I'm not a fan of the constantly moving pictures and I really don't like sites that autoplay music, but then I'm not your target audience, and I think it's in keeping with the type of site.
I think the thing that stands out to me is that it could have been built in HTML/CSS with some small Flash parts, rather than all in Flash. It would have effectively looked the same, but users would be able to copy and paste text from it (I quite often do this when I'm on shopping sites (copy and paste the names of 3 different jackets I'm interested in, for instance) or I might want to copy and paste the address so I can print it out and come to visit. There's lots of other things like this that make HTML/CSS more usable printing the page, going back and forward between pages ("Ooh, I'll just go back to that jacket" <clicks back without thinking> exit site, "Oh, **** it, I can't be bothered to find it again"), google indexing, people who use screen readers or who need to increase the size of text, that kind of thing. I'd say out of the sites I've exited in frustration, 90% of them were Flash based.
Obviously CSS can't do the things Flash can and I don't have a problem with a experimental Flash site, but in instances when it can (i.e. the basic layout of your site) it's usually a better choice, in my opinion. Not something I'd necessarily change on this one now you've done it, but worth bearing in mind for future ones.