A feast for the eyes.

Rating: 9/10 (30 March 2003)

A perfectly visually seductive movie. I do not think I have seen something quite this beautiful before - something kept my attention riveted throughout the movie, but, unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the storyline itself.
The colours, the choice of actors, the clothing, the scenery, the composition - all of these things are, in my eyes, flawless. I nearly wept, in truth, at several points due not to the acting itself, but because the movie was so stunningly beautiful. Some of you might see where I am going with this:
It is the most beautiful movie I have seen. But where the beauty is inspiring, the plot is a little less than so. I found myself longing for more depth in the characters, or depth in the plot itself. It was wonderfully told, but to a degree, shallow. I am not saying that I found the plot 'bad' or 'lacklustre', just that in comparison to the masterpiece given to us through the visual and auditory senses, it is weak. I wish that it had not been cropped down by half an hour - I have a feeling that if it had not been, I would have loved it far more. As it is, it feels as if though I find compassion for the characters only because they are beautifully presented, not because they're given anything beyond surface value.
I would have liked to have seen a little further into them and I would have enjoyed more focus on the people rather than the scenery.
All in all, it's getting a 4.5 out of 5 in my book. Half a point lost due to weak character development, but many points won due to the elegance and delicacy of the filming.