Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark - More Fake Horror (Spoilers)

It is becoming increasingly upsetting to observe the downfall of pure horror cinema. What passes as horror movies these days are cheap, lazy, unimaginative slogs riddled with too many jump-scares and not enough creepiness. Even speaking as a person who is not a big fan of the genre, I at least have a deep appreciation for it as well as a firm understanding of what makes good horror cinema. If I could use one word to describe what makes genuine horror, it would be "uncertainty." That terrifying state of mind when reality and illusion are unclear. Films like Jacob's Ladder and Oculus capture that very essence perfectly. Good horror will play with your thoughts, make you question what you just saw, and make you terrified of your own surroundings. None of which ever happens in this movie. Instead, we have yet another case of loud noises every five minutes, monsters that are more goofy than scary, all put together in a script that has no life to it whatsoever. This is one scary story that's not really scary, isn't really a story, and should never be told ever again. 

The film takes place in the 1960s (for some reason) and follows a group of school kids on Halloween night as they break into their local haunted house. Legend has it that a young girl was kept locked away by her family who would tell scary stories to other children through the walls. One of the kids finds a book that belonged to the legendary girl containing some of her stories. Taking the book home, our heroes are shocked to discover that the book is miraculously writing new stories on its own, and what's even worse, they are all coming to life taking out the kids one by one. Now, the kids must solve the mystery before they all disappear into the pages of their own story. 

As I suggested in the first paragraph of this review, this movie is not really horror. It's yet another example of what happens when you take a Carnival Haunted House and make it into a film. Even worse, it is an amalgamation of several other horror films that are a thousand times better than this. Few things are more annoying than sitting through a bad movie that is continually reminding you of better things you could otherwise be watching. Here is just a shortlist of things that happened and are present in this movie followed by where the filmmakers ripped it off from.

In this movie...
The plot centers around a book connected to the ghost of a young girl who was wrongfully treated and whos enraged spirit seeks vengeance on her tormentors and those who anger her.

Where is this from?
Paranorman

In this movie...
The main characters are chased and eventually left to die by a psychotic alcoholic bully.

Where is this from?
Every Stephen King story that was ever written.

In this movie...
The color style is extraordinarily stylized and reminiscent of the 1960s.

Where is this from?
Any horror film made by Mike Flanagan.

I could go on, but I suspect you get the idea.

What makes the whole experience even worse is that none of the characters are given any real development. Aside from a few archetypes, and a protagonist with cliche abandonment/persecution issues, all of the main characters are painfully one dimensional. I could not tell you their personality or even their names because I was given so little reason to care. We are introduced to each character being kind of jerks to their families and to each other, pulling a dangerous prank on someone. Sure, the victim of the joke was the bully who would deserve it, but there's no real reason to root for the kids to go forward with the prank until it's already been done. It felt less like the beginning of a movie and more like a later episode of a Netflix series where the introductions have already been done, and we're expected to know and care about the characters already.

This lack of characterzation and reason to care is made more frustrating by the films pacing. Usually, a horror film will want to take its time to build up suspense. Creating a mood and atmosphere to create tension. This movie doesn't have that at all. In fact, this movie is in such a hurry to get from one jump scare to another that it flat out forgets what build up even means. Throughout the whole runtime, I felt like I was on a monorail always moving at the exact same speed and never stopping. There were times when I just wanted to jump ship and call it quits, but I was determined to see if it was all worth it in the end with a satisfactory twist, which never came. Not to mention the last-minute out-of-nowhere painfully obvious sequel bait slapped onto the end of the film which makes no sense, and only felt like a massive slap to the face. Needless to say, if there is a sequel in the future, I sure as hell won't bother.

Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark is not frightening, has no real story, and should not be seen by anyone. It is a worthless, artless, lazy, insulting piece of crap that just adds to the horrendous stain on the reputation of good horror cinema. If you want to watch something genuinely scary with a better story and superior execution, watch The Haunting of Hill House on Netflix. It is significantly better than anything this poor excuse of a movie has to offer.

Is this movie worth seeing?
No.

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
No.

Why?
It's dull, unscary, loud, and wastes your time while reminding you of superior stuff you could be enjoying. Don't ever open this book.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.

Hobbs & Shaw - Ridiculously Enjoyable

In this movie, there a scene in which our heroes are in hiding in a familiar location. On the walls of this particular place are posters for the films Leather Weapon 3, 48 Hours, and the Sylvester Stallone classic, Cobra. All of which are classic action films of the 80s and 90s which perfectly capsulate today's movie Hobbs & Shaw. A modern presentation of the silly over-the-top action movies of my youth, and I could not help but love it all. Watching this movie made me feel like a kid again, it made me feel nostalgic for the days when action movies were fun. When they just embraced the absurdity of their worlds and didn't care about being "realistic." It is the perfect embodiment of suitable trash. It may not change or enrich your life, but it will provide a whole lot of fun at the movies like any good action movie should. 

Hobbs & Shaw is the first of possibly many spin-off films to spawn from the Fast & Furious series. A film series that I initially hated with a burning vengeance but have since grown to enjoy it. Mostly because the series initially tried too hard to be taken seriously and was pandering to an overly pandered crowd. That is until one day someone at the studio realized just how incredibly silly this whole idea was, and thus decided to encourage the filmmakers to just embrace the silliness of it all and have a blast with it. As a result, the Fast & Furious franchise has earned a place in my heart as a good action series, purely because of how much fun it's having, thereby encouraging the audience to have just as much fun if not more. 

The story follows an American special agent named Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and a British criminal/anti-hero named Shaw (Jason Statham). They are brought in by the CIA to work on a particular case regarding the theft of a dangerous virus which has the potential to wipe out most of the Planet. The main suspect is an MI6 agent named Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) who happens to be Shaw's sister. Little do our heroes know that the situation is being manipulated by a mysterious evil organization known as Etheon, who is also after the virus, and puts their most enhanced super-soldier named Brixton (Idris Elba) on their trail. Our heroes must put aside their differences and work together to retrieve the virus and save the world. 

What really sells this movie is the two main leads. Johnson and Statham are an absolute blast to watch. Their banter is funny, their chemistry feels genuine, and they both are clearly having a ton of fun with their roles and the entire movie. Both men have always had a natural charisma about them, which made them feel more likable and even relatable. Dwayne Johnson especially has often displayed a genuine enthusiasm for his work. If you watch almost any interview of him when talking about his upcoming movie, he is just like a little kid who got a brand new treehouse. As a result, because he's having so much fun, so are we. 

The action scenes are especially excellent. Unlike most action films today, Hobbs & Shaw provides incredible set pieces that, I dare say, are on-par with the likes of Ronin or even Mad Max: Fury Road. The camera never shakes like the operator just had his fifth Redbull, the editing is quick without being hyper, and every single moment is clear and coherent. This is the kind of action that Michael Bay thinks he is making but never succeeds in accomplishing. He should take note. 

My only real nitpick is a fantastic scene towards the end of the film, which was given away in the trailers when it really should not have been. One of the things that Dwayne Johnson likes to do in his movies is showcasing his Polynesian heritage. Usually in the form demonstrating ancient warrior tactics and battle preparation. It is a purely awesome scene that, while still incredible, would have been more so if it was not given away in the trailer. I can't help but feel that this one fantastic scene was robbed of its impact because the marketing department is under the false impression that trailers have to reveal everything about a movie to get audiences in seats. But I digress. 

Regardless of rather you are a fan of the Fast & Furious franchise or not, Hobbs & Shaw delivers a self-contained experience that anyone with a heartbeat can enjoy. It is super silly fun all throughout, and it is never embarrassed or ashamed of it. I hope we get to see more action movies reach this level of enjoyability. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in Theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

It is unashamed and unapologetic crazy action and is the kind of silly movie experience we need more of in this modern world. 

Ladies & gentelmen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood - A lot to unravel

In 1969, a group of cultists under orders from their leader, Charles Manson, broke into a house north of Beverly Hills, and savagely murdered everyone therein. Including actress and then wife to renowned director Roman Polanski (who was in Europe making his next movie at the time), Sharron Tate, who was also eight months pregnant at the time. Manson chose this particular house because it was the former residence of a music producer who denied Manson a record deal. Although this producer no longer lived in the same house anymore, this clearly did not discourage the cult followers from carrying out their disgusting and unforgivable deeds. I feel that it is vital for me to mention this historical event because, like most of the people who will see this movie, this event was before my time. I was born in 1984, so I did not grow up with this knowledge. I had to read about it and look up some videos on YouTube about it. Before seeing today's movie, I was aware of the kind of evil person that Charles Manson was, and that he had murdered people as well as encourage his followers to kill as well, but I was not aware of this particular set of murders. It was only after seeing the movie did I take the time to learn the history of the tragic event and gained a greater appreciation for this movie. Because in addition to being the well written, superbly acted, and the well-crafted film overall, it is yet another excellent addition of Quentin Tarantino's filmography of "Symbolic Historical Fantasy Wish-Fulfillment."  

The film's story is relatively similar to one of Tarantino's previous films Pulp Fiction, in that it is really a collection of stories and vignettes that are all interconnected. The "main" story as it were, centers around a television actor named Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his best friend/stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). To say any more about the story beyond that would constitute spoilers and I believe that the less you know about the story proper, the more profound your experience will be with this film. Likewise, to explain any further of its relation the Charles Manson murders and his cult would greatly diminish the impact of the film's climax. Which, in all honesty, is arguably the craziest, most graphic, and yet most pleasant "what if" scenario I have ever seen put to film. It has to be seen to be both believed and appreciated. 

Having said all of that, the film proper is really well made. As you might expect, the acting is top-notch. The whole cast delivers a wide variety of drama, comedy, meta-humor, and a trace amount of coolness for good measure. The writing, as you might also expect from a Tarantino script, is witty and intelligent (for the most part). It seamlessly swims through things like the true nature of Hollywood, the film industry, the perception of fame, and the true nature of success. For good or for ill, most of the hallmarks you would expect from a Quentin Tarantino film are present and accounted for.  

As much as I did enjoy and appreciate this movie, I do have a few nitpicks. I wish that the script could have spent just a little more time exploring movie magic like camera tricks and special effects, I personally didn't really appreciate the film's depiction of the legendary Bruce Lee, and my biggest nitpick of all, Quentin Tarantino really, REALLY needs to put his foot fetish in check. 

Much like Quentin's previous films Inglorious Bastards and Django Unchained, his latest outing must be seen to be believed and appreciated. It is both a love letter to cinema buffs like myself and a tender fantasy providing a sense of symbolic justice. It's a film that plays around with history to showcase how things could be a lot better if we all just take a moment to figure out what is most important in life. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Maybe. 

Why? 

While I do highly recommend you see this film, it may be better enjoyed at home. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.  

The Twenty-Four 6 Movement - Let's challenge ourselves again

"I continue to be interested in new things that seem old and old things that seem new." 

-Jaquelin T. Robertson

In 1995, a group of Danish filmmakers started the Dogme 95 Movement, also known as The Vow of Chastity. It was a fixed set of ten rules for filmmakers to follow. The purpose of the movement was to encourage filmmakers to challenge themselves both artistically and technologically, to remember the values of cinema, such as profound narratives and textured characters portrayed by nuanced performances. The rules of the movement caused many filmmakers to utilize standard definition video cameras to capture their films, thereby becoming the first example of the inherent quality of digital video for cinema. This challenge kickstarted many promising careers for many filmmakers including director Lars von Trier (Dancer in the Dark) and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (Slumdog Millionaire). Here are the rules that were laid down by the Dogme 95 Movement. 

This movement inspired me to come up with my own challenge, but for different reasons. 

While the Dogme 95 Movement was intended to encourage filmmakers to "go back to their roots" as it were, by forcing themselves to focus exclusively on story and character, part of what makes the idea so appealing to me is how it also inadvertently showcased the cinematic quality of digital video. Specifically, the video which can be described by some as "low quality." In the years since Dogme 95, digital cameras have advanced significantly. Providing more color data, exposure latitude, and resolution. All of which are incredible, but also have the potential to hamper filmmakers or even encourage laziness. 

The digital age of filmmaking has lead to many beautiful advantages in image quality, color control, and creative options. I have utilized equipment which offers such choices, and I have enjoyed using them, and still do. However, in recent years, I can't help but feel as though the advancements made in technology have been leading to unnecessary levels of hype and unrealistic expectations. To the point where filmmakers, both mainstream and independent, are spending too much time trying to do what they think is expected of them rather than doing what is best for the story they want to tell. 

Not too long ago, I shared an idea with people on a Facebook Group for users of the Panasonic GH5. An advanced video camera which I happen to own and is one of the most favored for digital cinema, mostly due to its highly advanced capture options. I suggested taking on a challenge to shoot some film projects on that same camera but utilizing some of the less-than-advanced options within the camera. Such as a format that was not as detailed or a picture profile that had less exposure latitude. The majority of responses I got from this suggested challenge were so negative and so defensive that I actually contemplated leaving the group. Users within this group were accusing me of encouraging people to deliberately hinder themselves by using "inferior" technology that had no place in modern digital cinema. Even when I clarified that this idea was an optional challenge and not a direct order, everyone continued to hound me as if I had just insulted them and their intelligence. It did not feel like an open and free artistic environment at all much to my disappointment. 

Even so, I continued to consider and draft up my own challenging movement for filmmakers. One that allows total freedom of narrative but encouraged utilizing older tech. Much like how Dogme 95 was intended to remind filmmakers of the values of storytelling, my movement is to tell people of the power of all cameras, not just those built to meet modern standards and expectations. Because when you are forced to believe that cinema can only be achieved when utilizing what is expected by others, then you are hindering yourself by not allowing the possibility of less advanced machines that might be more suited for your budget and story. 

My challenge for modern filmmakers is as follows: 

The Twenty-Four 6 Movement: 

1. The film must be captured in 1080p resolution and no higher.
2. The capture bitrate must not accede 100mbps.
3. LOG is forbidden. Using a picture profile to achieve ample room for color correction such as CIneLike D is acceptable. Also, if able, you are encouraged to create the desired color and exposure style in-camera.
4. The capture color space must be 8-bit 420.
5. The exact make and model of the camera(s) utilized must be credited. Both in the film's credits and in any and all advertisements for the film.
6. External recorders are forbidden.

In case you are wondering, I intend to put this movement to the test very soon. Come this August, I will be participating in the 48 Hour Film Project. A challenge for filmmakers to make a short film in just two days. I have done this challenge before many times and have always utilized the advanced capabilities of my GH5. This year, however, I intend to go a little old school by using an older but beautiful Panasonic camera, the AG AF100. One of the earliest digital video cameras built for cinema.

I look forward to seeing how it will all unfold. I hope you are as well. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Crawl - Wally Gator is angry

Crawl is what I like to call a "Lazy Sunday Movie." It's a simple premise about humans vs. nature starring two talented actors playing characters whos circumstances thematically linking their personal life drama and inner demons which they must now confront and resolve to survive a life-threatening situation greater than themselves. It's quick, simple, to the point, well crafted, and entertaining throughout its ninety-minute runtime. Beyond that, there's really not much else I can say about the movie other than it's an excellent film to play on a lazy Sunday when there's not much to do or while you're killing time waiting for the Lazaniga to cook. That's not to say that the movie is terrible, just too simple. If nothing else, it's a great way to fill in the time for hardcore horror fans while they wait for Doctor Sleep to come out. 

Taking place in Florida amid a massive hurricane, the story follows a young competitive swimmer named Haley (Kaya Scodelario) who is unable to reach her father Dave (Barry Pepper) and is concerned at the possibility that he hasn't evacuated from the upcoming flood. So she drives to her old childhood house in search of her dad only to find him wounded and unconscious in the basement. As she attempts to drag her dad back out to the car, she is suddenly confronted by a massive Alligator and is unable to escape. Making matters worse is once her father wakes up, she learns of his broken leg. On top of that, the water is getting higher flooding the basement, and even if they do find a way out, there's a whole family of Alligators just swimming around the neighborhood. Now, Haley must face the elements to save both herself and her dad, and in doing so, reconnect with her father and her true self. 

Setting aside the one major issue with the movie, namely that most houses in Florida don't have basements since the area is either at or under sea level, this is a solid film. It does an excellent job at maintaining tension, raising the steaks, and providing a straightforward yet compelling narrative with sympathetic characters. Jump-scares are few and far in between and utilized in the best way possible. 

What makes a movie like this work is the cast. The two leads are talented and capable actors who succeed in selling every moment. Kaya Scodelario especially delivers a compelling performance on par with the likes of Daisy Ridley, and I look forward to seeing her again in future films. 

The film gets a ton of bonus points for merely being a story set in water. Anyone who has ever worked on a movie set with tons of water can tell you that it is not an easy thing to accomplish. While general things like cast & crew comfort and safety as well as the equipment security are typical aspects of filmmaking, when putting together a movie in water, it is all made ten times more challenging. When you consider all that has to be done to prevent things like the cast getting hypothermia from being wet all day, keeping the equipment from getting wet and damaged and the hundreds of thousands of gallons of water required to flood the whole set, it becomes an ordeal just to get through a single day of shooting. Every person involved in this film gets all the bonus points for taking on this challenge, and they deserve a medal. 

While Crawl may not be the next greatest blockbuster this summer as the marketing would have you believe, it is still a decent flick that is sure to please both horror fans and anyone else looking for proper use of free time. If nothing else, it is undoubtedly a better option than seeing a complete retread of an animated classic but with a fresh coat of photo-realistic paint. 

*COUGH* The Lion King *COUGH* 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Maybe. 

Why? 

While it is decently entertaining, and the overall production value is admirable, I would not say that it's completely worthy of full theater price. See it at a matinee or wait for the video. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Spider-Man: Far From Home - Far from perfect but still fun

I may have mentioned once or twice on this blog that Spider-Man is my absolute favorite superhero of all time. Aside from the cool outfit and out-of-this-world superpowers, Spider-Man is probably the most human of superheroes. His relatability and sympathetic personality make it easy to root for him in most situations. Also, he's not afraid to crack the occasional joke or two, thereby providing a little levity when needed. The best incarnation of the character in recent years has to be the video game released back in September for the PlayStation 4, while the worst has to be Sony's previous attempt at a rebooted solo series (The Amazing Spider-Man films starring Andrew Garfield) before they finally joined forces with Marvel. This brand new iteration of the character both here and in the previous movie, Spider-Man: Homecoming, is...okay. It's not revolutionary, nor is it dull, but somewhere just above the middle line. At the very least, I did not feel as though my time was wasted. 

The story takes place a few months after the events of Avengers: Endgame. With the loss of Tony Stark, aka Iron-Man, people are starting to wonder if Spider-Man (Tom Holland) will take up the mantle since Tony had taken Spider-Man under his wing. But Spider-Man, aka Peter Parker, doesn't want to worry about that right now, as he's about to go on a vacation through Europe with his science class, where he hopes to confess his feelings to the girl he likes, Mary-Jane (Zendaya). However, things get derailed rather quickly as Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) informs Peter of a dire situation on their hands and they need his help. Turns out some strange monsters have been popping up all over the world. To combat the threat, they are joined by a new hero named Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal) who claims to be from another dimension where he fought these monsters before and lost. Now, Spider-Man must balance his personal desires with his responsibilities all the while having to save the world in the process. No pressure, right? 

Watching Spider-Man: Far From Home is like eating another piece of the same Chocolate Cake you have in the kitchen. It's technically the same Cake, but it's just another part of it, only differentiated by the date of its consumption and the number of sprinkles on top depending on where you sliced it. It's still very much enjoyable and tasty, but you had a piece of it just the other day, so it's not quite as nuanced as it was before. This is not to say that the movie is terrible, only too familiar. While the previous film, Spider-Man: Homecoming, was an enjoyable movie, what prevented it (and by extension, today's film) from becoming a genuinely great iteration of the character, at least to me, was how hard it was trying to be funny. Don't get me wrong, moments of levity is expected in Marvel films, and Spider-Man is no stranger to the occasional quip or apt line of dialogue when facing off an enemy, but both movies feel like they're trying too hard to up the amount of silliness. To an almost (no pun intended) ridiculous degree. Granted, Marvel has gotten better at toning it down in other movies, but one might think that after winning over audiences with the first new Spider-Man film, the guys at Marvel would feel confident enough to reign it in and do something different with the next movie. Sadly, that is not the case here. 

Despite the second movie feeling too much like the first, Spider-Man: Far From Home is still an entertaining movie in its own right. Mostly because all the players involved are just as excellent as you would expect. Tom Holland is a fantastic Spider-Man/Peter Parker, as he not only nails the look and physicality but the general personality. Holland has also proven himself recently as a genuinely capable actor, so I have no doubt that he will continue to grow as Spider-Man. Also, as you would expect, Samuel L. Jackson is an ever-appreciated presence in the Marvel movies, or indeed in any film. I can watch this man read the phonebook on stage and have the time of my life. 

However, the MVP award, at least in my opinion, has to go to Jake Gyllenhaal as Mysterio. Not only does Jake Gyllenhaal play the part well, but he also succeeds in being a more interesting villain in a Marvel film. As I mentioned in my review for Black Panther, the villains in Marvel movies up until then had been mostly one dimensional. Serving as little more than a means to advance the plot. It wasn't until Black Panther, as well as Spider-Man: Homecoming, that the villains started to become more textured and even understandable without really being relatable. While comic book fans will likely already figure out what Mysterio is really up to, I have to give credit to the film for genuinely misdirecting me. Also, Jake Gyllenhaal plays the role with such conviction and likable charm, that you can't help but enjoy his company and believe his story. 

While I personally would have liked the movie more if it was a little different, I still enjoyed it for the excellent adventure that it was. Maybe later down the line, Marvel and Sony will produce another Spider-Man film that actually adds some texture to the character and his world aside from how much more comedy they can try to force into any given scene, but until that time, what we have is still enjoyable as ever. Also, in case you're wondering, there are two post-credit scenes, and they are both significant. Be sure to stick around for them. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

Yes. 

Why? 

Even though I would have preferred a little less comedy, it is still a blast with great action, fun characters, and solid acting all around. If you need a superhero fix, this is the one for you. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you very much for reading. 

Yesterday - My guitar weeps for something better

Few things are as upsetting as watching an excellent concept for a story not being utilized to its full extent. Yesterday provides some incredible musical performances, strong acting from the whole cast, and massive goldmines ideas and possibilities to explore. Sadly, as much as one can enjoy the good bits, the rest of the movie stumbles in place trying to find its footing. Worse yet, it doesn't even really seem to grasp the possibilities of its own concept, preferring to be a by-the-numbers romantic comedy. Even then, it's still not as well executed as it clearly should have been. Yet, despite that, I cannot deny that I did enjoy parts of it. Like I said, the music and the acting is top notch, it's just a shame that it's not in a better movie. 

The story follows a failing singer/songwriter named Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) and his manager/childhood friend Ellie Appleton (Lilly James). Jack has finally reached his breaking point with his musical aspirations since he can't seem to attract an audience to his songs and is on the verge of giving up. That is until one strange night when all the lights in the world go out causing Jack to accidentally get hit by an oncoming Bus. After recovering from his accident, Jack performs his cover of the classic Beatles song Yesterday to some of his friends, only to discover that, somehow, no one remembers The Beatles. Jack has become the only one who remembers the famous British band. Also, he knows all of their songs by heart. After realizing this strange phenomenon, Jack gets an idea. He will pass off The Beatles music as his own. From there, Jack's musical career skyrockets as he is heralded as a genius and the next big thing in the history of music. Will Jack be able to maintain riding this Yellow Submarine, or will the moral dilemma of succeeding off of someone else's work make him sadder than Jude? 

This is an excellent concept for a story. It offers the opportunity to explore what it is about The Beatles music that makes it so memorable and universally beloved, it has the potential to comment on the power and necessity of music, and a perfect vehicle for showcasing and commentating on the music industry as a whole. Which the film does none of. 

Much to my disappointment, the film decides to cast aside its own mind-blowing premise in favor of a standard romantic comedy. To be fair, the romance aspect is at least decent, mostly due to the competent performances and believable chemistry between the two leads, but I found myself not getting as invested in their relationship as the film wanted me to, when there is a much more exciting idea just hanging around in the background. It was like seeing a rock concert interrupted continuously by the unfunny scenes that were cut out of Love Actually. On top of that, the movie could not even be bothered to have a satisfying twist. I spent the latter half of the film trying to figure out what the twist would be (is he in a coma or is he dead?) and while the ending was still somewhat satisfying, it just didn't feel as fulfilling as I think it should have. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind it when a movie decides to leave some parts of its story up to the interpretation of the audiences, but there are areas of narrative that are more suited to that kind of exicution. 

As I said, the musical performances are lovely. I was unable to determine if the songs were indeed performed by Himesh Patel himself or not, but if they were, then Patel has some incredable talent for music. His voice, assuming it was his own, was bright and beautiful. He did a wonderful job bringing these great classics to life. Also, his chemistry with Lilly James was actually pretty nice to watch. Even though I wasn't all that invested in their relationship, I did enjoy watching the two of them perform off each other. 

To be fair, the movie does explore some of the moral complexities of finding success with work that is not your own, and it does have some fun with the idea of being the only one who remembers something famous. However, you eventually realize that seems to be the movies only joke, as they repeat it a few different ways all throughout the film. Which, again, they don't go into any juicy details about which would have been fun to explore. 

The film was directed by Danny Boyle, late of Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later, and 127 Hours. To be honest, I don't think he was the right choice for this film. While Mr. Boyle is a talented director and I have enjoyed most of his past movies, his particular sense of style was just too much for this film. Danny Boyle's style can best be described as what you would get if Kenneth Branagh started directing music videos for Genesis while experiencing a minor contact high. He's not so much hyperactive as he is a little over enthusiastic. Please understand, while I do like aspects of Danny Boyle's style as it works well in other kinds of films, I don't think this movie in particular really called for it. Not to mention how it seems as though Danny Boyle was either not interested in going deeper into the more fascinating aspects of the story, or was simply unable to do so. I hope that Danny Boyle finds another project that is more suited to his taste. 

Yesterday is yet another case of a solid idea not reaching its full potential. What could have been a deep and profound exploration of music and love, is just a by-the-numbers romantic comedy that happens to feature surprisingly well-performed covers of Beatles songs. I cannot say this film is necessarily bad, just underwhelming. Still enjoyable in some spots, but nothing that you will remember an hour later. This track is, sadly, best skipped. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Maybe. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It's a paint-by-numbers romantic comedy that can't be bothered to do anything fun with its unique premise. The music and performances are decent but aren't enough to justify full admission price. Wait for video, or better yet, just buy some more Beatles albums. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.