I get the feeling that Paul went into this really naive as to what film making is really about. Somewhere along the way McCartney got into his head the idea that musicians should make films, i guess the experience of A Hard Day's Night and Help! Set a certain rock and roll career trajectory and McCartney seemed to want to take the Betels into films all the time Mystery tour and Let it be also badly executed.
Perhaps with Broad Street he felt he could redeem the film making desire inside him? It is hard to fathom what he was thinking that this may have been a good idea.
Basically the film is really drab, colourless, dreary, the imagery, scenery, settings, dialogue and acting. It is all so flat and boring. Compared to hard days night or help that were full of action humour and excitement, this seems to be set in dreary settings with talk of banks and finances and creepy businessmen lurking around. So many awkward moments that aren't explained or resolved that don't add to the plot. The characters are dull and undeveloped. The whole thing just passes by without any memorable moments in the story. It is hard to not watch it and be aghast at how bland, corny and awkward this film is.
Then there is the MUSIC, some fantastic music on here beautiful versions of Beatles songs sung with gorgeous vocals and feeling. Slight variations on arrangements and a modern production on these classics is a great experiment by McCartney and definitely the highlights of the film here. "For No-one" with the strings is beautiful. Yesterday/here there and everywhere/wanderlust medley is simply gorgeous; I also like the extended orchestration of Eleanor Rigby even if the dream within a dream sequence in the film is another annoying / embarrassing moment here. The lead single No More Lonely Nights is a great track another McCartney classic. The other new songs are not so memorable but still fun with some nice melodies and good rock performance and arrangement. The quality of the music stands out here. The cringiest moment is the Silly Love Songs sequence, it just feels like at times McCartney is playing this "Look i can do it too" rendition of 80s film and pop culture cliches, but so what? It doesn't impress.
Some interesting storyline and settings would go a long way to redeem this film. I get the sense that McCartney just wanted to have some fun making a film and pulled in people who would just pander to that whim. Is it ego or naivety? Hard to tell probably a bit of both...
Paul McCartney just loves to make music and entertain. He suffers somewhat by being detached and out of touch. The whimsy and playfulness is there it just lacks any substance, nuance or depth which makes this disappointing to annoying mostly, for anyone with a mature artistic sensibility. Good for the die-hard fans and worth it for the wonderful music that does a lot better without the film footage.
Perhaps with Broad Street he felt he could redeem the film making desire inside him? It is hard to fathom what he was thinking that this may have been a good idea.
Basically the film is really drab, colourless, dreary, the imagery, scenery, settings, dialogue and acting. It is all so flat and boring. Compared to hard days night or help that were full of action humour and excitement, this seems to be set in dreary settings with talk of banks and finances and creepy businessmen lurking around. So many awkward moments that aren't explained or resolved that don't add to the plot. The characters are dull and undeveloped. The whole thing just passes by without any memorable moments in the story. It is hard to not watch it and be aghast at how bland, corny and awkward this film is.
Then there is the MUSIC, some fantastic music on here beautiful versions of Beatles songs sung with gorgeous vocals and feeling. Slight variations on arrangements and a modern production on these classics is a great experiment by McCartney and definitely the highlights of the film here. "For No-one" with the strings is beautiful. Yesterday/here there and everywhere/wanderlust medley is simply gorgeous; I also like the extended orchestration of Eleanor Rigby even if the dream within a dream sequence in the film is another annoying / embarrassing moment here. The lead single No More Lonely Nights is a great track another McCartney classic. The other new songs are not so memorable but still fun with some nice melodies and good rock performance and arrangement. The quality of the music stands out here. The cringiest moment is the Silly Love Songs sequence, it just feels like at times McCartney is playing this "Look i can do it too" rendition of 80s film and pop culture cliches, but so what? It doesn't impress.
Some interesting storyline and settings would go a long way to redeem this film. I get the sense that McCartney just wanted to have some fun making a film and pulled in people who would just pander to that whim. Is it ego or naivety? Hard to tell probably a bit of both...
Paul McCartney just loves to make music and entertain. He suffers somewhat by being detached and out of touch. The whimsy and playfulness is there it just lacks any substance, nuance or depth which makes this disappointing to annoying mostly, for anyone with a mature artistic sensibility. Good for the die-hard fans and worth it for the wonderful music that does a lot better without the film footage.