Nice cinematography, that's all

Rating: 3/10 (28 February 2017)

I've given 3 stars, one star for each $10 million of the cost, and also because I found this production as a musical third rate. The colors, sets and film shots were interesting,even imaginative, but beyond that, I was disappointed that this was the best Hollywood could come up with in the musical genre.
The script had abrupt transitions between scenes and time lapses. The dance scenes by professionals were choppy and didn't show dance moves. The story didn't get started until halfway through the two hours.
The scriptwriters took the easy way out toward the end by skipping over five years that I could imagine were more dramatic and emotional than the movie up to that point. The viewer is cheated out of better story lines, with no transition at all to bring the movie to its conclusion. The last half-hour had more flair and drama than the rest of the movie.
Standards have been lowered, and the younger generation must see oldies to get educated. There was nothing exciting or inspirational in the dancing or the music as performed by amateur leads. In all of this world are these the best musical leads that could be found? You can find better singers, pianists and dancers on TV competition shows or in community theater. Were these the best actors for the leads? Emma Stone is charming as an actress, but Gosling's profile was the only attractive attribute he has going. He had no expression on his face for two hours, other than sullen.
It's very impressive that stars with no background in music and dance could take a crash course to prepare for this movie, but the results were passable, only.
If the director wanted to show how average people sing, dance,and play instruments, he succeeded. But the public deserves to see and appreciate the best musical talents around.