Yesterday Was a Lie

This film falls short to deliver a Twilight Zoneesque feel. Unless you're a Jungian or are familiar with Fred Hoyle and anything psychological or science for that matter, then this film will pass over your head. Love the noir atmosphere but the characters aren't believable in telling a noir style story. Chase Masterson is incredibly talented and gorgeous,and makes an attempt to be Virgil and walk Kipleigh Brown through a scientific Dante's Inferno. If this film were a student project for an astrophysics class, then it would have succeeded. Unfortunately it was presented as an actual film at Cannes. As a lover of science fiction, especially Twilight Zone and Star Trek I delve into this film expecting for a great deal of human factor drama and a blend of 1950's murder mystery and suspense. Instead I received a puzzle with pieces that are missing. If you watch this film research Fred Hoyle or read October First Is Too Late or keep the Sixth Sense and Dante's Inferno in mind.

I had very low hopes for this movie, and it managed to fall below even those.

Short form, if you've seen other films noir, you've seen this one, except done better. If you've seen a lot of film noir, you've seen everything in this one, because it seems to be little more than a visual mash-up of what's been done before.

That in itself is bad enough, but the acting and the writing are atrocious. If you saw Super 8, at the end of the film you get the see the project film that all the kids are working on throughout the movie. "Yesterday was a Lie" is very slightly better than that. Given that the writer is also the director, and based on the fact that every performance is flat and fails to engage, I think the direction must also be at fault.

There is philosophy to be found here. I would urge you to read up on mysticism and physics (particularly quantum mechanics) instead of spending your time on this movie. You'll learn a lot more, and in the end you will have spent your time more wisely.

Oh boy, oh boy! I should have been more careful when choosing what movie to watch. Truth to be said, I 'fell' for some excellent reviews of this film, and only 'post-factum' while trying to understand why I disliked it so much I discovered that all the people who on the Message Board who wrote rapturous messages of how great that film was wrote only one post each throughout all their membership 'carrier' at the IMDb and, besides, there's a suspiciously large amount of '10' votes which is very rare even for Oscar-awarded masterpieces that even though usually have the majority of good votes spread in the 8 to 10 range, but almost never only '10s'. Which inevitably lead me to the conclusion that most of the good votes for that film were fake.

I believe that any film-maker should have enough self-respect rather than ask from his friends, colleagues, etc. and even voting by himself under different user names for the movie that he himself considers to be bad, otherwise, why should he bother to making such charade?

Me and my wife were expecting some 'brainy' movie with interesting ideas, since we both love science fiction and interesting non- standard approach. That's why we also love David Lynch. It seems to me that the film maker tried to emulate David Lynch, but failed miserably, since despite good camera work the script was pretty amateurish and convoluted. Even two attractive lead actresses could not save the film, even though, as some consolation for the wasted time, it was pleasant to watch them. Some of the background music was clearly 'borrowed' from Pink Floyd's Shine on You Crazy Diamond.

This being said, I want to wish James Kerwin success in his future endeavors. He haven't done any serious work so far so any beginning is not easy. Along with that I have just one request: please, no more fake reviews, OK? Have some self-respect, man!

A ridiculous amount of literary, science, and philosophy names are dropped in the first twenty minutes of this movie, in hopes that any pseudo-intellectual dick tracy fan will latch on to the story. unfortunately the story is already over, or at best meanders and returns to its inevitable conclusion. the wide brimmed fedora still doesnt look good on anyone, but i would like to visit a city with all 1960s cars, payphones, caller id, AND the internet

The starting theme of this film is simple: "Look at the rack on this dame." All the rest is pretty much philosophical filler preparing for the rest of the film. The director makes sure the primary theme is emphasized throughout the first third of the movie by means of tight-fitting shirts and wide plunge-to-the-navel dresses... insuring that at least half of the viewers will follow the film through to the end whether they understand the unfolding plot or not. Admittedly, the girl has the goods to make that happen.

The film slowly curves to an almost-campy feel. The noir aspect is done just right, not too fuzzy, not too sharp. Most of the lines in the script are properly adept to the 30's and 40's. It falls short just enough to hint there's more to this film than a noir satire, but in the beginning doesn't take itself too seriously... quite yet. This allows the viewer to enjoy certain aspects of the film without being forced to delve too deeply into the philosophical paradoxes. But there's an overriding uneasy feeling that's a portent of what's to come.

The last third of the film is when they pour it on, and the foundation they've built to that point begins to hit paydirt. There are some brilliant ideas and lines here (although not original, still interesting to follow). If the viewers have stuck through the semi-cerebral dialog to this point they're likely to stick with it to the reveal. And there is a reveal... but it's just enough to hint at what's happening rather than spoil the mystery. Ordinarily I hate films that leave the viewer to figure out the purpose of the film, but in this case it works.

The acting starts out questionable. It's not good, not bad, some of it decidedly hammy where it fits. When it comes to the lead actress, acting isn't her prominent attraction. She's there to catch and hold initial attention while the writers and directors build the plot line. The supporting actors are sufficient to the job, but no one but the lead actress pushes their role too much. The lead actress does. Her acting gets better halfway through as the plot solidifies. This all is evidently by intent, initially making you question her role, then seeing that role developed and defined as the story unfolds.

Especially impressive are the sets and backgrounds. Simple and clean yet precisely period. The lighting is great (especially in the final scene) as is the use of fog and steam throughout the film. In this it's the little things that count, and the director uses them efficiently.

At first I was going to give this film a 5 star mediocre rating, but it kept getting better as it went along. At the end I realized the director skillfully pulled us along exactly as intended, tricking us by making us wonder whether this was a serious film or a satire. They made sure the question marks were in all the right places but the answers never quite handed to us on a platter. In the end if we've been paying attention we figure out what happened, but aren't quite sure we've figured it right. That aspect is surprisingly and very unusually satisfying. As stated prior, I usually hate questionable-ending films. Not hating it in this film indicates a decided mark of skill in the presentation.

Not a "brilliant" film, but somewhat in a class of its own. It's one of the best uses of neo-noir I've seen, with the plot both coming together and unraveling at the same time. That's a tricky balance, but one I feel they pulled off successfully.