I'd heard about this movie awhile ago and the trailer was shown during the previews for Spider-Man 3. It looks really cool, comes out on the 29th of September.

Trailer

Looks weird. Might have to take acid to understand it.

Interesting. Plus I have a minor crush on Evan Rachel Wood so that's a big bonus.

I'm sorry if I offend, but this looks like a piece of crap. One bastardized Beatles song after another, set over a film that's a bastardized Beatles song. But I'll try to reserve my judgment.

I'm sorry if I offend, but this looks like a piece of crap. One bastardized Beatles song after another, set over a film that's a bastardized Beatles song. But I'll try to reserve my judgment.

Eh, everyone's entitled to his own opinion. I guess we'll see how the movie is when it comes out in a few months.

I'm sorry if I offend, but this looks like a piece of crap. One bastardized Beatles song after another, set over a film that's a bastardized Beatles song. But I'll try to reserve my judgment.

 

 

Couldn't have said it any better. I turned it off when some god awful voice started "singing" Hey Jude.

If it relies on the nostalgia of the Beatles association, it's just a wasted creative effort for all involved. Like I said, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm sick of this reliance on other people's creative achievments to trick people into liking something.

Well I think it looks cool.

I consider myself one of the biggest Beatles fans around, and I'm slightly interested by this. I mean, it needs to actually be a good movie, but if it is a good movie, having a Beatles-centric theme can't be a bad thing.

 

I'm not expecting it to be a good movie, but it's possible.

 

 

And I don't think the song are "bastardized". They are no different than the I Am Sam soundtrack from a few years back, which was decent.

 

The fact of the matter is the Beatles made music that is appreciated by everyone, and almost everyone has an emotional attachment to them. it's only natural that as time goes on, people will find new ways to appreciate them or to show their appreciation, and one way is to be inspired by them and create new art out of it.

If it relies on the nostalgia of the Beatles association, it's just a wasted creative effort for all involved. Like I said, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm sick of this reliance on other people's creative achievments to trick people into liking something.

Seriously. What idiots try to make a buck off of Beatles music? I mean, the music is done. It can't ever be presented in a new or interesting way again. Just let it die, like Paul. :mischief2

If it relies on the nostalgia of the Beatles association, it's just a wasted creative effort for all involved. Like I said, I'm not trying to offend you. I'm sick of this reliance on other people's creative achievments to trick people into liking something.

Seriously. What idiots try to make a buck off of Beatles music? I mean, the music is done. It can't ever be presented in a new or interesting way again. Just let it die, like Paul. :mischief2

Who said that I didn't think they could make money off Beatles music? I never did. What I was actually implying was that this represents an unashamed attempt to do exactly that. And never once did I imply that they were idiots.

 

Here's what I don't get: who wants to create something that relies on someone else's legacy to appeal to the audience? Be known for who you are, or don't waste your time.

 

Also, Bob mentioned I am Sam. Just like this one, that is another emotionally gimmicky movie.

 

Emotionally gimmicky = a cheap, uninspired attempt to tug at people's heart strings. i.e. stories about the mentally handicapped or cliched representations of nostalgic periods of history. (I'm not saying that such attempts aren't successful. They are. On myself as well as others.)

 

From its presentation through the trailer, this movie happens to possess my two biggest gripes in flimmaking. It's both unoriginal and emotionally gimmicky. I'd rather watch Baby Geniuses and see nunchuk-wielding infants save the world, than watch a movie that tries to evoke a cheap emotional response, especially while using someone else's creative work to do so.

 

EDIT: I would also say that Cirque Du Soleil uses the actual Beatles songs, just remixed together. Nor is it emotionally gimmicky.

I don't look at it as relying on the Beatles music in order to be emotionally gimmicky. I see it as a period piece which uses music of the time to complement it, not to "trick people into liking" it. I myself am quite fascinated by the '60s/Vietnam/hippie/revolution era and think the movie looks cool even without the music. The music is like a bonus.

I don't look at it as relying on the Beatles music in order to be emotionally gimmicky. I see it as a period piece which uses music of the time to complement it, not to "trick people into liking" it. I myself am quite fascinated by the '60s/Vietnam/hippie/revolution era and think the movie looks cool even without the music. The music is like a bonus.

Strangely enough, I'm about 180 degrees different on this. The Beatles were like the first band my dad introduced me to when I was like 4 or 5 years old (seriously) and so I've always enjoyed their music, but I certainly wasn't alive during the 60's, nor do I feel any particular attachment to it or kinship with much of the sentiments except that there was some very good music made then.

 

I'd heard about the movie before, but when I saw the trailer it intrigued me even more because in addition to the music, it also seemed to be a visually very interesting film and that appealed to my photographic sense. (I had much the same reaction to Sin City and 300).

It's getting very mixed reviews (49% on RT.com). Some calling it their very favorite film of the year, others calling it overly long (133m), little to no plot, and self-indulgent.

 

It's playing in South Florida (don't know the theatre) two weeks before going wide.