Jump to content
rllmuk
Sign in to follow this  
Isaac

Yesterday - Danny Boyle

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

 

  Hide contents

wait...There's a joke about Oasis also not existing because they were so influenced by The Beatles? I know you just said that, I'm just wondering how they make that joke. 

 

What does your second sentence mean?

 

 

 

The lead searches for The Beatles on Google, and realises they don’t exist. He searches a few other bands to see if they’re around. He Googles Oasis and Wonderwall but gets no matches, so just shrugs and mutters something like, ‘oh that figures’

 

Coke, cigarettes and Harry Potter are also things the world forgets / that no longer exist along with The Beatles.

 

I’d love to have seen what someone like Charlie Kaufman would have done with the central idea, rather than this phoned-in bilge.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was ok, well acted. But just like Richard Curtis’s other films can’t write a good female character, Lily James was brilliant though as was Ed Sheeran & Sanjeev Bhaskar.

 

Kate McKinnon was terrible yet again. 

 

also spoiler

 

Spoiler

Robert Carlyle as John Lennon at 78. What the fuck, what a terrible idea. The make up was awful and he didn’t even try to cover his accent.

That was horrendous and served no purpose to the film. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zero9X said:

It was ok, well acted. But just like Richard Curtis’s other films can’t write a good female character, Lily James was brilliant though as was Ed Sheeran & Sanjeev Bhaskar.

 

Kate McKinnon was terrible yet again. 

 

also spoiler

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Robert Carlyle as John Lennon at 78. What the fuck, what a terrible idea. The make up was awful and he didn’t even try to cover his accent.

That was horrendous and served no purpose to the film. 

 

 

Ed Sheeran was good? I thought he was  shite.

Lily James played Lily James again. She plays her in every film. She's got a range of one character. Smiling or looking a bit sad - that's yer lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I tend to overthink this shit, but the last thing this country needs is another fucking jingoistic celebration of our glorious past. Richard bloody Curtis reminding everyone that the Beatles are the greatest band of all time just feeds into that British exceptionalism that is leading to us being anything but exceptional. 


If The Beatles arrived on the scene now with Hey Jude they probably wouldn't even get signed. 

  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kerraig UK said:

If The Beatles arrived on the scene now with Hey Jude they probably wouldn't even get signed

 

That's the thing. I think Hey Jude is a fantastic song, that can't be ruined no matter how many times McCartney includes it in big, nationally televised event singalongs. But I'm not naive enough to think that if released for the first time now, by anyone else, it would stand alone on the strength of the songwriting.

 

As much as we might try to assess a piece of music "objectively", and as persuasive as a music theorist can be in explaining why certain chord choices and melodic techniques are as effective as they are, it's impossible for anyone to completely divorce a piece of music from its context. If you know anything at all about a musician (either their private life or public image), every time you hear a piece of music by them, you mentally slot it into what you know of their career/biography/reputation, and that influences how much you like it.

 

Plus, there's the question of separating songwriting from arrangement/production - especially difficult in the case of the Beatles, because the stories of what George Martin contributed are so well known.

 

 

I find it interesting to think about those aspects of music enjoyment/criticism  - but, not having seen this film, does it tackle them at all?  Does it show us the main character attempting to release a Beatles song that's very of its time in lyrics and production? (e.g. Revolution, with its Chairman Mao reference and a guitar tone that was harsh for 1968 but tame now.) Presumably the film doesn't show him claiming Glass Onion or The Ballad of John and Yoko as his own...? :lol:

 

Also, erase the Beatles from history and the knock-on effects in the movie business alone include getting rid of everything made by Handmade Films, and Richard Lester's directorial career (no Superman 2 or 3!). And the James Bond series could have turned out very differently without George Martin producing Goldfinger (let alone Live & Let Die).

 

THIS FILM HAD BETTER TACKLE THESE VITAL THINGS OR I WON'T BE ABLE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. :quote:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kerraig UK said:

If The Beatles arrived on the scene now with Hey Jude they probably wouldn't even get signed. 

The Beatles were the single most influential group of the 20th Century, it's impossible to conceive how different things would be now if they never existed. I mean there would be no Monkees 

Spoiler

:o

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw someone on twitter claim that the original pitch was the exact opposite, so that when the main character revived their songs nobody the in modern, Beatles-less world would actually care. That definitely seems like the more interesting angle to take, although I can imagine they wouldn’t have gotten very far when it came to getting the song rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/06/2019 at 07:41, Zero9X said:

It was ok, well acted. But just like Richard Curtis’s other films can’t write a good female character, Lily James was brilliant though as was Ed Sheeran & Sanjeev Bhaskar.

 

Kate McKinnon was terrible yet again. 

 

also spoiler

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Robert Carlyle as John Lennon at 78. What the fuck, what a terrible idea. The make up was awful and he didn’t even try to cover his accent.

That was horrendous and served no purpose to the film. 

 

 

Should have got peter serafinowicz

 

Spoiler

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/06/2019 at 21:23, Festoon said:

 

Oh fuck, she's in this?

AND Ed Sheeran?

AND James Corden?

 

Christ! What a carve-up.

 

And written by Richard Curtis who just can't write women - they're either hellspawn, idiots for not realising how awesome the protagonist (who is always analogue to Curtis himself) is, or is lovesick for the protagonist (who is an analogue....etc, etc.)

 

On a positive note, Cordon’s appearance is mercilessly brief. Sheeran doesn’t quite struggle to play himself as some celebs do, and frankly is the least of the film’s problems.

 

It’s just so toothless and by-the-numbers. This is at the cloying end of Curtis’ output, with none of the desired emotional reactions really earned. Stuff happens, we’re supposed to care but everything on screen is so bland that most of the film’s efforts land with a thud. One character gets excited by a plate of sandwiches for fuck’s sake. And that’s a relative high point.

 

Not every film has to be a gobsmacking masterpiece and there’s plenty of poorly reviewed films from which I’ve taken something. But I just can’t fathom this. I think the waste of the concept annoys me.

 

Also had to remind myself that the director once lit a fuse for the British film industry with Trainspotting. Man alive, what a comedown.

 

Fucking sandwiches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew once Boyle had directed Slumdog Millionaire that he had the ability to descend to directing this sort of shit.

 

The director of Shallow Grave is spinning in his own grave...

  • Empathy 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ended up seeing this today in a bizarre happenstance.

 

Awful beyond belief.

 

As glb says above - sandwiches. The smug privilege reeking off this film. And hey, guess what? Americans are bad. It's Brexit the fucking movie.

 

Edit: Nearly forgot the NY skyline. Fuck you Curtis.

  • Upvote 1
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nick R said:

That's the thing. I think Hey Jude is a fantastic song, that can't be ruined no matter how many times McCartney includes it in big, nationally televised event singalongs. But I'm not naive enough to think that if released for the first time now, by anyone else, it would stand alone on the strength of the songwriting.

 

As much as we might try to assess a piece of music "objectively", and as persuasive as a music theorist can be in explaining why certain chord choices and melodic techniques are as effective as they are, it's impossible for anyone to completely divorce a piece of music from its context. If you know anything at all about a musician (either their private life or public image), every time you hear a piece of music by them, you mentally slot it into what you know of their career/biography/reputation, and that influences how much you like it.

 

Plus, there's the question of separating songwriting from arrangement/production - especially difficult in the case of the Beatles, because the stories of what George Martin contributed are so well known.

 

I find it interesting to think about those aspects of music enjoyment/criticism  - but, not having I think what I'm trying to say is Tomorrow Never Knows is the only decent thing The Beatles have ever done seen this film, does it tackle them at all?  Does it show us the main character attempting to release a Beatles song that's very of its time in lyrics and production? (e.g. Revolution, with its Chairman Mao reference and a guitar tone that was harsh for 1968 but tame now.) Presumably the film doesn't show him claiming Glass Onion or The Ballad of John and Yoko as his own...? :lol:

 

Also, erase the Beatles from history and the knock-on effects in the movie business alone include getting rid of everything made by Handmade Films, and Richard Lester's directorial career (no Superman 2 or 3!). And the James Bond series could have turned out very differently without George Martin producing Goldfinger (let alone Live & Let Die).

 

THIS FILM HAD BETTER TACKLE THESE VITAL THINGS OR I WON'T BE ABLE TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. :quote:

 

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

 

:o

 

What an odd quote to edit into my post.

 

 

This Pitchfork article says what I was trying to say, but more concisely:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/yesterday-review-remembers-the-beatles-but-forgets-what-made-them-great/

 

Quote

The movie never really offers a sufficient reason as to why Jack’s take on the Beatles becomes successful, other than the fact that these songs were written by the Beatles, and the Beatles were geniuses, so of course their songs would tear up the charts no matter who records them, how they are performed, or when they are released. 

 

And on the subject of it being a missed opportunity to use the premise in a more substantial way:

 

Quote

Not to mention that there’s subversive potential contained within the movie’s premise: The entire history of rock’n’roll is white artists stealing from people of color, and now an artist of color is returning the favor and claiming the music of white artists as his own. But the movie never bothers to consider the kind of critiques its concept could be used to make.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nick R said:

 

And on the subject of it being a missed opportunity to use the premise in a more substantial way:

 

 

Can you imagine this film having the wit to approach this angle?

I'd like if he had done Norwegian Wood and people started saying he was getting too ethnic.

 

But this is utterly witless.

 

And it's badly-directed too - bland at weird times with terrible, amateurish transitions.

 

Awful, awful, awful.

 

I can't bring myself to describe what song it goes out on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/06/2019 at 19:43, gone fishin' said:

 

Should have got peter serafinowicz

 

  Hide contents

 

 

I love those. I watch this every Christmas:

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Beatles

On 30/06/2019 at 17:00, Stanley said:

The Beatles were the single most influential group of the 20th Century, it's impossible to conceive how different things would be now if they never existed. I mean there would be no Monkees 

  Reveal hidden contents

:o

 

And no Chemical Brothers.

 

I haven't seen this film. I have no intention to. Well unless I'm completely hungover one Sunday and it starts showing on a TV channel I'm watching and it would be too painful to reach over for the remote, but...it and this thread set me off down the rabbit hole of what if? Y'know the knock on effect of which music may have not come about in their absence.

 

There are a lot of bands/artists who claim without the Beatles they just wouldn't be, or at least sound completely different. The Chemical Brothers for one, being totally enamoured with Tomorrow Never Knows etc. 

 

There are obviously many, many others who make the claim, no Beatles, no us.

 

As stated, shit film, interesting concept.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, amc said:

No Beatles

And no Chemical Brothers.

 

I haven't seen this film. I have no intention to. Well unless I'm completely hungover one Sunday and it starts showing on a TV channel I'm watching and it would be too painful to reach over for the remote, but...it and this thread set me off down the rabbit hole of what if? Y'know the knock on effect of which music may have not come about in their absence.

 

There are a lot of bands/artists who claim without the Beatles they just wouldn't be, or at least sound completely different. The Chemical Brothers for one, being totally enamoured with Tomorrow Never Knows etc. 

 

There are obviously many, many others who make the claim, no Beatles, no us.

 

As stated, shit film, interesting concept.

 

That's the worst thing. The film hasn't much interest in it's own concept. It could literally be about any artist compromising their music for commericalism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/07/2019 at 21:03, Pob said:

I love those. I watch this every Christmas:

 

 

Incidentally, it's Benedict Wong playing Yoko Ono in the Imagine one and the Abbey Road video.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The falling out of Danny Boyle with the Bond producers seems strange in hindsight when it turns out Boyle is happy to direct awful Richard Curtis stuff, in the style of Richard Curtis no less.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.