Yesterday Last Year |
Canada / USA • 2017 • 76m •
Michael spends all his time in the garage trying to build a time machine. Sandra, his wife, is bottom of his priority list. Only his friend and associate, James, seems to get Michael's full attention. One day, the machine starts working, and the three of them must deal with their past mistakes - and how far they're willing to go to fix them.
  • Directed by: Jeffrey Hanley. • Starring: Adam Bradley, Amelia Mathews, Scott Walker. • Music by: James Clements. |
Trailers:
| Length: | Languages: | Subtitles: |
Review:
The film gets off to a pretty good start, there's an interesting question of who sent the device back so the time machine would work, theres also a nice enough conflict scene where the wife tries to get the protagonist to go back to work, they're almost out of money but he has almost cracked the problem to it...so I was kind of interested to see where this would go once he got it working...
...but His main why for the goal is to screw the Dean but he can't do that as the university would take the time machine back? so the real reason was to see if he could, but then it's for his wife and him to go to Paris?...with so many reasons why and the film being confined to the one location we cannot experience him pursue using the time machine for whatever reasonX...so there's not much of a reason to care...doesn't make for the greatest storytelling. Seems like he could easily get a job with all his skill and qualifications so the stakes of being poor aren't that threatening so....why are we supposed to care?
The wife comes off as extremely lazy and unsympathetic, spending years on her dissertation and asking other people to do it for her. The only person to really care about is the friend, the work colleague guy, but he's very much a side character.
If there was more than one location we could experience why the machine was so personally important to him and his wife...but the film really becomes a long argument about whether or not to use it.
The main guy's partner is more of a compelling character, he actually has a compelling reason to use the time machine and go back 7 years to get back the woman he lost...why isn't the film about him?and why couldn't they of had one other location in the film to explore him trying to get her back? I know, no money but couldn't they of used someones house and say, there's a party going on or something?
It's really a film where a guy creates a time machine and they all argue about whether or not to use it, that's really the product of being confined to one location. Having a script like this and only having one location is not the greatest idea, fine for a drama or a comedy but not a sci fi involving time travel
The wife tries to convince her husband to get cancer and go in the time machine? then they can figure out a way to make it worthwhile by enjoying themselves...but they can do that right now...and guess what, it's cancer free! lol
There is a little too much arguing in the second act, so much so the film gets meta and the wife wants to go back 30 minutes before the arguing...even she's tired of it, that was kinda funny in a good way, like the film makes fun of it...but seriously, arguing is NOT the same as conflict and there's a little too much arguing. I kept checking to see how long was left in the film. All in all some niceinteresting plot points and some moments of actual conflict but way too much arguing.
...but His main why for the goal is to screw the Dean but he can't do that as the university would take the time machine back? so the real reason was to see if he could, but then it's for his wife and him to go to Paris?...with so many reasons why and the film being confined to the one location we cannot experience him pursue using the time machine for whatever reasonX...so there's not much of a reason to care...doesn't make for the greatest storytelling. Seems like he could easily get a job with all his skill and qualifications so the stakes of being poor aren't that threatening so....why are we supposed to care?
The wife comes off as extremely lazy and unsympathetic, spending years on her dissertation and asking other people to do it for her. The only person to really care about is the friend, the work colleague guy, but he's very much a side character.
If there was more than one location we could experience why the machine was so personally important to him and his wife...but the film really becomes a long argument about whether or not to use it.
The main guy's partner is more of a compelling character, he actually has a compelling reason to use the time machine and go back 7 years to get back the woman he lost...why isn't the film about him?and why couldn't they of had one other location in the film to explore him trying to get her back? I know, no money but couldn't they of used someones house and say, there's a party going on or something?
It's really a film where a guy creates a time machine and they all argue about whether or not to use it, that's really the product of being confined to one location. Having a script like this and only having one location is not the greatest idea, fine for a drama or a comedy but not a sci fi involving time travel
The wife tries to convince her husband to get cancer and go in the time machine? then they can figure out a way to make it worthwhile by enjoying themselves...but they can do that right now...and guess what, it's cancer free! lol
There is a little too much arguing in the second act, so much so the film gets meta and the wife wants to go back 30 minutes before the arguing...even she's tired of it, that was kinda funny in a good way, like the film makes fun of it...but seriously, arguing is NOT the same as conflict and there's a little too much arguing. I kept checking to see how long was left in the film. All in all some niceinteresting plot points and some moments of actual conflict but way too much arguing.
Review by richardadesmond from the Internet Movie Database.
Off-Site Reviews:
Movie Database