movies really had something to say about the society we built for ourselves. The Sopranos did this by showing the world really was dependent on a sub-culture of humanity that tailored its businesses to human vices. American Beauty showed that our lives are a pink slip away from true living, true being. Magnolia's assault on society's morals are shattered by the film's often times relapse to parental affection. And what of Fight Club? A film that embraces the idea that there is a life if we lose all that we have to gain all that we can. Fight Club goes beyond simple movie making by showing us what we can achieve if we step out of ourselves-if we act on the thought-if we live by our dreams.
Casino (1995)
Who's got the action?
I watched this movie over the course of a weekend. I played it once. Played it twice. I played it a total of 4 times.
This movie is one of the most incredible movies ever to be seen by any stretch of the imagination. If you've ever been in a casino then this movie will really let you appreciate all that goes on in the background.
This is a story about love, obsession, greed, ruthlessness--most of all this story chronicles the life of a Casino manager, Sam 'Ace' Rothstein (Robert DeNiro), and his ascent to power in 1970s Las Vegas. Sharon Stone stars as Sam's debutante, Ginger McKenna and Joe Pesci is the crony, Nicky Santoro. Much of the story revolves around these three altogether very different characters. Unlike Goodfellas, where the crew was trying to get money, power and women, the crew in Casino already had it--they were trying to keep it from competitors, law-enforcement and most importantly--each other.
This movie is severely, SEVERELY underrated. There are moments when it would be safe to assume you'll know what will happen next but, other times (and I won't mention anything specific--except the corn field that is) you won't know what hit you.
The camera work is incredible, the story is fantastic and the characters are nothing less than superior.
Overall, Casino is not a movie for the faint-of-heart but, a story that is gripping, moving and deeply entrenched in mob tradition.
9/10 stars!
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Bore of a Ring
Before getting into the actual review it would be beneficial to know from what angle I'm coming from when giving this review. I've read some of Tolkien's work so I knew what to expect when watching this film. However, to make it fair I also don't remember much of what I read so I pretty much came in with an open mind hoping for the best not expecting the worse. Therefore, it came as a big surprise when I finally finished watching this movie that I was bored silly. There are a number of reasons for this and I'll go through them one by one so as to elaborate on my boredom.
*** SPOILERS MAY BE AHEAD ***
1) John Woo slow motion -- I don't mind a film having slow motion, in fact in certain scenes a sense of solidification of that scene takes place when slow motion occurs. It firms up the act in the viewer's mind when it is done in slow motion. In the "Lord of the Rings'" case it was a nuisance. Almost every other scene there tended to be a slow motion event that kinda got tiring to watch and would have brought John Woo to shame.
2) The story itself was one big quest -- Had the director modernized the places and people and given them names like Brad, Tom, Scott or John the movie would have then been viewed for what it truly was: a not so great story with nothing more than a few vignettes to keep us entertained until the anti-climatic conclusion.
3) The ending -- What ending? A movie is not a promo for another movie but a self-encompassing entity that can be viewed on its own without having to watch other ones. This movie just ends and basically tells us, "...oh, and by the way...see ya next year".
4) Gladiator type battle sequences -- Does every movie now have to emulate Gladiator in some form or another? Here are just a few, "The Mummy II", "Planet of the Apes", "Attack of the Clones" and now "Lord of the Rings". Each one emulated the opening battle in some form or another. In "Attack of the Clones" it was the arena battle.
5) Cheap special effects -- A special effect is good when it's not readily evident that it is a special effect. How many times has this film brought a close up on an actor only to find that the background was plainly a green screen? Take a look at "Cast Away" for incredible outdoor special effects. Half of the movie is not real and yet you believe it is filmed on a beach because it looks real.
6) Similarities with "Black Hawk Down" -- The movie had 9 guys on a quest to destroy a ring, yet on the way they defend themselves battling thousands and live! This is very similar to "Black Hawk Down" not only with a handful of men battling thousands of enemy fighters, but also with having some real accident-prone men constantly getting into trouble, whether it be dropping rings, tripping over themselves or just standing still and causing excessive amounts of noise.
7) "Merlin" was better -- A few years ago there was a movie called "Merlin" on TV that still shows up every once in a while on reruns. The general gist of the movie was somewhat similar to "Lord of the Rings" in that a quest had to take place for something extraordinary to happen. Unlike "Lord of the Rings" though, "Merlin" was interesting, well conceived, filled with surprises, and the effects were done quite nicely with a fraction of the money "Lord of the Rings" spent. Had "Merlin" not been made then such a dreadful comparison would not be owning.
8) "Jurassic Park" type of plot -- I think I've watched "Jurassic Park" 1, 2, and 3 oodles of times and I pretty much know how the story goes: people are stuck on a park full of dinosaurs, run, run, run, escape, run, run, run some more and then look ahead to the future. Similarly, "Lord of the Rings" has the same type of plot: stuck in a land full of monsters, run, run, run, escape, run, run, run some more and then look ahead to the future. Pretty original yet boring if you've seen it done before.
By the time the movie was nearly over I was thankful that one of the members of the fellowship was killed. Not only did it put the story out of its misery but also it finally brought a little human quality to the mystical story thread. Oh, did anybody notice how the arrows moved out of place up and down when he was moving about in his death scene? Kinda cheesy.
As the "Lord of the Rings" ended so shall I end this review... ...abruptly.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Bore of a Ring
Before getting into the actual review it would be beneficial to know from what angle I'm coming from when giving this review. I've read some of Tolkien's work so I knew what to expect when watching this film. However, to make it fair I also don't remember much of what I read so I pretty much came in with an open mind hoping for the best not expecting the worse. Therefore, it came as a big surprise when I finally finished watching this movie that I was bored silly. There are a number of reasons for this and I'll go through them one by one so as to elaborate on my boredom.
*** SPOILERS MAY BE AHEAD ***
1) John Woo slow motion -- I don't mind a film having slow motion, in fact in certain scenes a sense of solidification of that scene takes place when slow motion occurs. It firms up the act in the viewer's mind when it is done in slow motion. In the "Lord of the Rings'" case it was a nuisance. Almost every other scene there tended to be a slow motion event that kinda got tiring to watch and would have brought John Woo to shame.
2) The story itself was one big quest -- Had the director modernized the places and people and given them names like Brad, Tom, Scott or John the movie would have then been viewed for what it truly was: a not so great story with nothing more than a few vignettes to keep us entertained until the anti-climatic conclusion.
3) The ending -- What ending? A movie is not a promo for another movie but a self-encompassing entity that can be viewed on its own without having to watch other ones. This movie just ends and basically tells us, "...oh, and by the way...see ya next year".
4) Gladiator type battle sequences -- Does every movie now have to emulate Gladiator in some form or another? Here are just a few, "The Mummy II", "Planet of the Apes", "Attack of the Clones" and now "Lord of the Rings". Each one emulated the opening battle in some form or another. In "Attack of the Clones" it was the arena battle.
5) Cheap special effects -- A special effect is good when it's not readily evident that it is a special effect. How many times has this film brought a close up on an actor only to find that the background was plainly a green screen? Take a look at "Cast Away" for incredible outdoor special effects. Half of the movie is not real and yet you believe it is filmed on a beach because it looks real.
6) Similarities with "Black Hawk Down" -- The movie had 9 guys on a quest to destroy a ring, yet on the way they defend themselves battling thousands and live! This is very similar to "Black Hawk Down" not only with a handful of men battling thousands of enemy fighters, but also with having some real accident-prone men constantly getting into trouble, whether it be dropping rings, tripping over themselves or just standing still and causing excessive amounts of noise.
7) "Merlin" was better -- A few years ago there was a movie called "Merlin" on TV that still shows up every once in a while on reruns. The general gist of the movie was somewhat similar to "Lord of the Rings" in that a quest had to take place for something extraordinary to happen. Unlike "Lord of the Rings" though, "Merlin" was interesting, well conceived, filled with surprises, and the effects were done quite nicely with a fraction of the money "Lord of the Rings" spent. Had "Merlin" not been made then such a dreadful comparison would not be owning.
8) "Jurassic Park" type of plot -- I think I've watched "Jurassic Park" 1, 2, and 3 oodles of times and I pretty much know how the story goes: people are stuck on a park full of dinosaurs, run, run, run, escape, run, run, run some more and then look ahead to the future. Similarly, "Lord of the Rings" has the same type of plot: stuck in a land full of monsters, run, run, run, escape, run, run, run some more and then look ahead to the future. Pretty original yet boring if you've seen it done before.
By the time the movie was nearly over I was thankful that one of the members of the fellowship was killed. Not only did it put the story out of its misery but also it finally brought a little human quality to the mystical story thread. Oh, did anybody notice how the arrows moved out of place up and down when he was moving about in his death scene? Kinda cheesy.
As the "Lord of the Rings" ended so shall I end this review... ...abruptly.
Gosford Park (2001)
Park the movie, not worth the time...
Over the course of two days I successfully finished watching Gosford Park. The movie is not long however, it took me two days to finish watching it because I fell asleep a half-an-hour into the feature. I wanted to give it a fair chance so I ended up finishing it the next day.
This is an incredibly slow moving film. Unlike Hollywood's bang'em up features Gosford Park is much slower paced. However, the flaw with this film is not so much the slower pace but the actual story lines--there are too many and they are a mess trying to keep them straight. It eventually boils down to a case of he-said-she-said. Not pretty. The stories were not tight and there were too many plot holes to keep track.
What also takes away from the movie is the sound quality. Somehow all the voices don't sound clear which makes it difficult to understand what is happening with the rest of the movie of which was understood. I eventually had to turn on the captions on my DVD to follow along.
On the positive side though, the movie was true to the period and vastly authentic. The picture quality was good although there were times that some important elements of the film were hidden by poor lighting. Nevertheless, it was good to see a true picture of "rolling country sides".
My vote: 4/10
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Bad Movie, Worse
It wasn't until the end of the film when the credits rolled by that I realized Jerry Bruckheimer had produced this film. I still had the bad taste in my mouth from "Pearl Harbor". So imagine to my dismay when that bad taste came back to haunt me when watching "Black Hawk Down". I found this movie boring. There wasn't much character development and the plot was razor thin. I had heard so much about this film being "great", "best movie ever" and like statements--I just didn't find that being the case at all. It was boring and found the portrayal of the U.S. Troops comical at best. Has anyone counted how many times the soldiers tripped all over themselves? I have--they fell out of helicopters, they tripped while exiting a doorway, they tripped while running--if the Somalians didn't kill them they probably would have shot themselves anyway. The movie also lacked credibility which was much needed in this movie given the lack of storyline. Com'mon, 1000 Somalis dead and only 19 Americans lost in battle? Yeah, right--I too have a bridge to sell you! I don't think I ever routed for the bad guy in a movie, but in this movie I made an exception. I was hoping that all those actors would be put out of their misery! Whatever the movie was about it was lost in a muddle of disjointed action sequences that didn't leave much to think about when it was all over. 2/10
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
The Sorcerer's Groan...
I went into this movie having had the opportunity of listening to the soundtrack first. It was rather interesting to see if my expectations would be met. Afterall, when you listen to the music first it gives a bit of an insight to what the movie truly is about.
Well, I am happy to say that my expectations were met to the "T".
So, what were my expectations? Having read the titles to the tracks themselves revealed much of the story. I was disappointed by the fact the soundtrack gave away much of the surprise. Nevertheless, this is about the movie and not the soundtrack. What I expected was a quasi-story line with little plot. In fact the scenes were a bit disjointed with little or no relevance from one to the next. I felt it dragged quite a bit in the middle, but an attempt was being made to develop the characters. Nevertheless, it could have been done better.
A major part of the movie were the effects and given that it was 2001 when the movie was released I figured the effects would have been outstanding. Contrary to my thought though, the effects were extremely low-budget. We will look back on this movie in a few years time and think, "God, what was the studio thinking?" and then flip the "Lord of the Rings" DVD into the tray. Somehow, we were supposed to be made to believe that the outside environment was real and that there was not blue/green screen behind the actors. Especially during the match, it was painfully obvious that the actors were making an effort to make us believe they were flying even though the effects were bad.
**SPOILER WARNING**
I don't know but does every movie have to end with the good guy beating the pulp out of the bad guy? In this case laying of hands...gosh, I guess they figured the kids wouldn't appreciate blood soaking the walls as they duked it out for supremacy.
**SPOILER END**
Overall, the movie was a second-rate bore with little to appreciate and lots to squirm in your chair about. Save the money on the DVD and spend it on "Lord of the Rings".
Ocean's Eleven (2001)
How to knock over a Casino...
Imagine if you will an all-star cast. Now imagine that same cast doing what they do best--act. Ocean's 11 is not like that.
Don't get me wrong now, I didn't say they didn't know how to act--I said Ocean's 11 is different if you didn't want the hassle of figuring out what the actors were trying to get across to the audience.
Having said that...Ocean's 11 is a nifty little robbery flick that is fun to watch and great for a lazy Saturday night. In fact, the whole atmosphere has that Saturday Night draw, so it would be difficult thinking otherwise.
George Clooney stars as a con just out of prison getting ready to pull another score. Brad Pitt stars as his buddy getting the whole thing set up. It's really great watching these two guys playing against one another. They have instant chemistry on the screen and are complimented by all the other slowly introduced actors in the story--Matt Damon, Andy Garci, Julia Roberts, Carl Reiner, Elliot Gould...etc. They are all fantastic.
One thing though: If you ever wondered what ever happened to Vincent Mancini in Godfather III--look no more--he dumped Imobolare to work in Las Vegas. Of course I'm talking about Andy Garcia as the bad guy. I don't think I've seen Garcia since G3 so it was a surprise to see that he was playing the same type of character which led me to believe that his career was nothing but a big type-casting event. It wasn't until recently that I realized he did other things other than Vincent Mancini roles. I guess that's a tidbit that's neither here or there.
The sets on Ocean 11 were very well conceived. The color, lighting and audio was the usual Hollywood splendor. There's really nothing bad to say about this movie. I would give it a 7/10
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Spectacular, Spectacular!
I have to admit, I was a bit sceptical when I heard that Nicole Kidman was going to sing and dance in a musical. This, I thought, couldn't be from the waife that brought us some memorable characters--one being Tom Cruise's wife...nevertheless, I was amazed!
Tonight I saw Moulin Rouge! for the second time. The first time I was numbed by the dance, color, tectures and animated characters...quite frankly, it felt like a real bad acid trip. But having seen it that very first time really made me want to see it again. It was funny because I tend to shy away from a second viewing of a film until sufficient time has past that I can forget about the plot and watch it with a clear mind. Moulin Rouge! noooooo, not a chance. As soon as I saw the movie, I wanted to see it again, and you know, really...I don't think everybody has seen it all noticing all the rich decor, wonderful lighting and background action. I think it's because the cinematography was done so beautifully that it really makes to step back to see it all at different angles.
The story itself is simple: Love told through song. And trust me, a musical such as this--you have never seen. The casting was very well done, the lighting, cinematography, direction...all of it was fabulous. I don't think I even have a complaint about this movie, it is just wonderful and really a must-watch movie to enjoy over and over again.