Yesterday

Director: Danny Boyle
Starring: Himesh Patel, Lily James, Ed Sheeran, Kate McKinnon, Camille Chen, Maryana Spivak, Lamorne Morrise, James Corden
Running Time: 116 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)  

If Oscars were handed out for story ideas and concepts, it's likely anyone involved with the one at the center of Danny Boyle's Yesterday would be preparing their speeches. Unfortunately for them, no such category exists, and for good reason. Movies still have to be written and directed, wherein we discover if the execution of those ideas successfully translate to the screen. It would seem the pairing of Academy Award winning Slumdog Millionaire director Boyle and Love, Actually screenwriter Richard Curtis on a film envioning a world where The Beatles never existed would be the closet thing to a sure bet there is. I'd even go as far to say it contains one of the best premises for a movie we've heard in years. Calling it a "can't miss" is likely underselling its potential, which seemed limitless from the moment it was announced.

While its theatrical trailer appeared to have given away too much, it's still fair to say expectations remained very high going in. Especially when they somehow found a way to license the Fab Four's entire catalogue, cleverly incorporating it as a plot device that guarantees we'll listen to the songs in a way we haven't before, watching the reactions of characters discovering it for the first time. It could also work as pop culture commentary, glimpsing how it would be received, marketed, and promoted in today's wildly different music landscape. We do get some of that. Kind of. Mostly in its promising first half, before veering way off course and making me about as frustrated as I can recently remember about a film's squandered potential. Despite being recommendable on just about every level, you can't help but be bothered by what it isn't, delivering what has to be the cruelest kind of tease. It succeeds due to a winning lead performance and a film's worth of Beatles' covers that are excellently performed and presented, but that inescapable feeling it could have been so much more still lingers after the credits roll.

Jack Malick (Himesh Patel) is a struggling singer-songwriter from Lowestoft, England whose manager and childhood friend, Ellie Appleton (Lily James) keeps encouraging him not to give up on his dream, even as he continues to perform in empty dive bars, coffee houses and music festival  tents. About ready to quit and return to teaching, Jack's hit by a bus during a global blackout, landing him in the hospital with multiple injuries. When he gets out and sings "Yesterday" for his friends, the realization sets in that they have no idea who The Beatles are.

When a quick Google search results in insects rather than the band, Jack's suspicions are confirmed, as he's awakened to a world where only he's heard of John, Paul, George and Ringo. Unsure whether they never existed or no one remembers them, Jack begins performing their songs and passing them off as his own, attracting the attention of pop star Ed Sheeran (as "himself"), who asks him to open on the Moscow leg of his tour. You could probably guess which song he picks.

It isn't long before Sheeran's cold, money-hungry agent, Debra Hammer (Kate McKinnon) gets her claws into Jack, signing him to her label and carefully orchestrates her newest superstar's meteoric rise. As his career takes off, it becomes clear something's missing: Ellie, who's opted to stay behind to continue teaching. As they wrestle with their feelings for one another, Jack reluctantly basks in the newfound fame while also wrestling with the guilt of having plagiarized The Beatles' biggest hits. Not to mention his fear of being found out.

If there's one thing this film does exceptionally well, it's incorporate The Beatles' music into the story in a natural, unforced way. It's a welcome change of course after the last major release to earn that legal right, 2007's Across The Universe, which attempted to shoehorn their songs into a single narrative, with wildly mixed and forced results. Having played more like a collection of music videos starring characters we cared little about, it was easy to understand the lukewarm notices. Dramatizing the lyrics and content behind their songs was always going to be an uphill battle so it's a relief that this film doesn't even attempt to try.

It's as a tribute to the band's music and legacy that Boyle and Curtis score the most points, its premise practically demanding a closer look at what they've meant, regardless of how well that idea's seen through until the end. But their biggest accomplishment is in finding a virtually unknown singer and actor who can deliver two hours straight of immensely innofensive Beatles covers that remind us just how fun their music can be. While it seems strange to need a reminder of that, there are times their legacy seems so daunting it would feel like homework for the uninitiated, if such a group exists. There's a lot to like in what's done with the arrangements of these songs and how the story necessitates their inclusion rather than the other way around. They're updated and tinkered with just enough and Himesh Patel has a really pleasant voice and presence for delivering them as intended, in addition to an everyday charm well suited to the monumental predicament Jack finds himself in. Of everything, the music was the one aspect the film absolutely had to nail, and it did.

The question of whether or to what extent the public would embrace the Fab Four's music if released by a modern artist in present times is handled fairly well, wisely observing that no matter how great art is, it still needs to catch on. And more often than not, people actually need to be told how good something is before they feel comfortable fully embracing it and spreading the word. In this sense, Curtis' script is accurate in so far as depicting that just singing these hits won't be enough. One of the best scenes involve Jack singing "Let it Be" for his disinterested family and receiving an even chillier reception when performing more of their classics for local patrons. Or Sheeran's insistance on changing the lyric of "Hey Jude" to "Hey Dude."

If there's anything to extract from this, it may be the realization that our culture actually does need agents, critics and the media to open our eyes to quality if it isn't otherwise receiving exposure. Would The Beatles be as revered if they came along in an era where TV wasn't simultaneously taking off in popularity and didn't have the platform of shows like Ed Sullivan's? If no one told us how great they were, would we ever know? Or is the music strong enough that it didn't matter? Maybe that philosophizing gives Curtis' screenplay more credit than it deserves, but the very idea does make the mind race with implications and possibilities. So there's that.

Casting Ed Sheeran as the unwitting mentor Jack leans on to get The Beatles' work to the masses makes for a strangely good fit. His role's actually larger than expected and the highest compliment that can be paid is that his presence doesn't feel like a celebrity walk-on, as he blends into the movie's hypothetical universe fairly well. And that him being presented as the modern songwriting bridge between The Beatles and Jack Malick doesn't come off as an abomination is likely the biggest victory he could have hoped for before signing on to this project. It doesn't require too much, while allowing the singer to poke fun at himself in a way that also matches the tone of the material. That's more than can be said for Kate McKinnon, whose caricature of a music exec seems to have been transplanted from another movie altogether.

Everything about McKinnon's character and performance as Debra Hammer is hideously misjudged, to the point that if she literally dressed up as a dollar sign it would seem subtle in comparison. If the intent was to broadly depict industry types as shallow, money hungry pariahs, this doesn't help the story in any way, especially when the agent in question doesn't seem like an actual person, much less someone Sheeran would even associate with. She has this terrible line where she tells Jack that he's just there to make her rich and the delivery is so ham-fisted and over-the-top way that you're not even sure what to make of it.

This isn't dark satire of the music industry or a parody of its many woes, so the character's mere presence causes a massive break in what was previously a fantastical, but well-grounded conceit. McKinnon somehow manages to play this at a volume of camp that's turned up about ten times higher than just described, her acting histrionics peaking at the film's finale. As she races backstage screaming something about money in a demonic voice better suited for an Exorcist reboot, you'll be asking whether it's too early to start thinking about Razzie nominations.

McKinnon's character does lead to an interesting boardroom scene where the marketing and promotion of Jack's album ("One Man Only") starts to take shape, with the hook being that he does everything on the album himself in a corporate age where few artists exercise their autonomy. While the irony of that title isn't lost on the guilt-ridden Jack, Curtis' script starts flying off the rails just when it should be delivering its biggest payoff, shifting focus to he and Ellie's somewhat clumsily handled romance. Like the "A" plot, it starts off promisingly, as their strictly platonic relationship develops into more as we anticipate they'll eventually realize their feelings through the circumstances of this extraordinary situation. Instead, the script forces the issue with convoluted confessions and break-ups, letting the actual story we're here for fade into the background.

Lily James is quirky and likable as usual, but it's not much of a role given that Ellie isn't really around for Jack's ascent, making it harder to invest in the relationship when she reemerges full force in the third act. Nothing really tops their enjoyable early scenes together with him as a struggling artist being unconditionally supported by his childhood friend and manager. Set against the Beatles' music, it could have made for a powerful love story, but it seems a more concerted effort was put into making sure James looks as dowdy as possible, as if to justify his delusion in only seeing her as a "friend."

Of course, the true stakes are in whether anyone finds out what Jack is doing, namely those who may somehow know of The Beatles existence, or maybe any of the surviving band members themselves, whomever they may be. The trailer doesn't spoil any of this, but I kind of wish it did since the tease we get there feels like it could have been infinitely more satisfying than what actually ended up on screen. In fact, there's more than a few details present in that trailer (like Ana de Armas' character) that didn't seem to make the final cut, implying that there may have been more production or editing issues than initially suspected.

Curtis does have a trick up his sleeve toward the end that can be considered shocking, and is probably the most satisfying in terms of delivering on the story's premise. But it's difficult to read just how we're supposed to react once you get past the actual shock value of it happening. The scene in question swings for the fences with mixed results, but about halfway through Yesterday, it was already obvious this had settled into the rom-com it was going to be. There would be no explanation for what happened or any real fallout for the main plot, as so much of what happens is in service of a fairly twee romance. The premise didn't have to go full Twilight Zone or anything, but by any standard, the resolution falls a bit short.

That audiences seem to have enjoyed the film considerably more than critics comes as little surprise since the public loves The Beatles and would likely jump at any opportunity to bask in their music, which this provides in spades. But it's almost maddening seeing a set-up with this much potential  compromised to appeal to a larger fan base, even if they found the right writer for that job. While Curtis is known for writing fluffy British rom-coms that do this, boy how I really wish he hadn't used this concept as a vehicle to do it. The bond between the two lead characters tends to function better when used as the backdrop to our relationship with The Beatles. So while it's easy to appreciate Yesterday for exactly what it is, it's still hard not getting carried away by all the possibilities of what could have been.

Across The Universe

Director: Julie Taymor
Starring: Evan Rachel Wood, Jim Sturgess, Joe Anderson, T.V. Carpio, Dana Fuchs, Martin Luther McCoy, Bono, Eddie Izzard
Running Time: 133 min.
Rating: PG-13

***1/2 (out of ****)

You know a movie's trailer is great when you get chills watching it. That was the case many months ago with Across The Universe and since then I've asked myself how it could be possible for the film to live up to those two minutes. With great trepidation I eagerly awaited the film's DVD release and even gave the film's soundtrack a listen thinking it might be interesting hearing actors butcher the most famous songs in The Beatles' catalog. But much to my shock, they didn't at all.

Across The Universe soon became one of the films in 2007 I was most curious to check out. Not necessarily because I thought I would like it, but because I knew that a project with enough guts to center a musical around the work of arguably the greatest band in modern history would either turn out to be a masterpiece or a cinematic crash and burn the likes of which we've never experienced before. I've made it no secret that I don't care for musicals or films dealing with war. I do like The Beatles, but wouldn't be incredibly offended or take it personally if their music were given a shoddy presentation in feature film form. I mean we did already suffer through the film adaptation of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band so what could be worse than that?

Even when I mildly enjoy a movie musical, accompanying it is often a feeling of regret and embarrassment. I'm always asked what it would take for me to REALLY LIKE one. My answer is usually, "I don't know, but I'll know it when I see it." It looks like that day has come and while Across The Universe falls considerably short of being any kind of masterpiece it is a staggering visual achievement that offers up one of the best possible examples of film as literally the art of the moving image.

Many scenes are so visually eye-catching it's as if your wildest dreams have sprung to life onscreen and the director Julie Taymor's approach is so daring that the screenplay can't possibly keep up with it. It's an overindulgent, and at times maddeningly frustrating film that doesn't offer an easy method of entry for anyone watching. Better than ever before it illustrates the theory that it's always more interesting when a filmmaker shoots for the stars and just misses than when they make a perfect film playing it safe. Nothing about this movie is safe, or forgettable.

It's the 1960's and America is deep in the throes the Vietnam War with teenager Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood) grieving the death of her enlisted boyfriend while her brother Max (Joe Anderson) is busy goofing off with his friends at Princeton. Their lives are about to change with the arrival of Liverpool dockworker Jude (Jim Sturgess), who comes to America in search of his birth father and ends up joining the two in their trek to New York City. It's there where the three share an apartment with an aspiring Janis Joplin-like singer (Dana Fuchs), a Jimi Hendrix knock-off from Detroit (Martin Luther McCoy) and an abused lesbian runaway (T.V. Carpio).

Lucy and Jude fall in love and not unlike Forrest Gump, the screenplay throws them into nearly every tumultuous event of the decade as Max is drafted into Vietnam, Lucy is knee-deep in anti-war protests and they go on a psychedelic acid trip courtesy of the bizarre Dr. Robert (Bono, who resembles Robin Williams channeling Ken Kesey). We even get a cameo from Joe Cocker as three different characters and even though he isn't supposed to be playing himself he almost does a better Joe Cocker than John Belushi. And all of this is set to the music of The Beatles with more song than dialogue during the course of the film's running time.

Everyone breaking out into Beatles songs should seem forced or out of place, and at certain points it does, but mostly it doesn't. The songs really do advance the story. Actually, they are the story and having raw, untrained voices help lend a sense of realism to the many over-the-top events in the film. Far from The Beatles' most famous songs being butchered, they're actually given a fresh take and in many instances the actors actually bring something different out of the song we didn't notice was there. This is especially true of T.V. Carpio's take on "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" early in the film.

For the first time when a musical ended and I had the songs stuck in my head it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The sequences are bursting with frenetic energy and at times are so visually breathtaking that it hurts to watch and you'll need to come up for air. The most memorable of which is set to "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" and features Max's recruitment into Vietnam by an Uncle Sam poster come to life and a horrifying brigade of square jawed officers. Another sequence with Jude realizing his feelings for Lucy in a bowling alley while singing "I've Just Seen a Face" matches it in emotional power, but at the other end of the spectrum. And there's a hallucinatory and visually dazzling excursion with Mr. Kite (Eddie Izzard) that I'm guessing would probably be better appreciated under the influence of a controlled substance. There are times where I thought Taymor overindulged and went too far as I found myself asking whether it's really necessary to show American soldiers in their underwear carrying The Statue of Liberty through the jungles of Vietnam. But when dealing with material like this I'd much rather have a director fall on the side of going too far.

All of these scenes are powerful and often emotionally moving, but strangely the story as a whole doesn't quite reach that same level and that's because the screenplay can't help but seem kind of cliché ridden. While that may seem like a huge insult it isn't exactly since musicals play by a different set of rules and by nature are built almost entirely on clichés. And when we're dealing with the sixties that opens up a can of worms in terms of what can be thrown in the script. The draft. Anti-war protests. Forbidden love. Race riots. The emerging rock scene. Counter-culture. The generation gap. You could go on forever. They even find a way to squeeze homosexuality in there. It gets a pass though because musicals are supposed to paint with broad strokes and although many of these issues seem cliché now they weren't back then and The Beatles' music did reflect what was going on at the time with not much more subtleness than this film, so it fits. You get the impression that if the "Fab Four" saw the film they'd probably love it (supposedly Paul McCartney viewed it and did). The movie is sincere, wearing its heart on its sleeve while lacking the inherent silliness that has sunk so many movie musicals in recent years. There's no winking at the camera or anything to joke about here, which is a nice change for a genre that on film could really never be taken seriously at all.

A big fuss has been made about how timely this film is and how it can be viewed as being reflective of what's happening in our country at the moment. While I definitely appreciate the fact that this could make the story resonate more with some, for me it hurts the film a little…at least right now. I've just been so sick of hearing about politics everywhere I turn that I've been completely burned out with it. The last thing I wanted to see was a movie that addresses it, but that's more a reflection on me than the picture. What does reflect on the film though is that at times it seems to be preaching from the pulpit with its anti-war message. Perhaps when some time has past and I go back to the film again it's possible that aspect won't hit as much of a sour note, but I just don't like it when films start proselytizing about politics regardless of whether it's reflective of the mindset in that time period.

There is a feeling that Taymor is trying to jam as many Beatles songs and accompanying supporting plotlines into this as she can which causes the movie to zig zag a little as it heads to the emotional finale, which I think is why the final number doesn't register quite as deep as it could have. The battles Taymor had with the studio over final cut are infamous by now but this version is apparently hers, making me wonder if maybe the studio could have had a point that it needed a little trimming. It's also impossible to care about the three lesser supporting characters as much as Jude, Lucy and Max, which seems to have been an inevitable problem since the screenplay doesn't flesh them out as well. At times the lesser threesome seems to be there just to satisfy the Beatles musical quota, touch on social issues and share space in the apartment like tenants from a sixties version of Rent.

Taymor did make the right call in casting lesser-known names in the roles as Jim Sturgess and Joe Anderson are not only great singers, but even better actors. Sturgess is especially impressive, showing real leading man range in a supremely difficult part. While Evan Rachel Wood has always done strong work in everything she's been in from Thirteen to Down In The Valley, she's been an actress that's difficult to get a handle on in terms of what she's really capable of. There's consistently been a quietness and naturalness to her that's made her captivating, but for some reason has kept her just out of reach for moviegoers. That "one big role" was always missing. Until now. This is the most exposed she's ever been and whatever gap may have existed between her and the audience has now permanently closed. This is a big showcase for her talents.

There's a scene late in the film where Lucy tells Jude that she'd jump in front of a tank to end the war and bring her brother home. Watching the special features on the DVD you'll have no doubt Julie Taymor wouldn't have hesitated to do the same to make sure her vision was carried out exactly how she imagined. Seeing her in action you could understand why the possibility of the studio robbing her of final cut would be devastating and impossible for her to deal with. In all the DVD behind the scenes special features I've seen in recent years I can't remember seeing a director this enthusiastic, interesting, or dedicated. I could tell you that none of it is reflected in the final product but I'd be lying. This isn't just merely a director, but an artist using the film as her canvas.

Taymor started her directing career on broadway with The Lion King before helming feature films like her bizarre but visually arresting adaptation of Titus with Anthony Hopkins and the Oscar nominated Frida, starring Salma Hayek (who cameos here). Across The Universe is not the film that will win her a directing Academy Award but one is coming to her and very soon if she keeps this up. That it failed to make a dent at the box office is of no surprise. It's a given anything this risky and ambitious would polarize audiences and critics, which explains it's nearly 50% split right down the middle on the Rotten Tomatoes meter. But it has struck a very strong chord among a core group of viewers who very passionately love it. I wouldn't go that far, but I understand why.

This is a difficult film to form an opinion on immediately after watching it because it's one of those movies that require some distance and breathing room to fully comprehend what you've seen and make sense of your thoughts. It's kind of like listening to a CD for the first time that's so different and challenging you don't know what to make of it. That first listen is just a formality to say you've heard it and nothing more. Upon repeated listens everything starts to come into focus. This is one of those and when it ended I'll admit I had an itch to watch it again so that opinion would come into fuller focus.

What I am sure about is that this film has something few others possess: An uncompromising vision. It also reminded me just how boring it is when movies are completely perfect. When you're walking a tightrope like this mistakes are going to be made and flaws will be visible. It doesn't make the movie any less memorable and in cases like this it can even make it more more so. Without risk there is no reward. So in taking so many chances Across The Universe just may have captured exactly what made The Beatles' music so special to begin with.