|
|
Post by hi224 on Jul 4, 2019 8:34:13 GMT
very refreshing and maybe a few missteps but never expected it at all to be that hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jul 7, 2019 8:37:11 GMT
eh, from the other thread
Hey, at least it wasn't a dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jul 7, 2019 19:31:16 GMT
eh, from the other thread Hey, at least it wasn't a dream. For me what bothered me was rather then the love story I wish the movie kept exploring how a modern day society takes to the beatles, it was the most interesting aspect of the movie. You've heard others say before oh, Beatles would never be accepted nowadays and I routinely agree with that notion. To be honest having a Wizard of Oz like sequence would've been neat had it been set up better. I we get hints he is exploring a Dorothy scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by cooly44 on Jul 7, 2019 21:46:41 GMT
I liked it because Himesh Patel was very good, it wasn’t a sequel or a remake, the music was good and it did have a lot of gentle humour. Sweet little movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on Jul 7, 2019 23:03:10 GMT
eh, from the other thread Hey, at least it wasn't a dream. For me what bothered me was rather then the love story I wish the movie kept exploring how a modern day society takes to the beatles, it was the most interesting aspect of the movie. You've heard others say before oh, Beatles would never be accepted nowadays and I routinely agree with that notion. To be honest having a Wizard of Oz like sequence would've been neat had it been set up better. I we get hints he is exploring a Dorothy scenario. That was an issue that I've heard brought up, that everything else being more or less the same The Beatles songs wouldn't be that big a deal these days, but I actually didn't have an issue with that aspect and was able to go with it. As far as a dream/Dorothy scenario, that's just something I have an outright aversion to. I don't think there's anyway you can pull it off these days without it coming off as a cop out and slap in the face to the audience. I feel they could have taken it somewhere else, I'm just not sure where.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Nov 1, 2019 14:42:24 GMT
YESTERDAY is about a man named JACK MALIK who wakes up in a world where The Beatles' music never existed, but he remembers it and pretends that he wrote it. That's very interesting, because the time period a song was released in is more relevant than you might think. Some songs are enjoyed by young people of every generation, but listeners use a different standard for older songs (even if its subconsciously). They might not enjoy a new song written and performed in the same style. Would they like a Beatles song if they thought it was new? Would they compare it to modern music? What would modern music would be like if the Beatles weren't around to lay the groundwork for it? Unfortunately, this movie doesn't fully explore it. It's more focused on being a rom-com. Luckily, it's a rom-com co-written by Richard Curtis. He has an ability to take premises that aren't very original and embellish them with incredibly likeable characters, humour that's both light and clever, and over-the-top yet touching displays of affection. This is no exception, even though a fair amount of jokes feel like something anyone could write. While ABOUT TIME delved more into the fantasty genre, it managed to be more logical, because it followed its own rules, while this plot has a couple of holes: -When JACK sings the title song, his friends think he wrote it. He says it's a Beatles song and they look confused. One of them talks about JACK knowing obscure musicians. That's right. This is a "Liar revealed" story where the liar reveals himself very early on. For some reason, by the next scene, the friends have forgotten about this conversation. -JACK visits JOHN LENNON, who's alive in this timeline. So... The Beatles do exist but they never became a band? What prevented that from happening?
-When JACK confesses the truth to the world, he names the band members. Assuming all 4 of them are alive, don't they notice that a famous singer is giving them credit for something they don't remember doing? Won't people try to find them?
Is this the first movie about a person whose everyday life is turned upside down by an unexplained, seemingly magical event... and things don't go back to normal at the end? I guess it's because re-writing history to make LENNON be dead again would be kind of like killing him, right? Speaking of, during the Moscow concert, a man stares intensely at JACK. Later on, we find out who he is. However, my first thought was "This is either Mark David Chapman or someone who'll become obsessed in a similar way." Himest Patel and Lily James' performances are good, and they both have a lot of chemistry. All Ed Sheeran had to do was keep a straight face while others said or did odd things. That doesn't seem like a big deal, but let's give him some credit. Not everyone can make the audience believe in what they're saying, even when they're playing themselves. Also, he does have a couple of serious moments, and he remains believable. You know who didn't make me believe in what she was saying? Kate McKinnon. She usually steals the show, but her exagerated schtick feels out of place in this style of comedy. Many modern directors make the mistake of filming their comedy movie in a boring way. I'm glad that director Danny Boyle was aware of this and tried to avoid it, but I think he went a little overboard. The unusual angles don't compliment the scene in the same way as with his dramas and thrillers. At times, they even distract. 7/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog. |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 1, 2019 20:17:49 GMT
YESTERDAY is about a man named JACK MALIK who wakes up in a world where The Beatles' music never existed, but he remembers it and pretends that he wrote it. That's very interesting, because the time period a song was released in is more relevant than you might think. Some songs are enjoyed by young people of every generation, but listeners use a different standard for older songs (even if its subconsciously). They might not enjoy a new song written and performed in the same style. Would they like a Beatles song if they thought it was new? Would they compare it to modern music? What would modern music would be like if the Beatles weren't around to lay the groundwork for it? Unfortunately, this movie doesn't fully explore it. It's more focused on being a rom-com. Luckily, it's a rom-com co-written by Richard Curtis. He has an ability to take premises that aren't very original and embellish them with incredibly likeable characters, humour that's both light and clever, and over-the-top yet touching displays of affection. This is no exception, even though a fair amount of jokes feel like something anyone could write. While ABOUT TIME delved more into the fantasty genre, it managed to be more logical, because it followed its own rules, while this plot has a couple of holes: -When JACK sings the title song, his friends think he wrote it. He says it's a Beatles song and they look confused. One of them talks about JACK knowing obscure musicians. That's right. This is a "Liar revealed" story where the liar reveals himself very early on. For some reason, by the next scene, the friends have forgotten about this conversation. -JACK visits JOHN LENNON, who's alive in this timeline. So... The Beatles do exist but they never became a band? What prevented that from happening?
-When JACK confesses the truth to the world, he names the band members. Assuming all 4 of them are alive, don't they notice that a famous singer is giving them credit for something they don't remember doing? Won't people try to find them?
Is this the first movie about a person whose everyday life is turned upside down by an unexplained, seemingly magical event... and things don't go back to normal at the end? I guess it's because re-writing history to make LENNON be dead again would be kind of like killing him, right? Speaking of, during the Moscow concert, a man stares intensely at JACK. Later on, we find out who he is. However, my first thought was "This is either Mark David Chapman or someone who'll become obsessed in a similar way." Himest Patel and Lily James' performances are good, and they both have a lot of chemistry. All Ed Sheeran had to do was keep a straight face while others said or did odd things. That doesn't seem like a big deal, but let's give him some credit. Not everyone can make the audience believe in what they're saying, even when they're playing themselves. Also, he does have a couple of serious moments, and he remains believable. You know who didn't make me believe in what she was saying? Kate McKinnon. She usually steals the show, but her exagerated schtick feels out of place in this style of comedy. Many modern directors make the mistake of filming their comedy movie in a boring way. I'm glad that director Danny Boyle was aware of this and tried to avoid it, but I think he went a little overboard. The unusual angles don't compliment the scene in the same way as with his dramas and thrillers. At times, they even distract. 7/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.initially it really doesn't feel like a Boyle movie at all until midway where you start noticing Boyle camera tricks.
|
|
