It's good...

but I personally don't see it as a masterpiece. It's a film I respect, from a director I really do like (love Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan), and I can see why others would see it as a masterpiece, but not for me.

There's a lot of pros to the movie such as the acting being good, Hugh Jackman is stellar as always, and while I usually don't like Rachael Weisz, she was more than commendable and I didn't think she was poorly cast. The soundtrack is also superb. It's definitely something I'll add to my playlist of movie soundtracks on my phone. Because it was nominated for a Golden Globe for best original score, I'm surprised it wasn't nominated for best original score at the Oscars as well. I'm trying to think of a better soundtrack from a 2006 movie, and while there probably is an obvious one which was nominated or won the Oscar and I probably just can't currently think of it, I do love the movie's score.

The thing I mostly didn't like which seemingly everyone unanimously adores, is the cinematography. I personally didn't like it. It was in your face every second, and I appreciate how it looked like a masterpiece of a painting in some scenes, but the cinematography, to me, was as in your face as much as Tarsem Singh's The Cell (okay, not quite, but still very much in your face). I've also seen better movies with much better cinematography and visuals, including, ironically, Tarsem Singh's The Fall (his only good movie in my opinion). I know the story isn't supposed to be taken literally or too seriously, but when Rachael Weisz was in the Art Museum, fell in the spotlight, and Hugh Jackman caught her in his arms, it was just, for me, laughable, and that's not what was intended. I also wasn't a big fan of the story. I understood it (so please, if any users do comment don't suggest that I didn't like it because I didn't understand it), but it wasn't gripping. I found the scenes focusing on the real Hugh Jackman and Rachael Weisz to be gripping and engaging, but everything when he was reading her book, to me, paled in comparison, was far too golden, and just not as good. I know this isn't a movie for casual audiences, and I am by no means a casual film viewer which my ratings reflect, but this just didn't resonate with me and I've seen better love stories, better films that touch on the theme and questions of immortality, and better obscure and ambiguous movies such as Solaris by Tarkovsky (one of my personal favourite movies). What's most evident of my lack of engagement in the movie is the fact that I didn't tear up at the end. I've seen tons of posts about how the ending makes people cry, and I can see why, but for someone like me who does cry a lot at emotional moments in amazing movies because I don't view it as an embarrassing thing but rather a reflection of how invested you are in the film, I simply didn't cry because I couldn't care about the characters or story.

If you see it as a masterpiece, I can understand why as I can see and appreciate what it's trying to do (in my case), and I do understand that it's going to resonate with some, and not for others more than a lot of movies. But I gave it a six as while I did enjoy it enough not to turn it off, I found the pacing and running time perfect, it didn't overstay its welcome, the acting was good, and the sountrack was magnificent, so for me its an above average movie.