Lets set the parameters. An Oscar-winning film, or any above-average picture for that matter, needs to fulfil criteria that sets it apart from the 'average'. It requires a breath of innovation, story-line, integrity and impeccable acting that levitates the subject above the norm. It needs also to vault hype and financial remuneration. To create a musical, which, I believe 'La La Land' aspires in many parts to be, there has to be a synergy between book, score and choreography. Sadly, for this viewer, not one of these three elements can be considered by any stretch of the imagination,'exceptional'. It's triumph is evident in it's cinematography and lighting, which were largely outstanding. But the remainder? The story is typical Hollywood fare - predictable without significant twists or intellectual excertion. Essentially, nothing out of the ordinary happens and the blandness creeps to a predictable end. The acting is OK. You would expect as much from someone of Gosling's ability, but I hope that one day he'll be provided with a script that alienates him from the type-casting that befell Hugh Grant, with a diversity that De Nero was astute to select. Choreography? What choreography? That brief moment with the bench is all that taunts the memory. Singing - best not go there. Marni Nixon could have played both roles.

And I read today that it's up for 14 Academy nominations. Figures. Trump was successful so there's no reason this will not win.

Emperor's new clothes 'n all.