The texture of “Yesterday” is predicated on a simple idea if one can suspend disbelief in what is actually transpiring. In embracing a diversity structure, the ideal of Hamish Patel as Jack who becomes a leading songwriter after the blinking out of power and earth and him being subsequently hit by a bus sets an alternative history in motion. Films in the 80s did this kind of switch many times without blinking. If one can get past the story of that (there are many other things that change besides the absence of The Beatles but those are on the periphery), then it becomes a fairly cohesive romantic comedy in a way. Balanced between the idea of creative fulfillment and the notion of happiness strikes very real as the film goes on. An undeniable meeting later in the film that acts as a spark point of revelation heightens the heart of the film in an undeniable way but almost seems like a different plane from the rest of the film.
Danny Boyle as a director here does understand the material but interestingly enough Richard Curtis, the writer, who is known for “Love Actually” provides a different access point in terms of the story. Curtis’ strengths blend between relationships with levity and a touch of drama and Boyle sometimes strays towards the darker edges of life. The aspect of his stylistic touches inhabit the beginning of the movie but seem to disappear into the background as the film progresses. The resolution is a foregone conclusion. The different supporting parts listed do well though are sometimes off tone. Ed Sheeran plays himself but comes off simply as a plot ploy more than anything else. Kate McGinnon as his manager via Ed simply mods for the camera while being both chideful and manic in a off-center sort of way. No film yet (save for a bit in “Ghostbusters”) has found a way to channel her correctly. Joel Fry as Jack’s would-be roadie Rocky makes for some funny off-thoughts and character moments like Ewan Bremner as Spud in Boyle’s “Trainspotting”.
The heart of the film is Lily James who works well her but only serves a catalyst for the plot. Her specificity on what she want is very endearing but, there is so much more that lurks below the surface that isn’t truly allowed to brim. However it is Hamish Patel’s Jack who is the focus of the journey and while engaging, his character is more just along for the ride. He may figure it out but the choice elements regarding his path make it almost inevitable. But if you like The Beatles and their music, one can overlook many of the films failings but also enjoy its strengths.
By Tim Wassberg
The texture of a trilogy is always based in a texture of resolution and giving perspective on how the characters have grown. “How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” starts off a bit as what we have seen before which is the structure of saving the dragons with Toothless, a Night Fury being able to control his fellow reptiles. The transgression of the movie, without giving too much away, involves the essence of change and what method of acceptance allows all the characters to move forward. Hiccup, as the unlikely hero of his community of Vikings, suffers from the aspect that his identity is defined by Toothless and not what he possibly can become. Even though Astrid is by his side he doesn’t trust his instincts and unfortunately, at times, his would-be princess is used in a more conventional way to push forward the story. Like Hiccup, Toothless suffers in a similar way when a Light Fury under the guise of another agenda (not of her own doing) lures Toothless away. All this is done without malice which is a nice structure but leads back to the themes of identity and loyalty eventually as Hiccup and Astrid make their to the Hidden World. Without revealing the spoilers, the films relates this essence of existing and growing up in a sensible, emotional and literal way without creating too much of an overwrought scenario making it both palpable for the younger viewers (through the pratfalls and comedic awkwardness of both Hiccup and Toothless) while still maintaining a mythic story structure and progression to satisfy many adult expectations.
By Tim Wassberg
The essence of the texture of something like “Glass” is taking something that can be so mythic and break it down to its most essential. For the most part of the film, writer/director M. Night Shyamalan captures much of what he found in “Unbreakable”. While not as revelatory as that film and on a significantly lower budget, “Glass” accomplishes much of what it sets out to do. Anchored by a brilliant James McAvoy who more than keeps balance with his older and more seasoned co-stars in Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, the film paces itself well without losing the pathos of the characters. But what seems as a construct (or even more just as an exercise in narrative) can be more seen as a parable of hiding in plain sight of what the general populace can be allowed or trusted to understand.
“Glass” takes place in a much different time than “Unbreakable” but the characters, like many people, are the same. Elijah (aka Mr. Glass) is fascinated by superheroes but knows what role he plays. The Beast that lives within Kevin, McAvoy’s character, is there to protect him, no matter what the damage. And David Dunn is trying to protect the rest of all is us around him. Shyamalan’s direction is the best he has been in years simply because he knows exactly how to pitch these characters but also how to build that story at its bones. If one simply reflects back on the basis of his story which Shyamalan does here, he likely realizes that the simplest progression and thereby resolution can be the truth that sets the characters free. The McGuffin itself, in true Shyamalan fashion, which won’t be revealed here is a little flimsily constructed and needed a bit more exposition but its impact and Night’s ability to push it in this direction under a very restricted budget seems to have reignited what he is capable of (as “Split” obviously showed). Jason Blum, who also produced this film, needs to be given credit as well as he is known for low budget films but also known for making filmmakers think creatively by limiting them. Leigh Whammel said similar when he showed “Upgrade” at SxSW in 2018.
A greater feat was getting Disney to allow Shyamalan to use footage from “Unbreakable” which Night seems to have brokered himself in terms of reaching out. The importance of this undeniably works because there is congruence allowing motion of time and pertinence between 2000 (when “Unbreakable” was made) and 2019. It is no small deal and allows for a sense of connection and depth which might not otherwise be possible (especially since secondary characters from the other two films in the trilogy do play a part). All this said, while not an event film by any means, “Glass” is both forceful and confident without being too egotistical. Many film students can look at this transmutation of a filmmaker and see an interesting path and how inevitably it affects specific decisions both for the better but also at times, against expectation.
In an age of superheroes that, at worst, are simply CG enhanced constructs overarching with myth or, at the best, grand textures of the essence of humanity (yet costing hundreds of millions of dollars to make), it is interesting to see the sequel to a film that started the high concept notion of a superhero do so without the extensive or blown up budgets to accomplish the basic premise. Interesting enough before Night, to give him credit, the one constant is the one and only: Samuel L. Jackson who has found a way to exist in both these kinds worlds from the beginning chords to the present day. The accomplishment of “Glass” is knowing its own true identity which, if one sees the characters as they truly are, is all they could be and more, with an intended impact and meaning.
By Tim Wassberg