across1.jpg

Pools of Boredom, Waves of Joy

Across the Universe / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | October 11, 2007 | Comments (82)


Julie Taymor’s Across the Universe, a musical consisting entirely of Beatles songs, is probably easiest to understand and explain in terms of the Beatles’ Love, the 2006 album that mashed up a variety of Beatles tunes that were used as the soundtrack to the Cirque du Soleil show of the same name. The album didn’t just remaster old songs, but tweaked them, buffed them, and rammed them into each other to create a new sonic experience that was both a (mildly) enjoyable novelty and a somewhat fresh spin on mix tapes. But as artistic achievements go, the album landed somewhere between honoring the original songs and, well, destroying them for the sake of selling Las Vegas tickets to baby boomers. That’s ultimately where Across the Universe winds up, in that unfortunate gray area between failure and success. Taymor, whose eye and daring vision also made Titus and her Broadway version of The Lion King stand out, tries to make her film a conventional musical and navel-gazing art film all in one, and the glories of the former are crippled by the indulgences of the latter. The music is fantastic and some of the songs’ interpretations are downright inspired, but Taymor tries to cover too much musical and cinematic ground, and in the process of overreaching turns her film from a sweeping pop love story into an extended quasi-psychedelic bad head trip.

The film opens with Jude (Jim Sturgess) sitting on what’s apparently the British shore, staring out at the gray waves before looking into the camera and singing the first few lines of “Girl.” (Taymor doesn’t actually name the character until maybe 20 minutes in, but trust me, this is Jude.) Sturgess evokes a young Paul McCartney, and his tenor, as well as Taymor’s decision to open with a scene of wistful lamentation, is more than a little reminiscent of Moulin Rouge. And just like the earlier film, Across the Universe uses the lyrics of its pop catalogue to advance the plot instead of simply having the songs act as tangential expressions of feeling that pause the story’s development. The best example of this is the film’s transition into the first of many musical numbers: “Hold Me Tight,” which plays out while Jude and his girl dance and sing to each other in a Liverpool nightclub and while Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), over in America, dances with her boyfriend at the prom. Taymor is working firmly in the realm of splashy, old school musicals, as the kids at the dance break into spontaneous choreographed dances and twirl under the lights, but she pulls it off thanks to the energy of the music and the skill of the singers. Sturgess is earnest and goofy and somehow sublimely happy, sounding for all the world like he was born to sing these songs, and Wood is surprising for the strength and sweetness she brings to her performance. I had no idea she could sing, let alone so well. It helps that she and Sturgess are belting out classics from McCartney and John Lennon, the two most influential pop songwriters of the 20th century.

Soon enough, Jude tells his girl he’ll be leaving for America, and sings “All My Loving” as he makes his way to New York and then to Princeton before falling in with Max (Joe Anderson), an intelligent but unmotivated student who pulls Jude into his circle of friends while they sing, predictably, “With a Little Help From My Friends.” With the exception of the opening numbers, the film pulls its songs mostly from the later-era Beatles recordings, eschewing the classic pop for the more progressive songs Lennon and McCartney wrote during the band’s most creative periods. But Taymor isn’t as interested in creating a musical that weds melody and story with staging what at times feels like history’s longest music video. There are approximately 31 songs used in the film, which is more than enough to cross the line from Beatles-fueled musical to overlong performance piece. There’s no discernible goal for the characters, or rather, the goal is so simple — boy loves girl, boy tries to hang onto her, credits — that Taymor loses her way in her desire to flesh out the film with unnecessary songs and sequences. Jude goes home with Max for Thanksgiving just so Taymor can have Jude and Lucy meet each other, and though she gets a good song out of it — Sturgess doing “I’ve Just Seen a Face” in a multicolored bowling alley, one of the film’s more rousing performances — the trade-off is the slowly lengthening plot. Jude and Max take off for New York to seek out life in the Village, and it would’ve been easier and more streamlined to have Jude and Lucy meet after the action had switched to the city.

From there, the film meanders its way through the 1960s and often feels like it’s playing out in real time, as the air of malaise and rebellion permeates the lives of the characters, who often seem to be self-consciously parading through an elaborately staged set piece instead of interacting with each other and being moved to sing by the love, hope, and youth coursing through their veins. The middle third of Across the Universe is by far the weakest, a rambling, boring exercise in vaguely experimental but really just annoying filmmaking as Jude, Lucy, Max, and the rest of their bohemian flatmates cruise through the country with the assistance of Dr. Robert (Bono…yes, that Bono), a countercultural figure who leads them on a trek of self-discovery that’s mind-numbing to behold. They somehow all wind up in the woods to see another counterculture figure, the pun-inspired Dr. Geary, played by Eddie Izzard, who offers a head-scratching and yawn-inducing performance of “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” that’s all blue puppets and clunky CGI and the kind of random visuals that were seemingly pulled from an instruction manual on how to make a low-level impressionistic film that will fool the gullible into thinking it’s meaningful. Revolution Studios head Joe Roth has made some terrible films (his credits include Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise and Christmas With the Kranks), but he was wise to lobby for Taymor to cut the film from its current 2 hours and 11 minutes to a more palatable 1 hour 45 minutes, though why the longer cut is the one that went out to theaters, I cannot say.

Taymor handled the story with writing team Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais (Goal!, Flushed Away), and when she shows enough restraint to hold the story on track and keep it from devolving into relative absurdity, the characters’ struggles with love and abandonment in the face of a rioting nation and an uncaring government can be truly resonant and relatable. Max gets shipped off to Vietnam (“I Want You”), while Jude and Lucy find themselves falling in love (Wood’s tender “If I Fell”) in the middle of the antiwar movement. Jude’s howling rendition of “Revolution” is another of the movie’s small victories, and the film is at its best when the characters are allowed to mean what they sing and sing like they mean it. Sturgess and Wood carry the film with the love story of Jude and Lucy, and the moments when the story rests on their shoulders are the easiest and best. The film ends with “All You Need is Love,” complete with snatches of the chorus from “She Loves You” woven in, and for a moment the film is lighter than air, somehow impossibly hopeful and young and maybe even a little meaningful. It’s just too bad Taymor took so long to get there.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Pajiba Love 10/11/07 | Good Night, The





Comments

I've been waiting for this for months and I'm seeing it next week--I'm glad you think it's at least MOSTLY good as that makes me feel more hopeful about it then before.

Posted by: Genevieve at September 14, 2007 10:02 PM

I have a feeling this will be an amazing film if you like the beatles (like me), and a mearly interesting experiment if you don't.

Posted by: the_Wakeful at September 14, 2007 10:38 PM

Sounds twee. I think this could be more for Beatles fans than anyone else.

Evan Rachel Woods is annoying.

Posted by: John at September 15, 2007 1:39 AM

I've been waiting for this movie ever since I first saw the previews a few months ago...and only a week ago I realized it's a musical. However, I'm suuuuper excited to go see this as I love the Beatles and would sit through 2 hours of Evan Rachel Wood just to hear my favorite songs. So therefore I'm glad it was deemed "mostly" good by Pajiba. Thank you!

Posted by: Corinna at September 15, 2007 1:57 AM

john: oh thank god, i thought i was the only one who thought she was annoying!!

i'm not sure if i'll see this or not....... hmmmm

Posted by: hannah at September 15, 2007 2:42 AM

Damn, I wanted this to be great. I'll still probably see it.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at September 15, 2007 2:46 AM

It sounds like if it had been more impressionistic, and less concentrated on trying to keep a plot, it would have been better.
An impressionist Beatles soundtrack/movie that isn't an extended music video...All the love, none o' the fudge.
I'm still seeing it.

Posted by: Joanna at September 15, 2007 5:31 AM

"For Beatles fans"? Are you people fucking crazy?

I'm the biggest Beatle geek you could ever hope to meet. My love of this music approaches religiosity. I'd rather take a pneumatic drill to the nethers than be subjected to this...this...eeurrgh.

Doesn't anybody remember the last time this happened?

If Beatles fans attend this thing, it will only be to picket outside the theater.

Posted by: Jerce at September 15, 2007 10:06 AM

Saw this yesterday, and it really is a hard film to come to any conclusions about. "Mostly good" is really about all I can come up with as well. As much as the story is made up of some very literal interpretations of the songs and features a lot of story cliches, the fantastic and arty stuff falls even flatter. So you're left with a film that you wish was both a little more inventive and a little more conventional.

It gets a little exhausting. And the Eddie Izzard scene is sure to be nightmare fuel at many a tween girl slumber party after this hits DVD. After Bono shows up for what is basically just glorified karaoke, it seemed like they threw in Izzard just so there was a more embarrassing celeb cameo to take the heat off of Bono.

Posted by: WadeCryBabyWalker at September 15, 2007 10:18 AM

Um, you forgot Frida.

Posted by: Leigh at September 15, 2007 10:52 AM

Evan Rachel Wood is in the "I screwed Marilyn Manson" Club, along with Rose McGowan and Dita Von Teese. At least Rose and Dita are hot... ERW looks like a 12 yr. old.

Marilyn Manson doing ANYBODY... *full body shudder*

Marilyn Manson doing a 12 yr. old... *full body shudder, followed by convulsions*

I don't really have anything constructive to say about the film...I'm just against anyone having sex with MM.

Posted by: Mistress Violet at September 15, 2007 11:19 AM

"The album didn't just remaster old songs, but tweaked them, buffed them, and rammed them into each other to create a new sonic experience that was both a (mildly) enjoyable novelty and a somewhat fresh spin on mix tapes. But as artistic achievements go, the album landed somewhere between honoring the original songs and, well, destroying them for the sake of selling Las Vegas tickets to baby boomers."

I don't know, Daniel. Sure, it's a little slick, but the production on that "Love" disc is pretty damned impressive on a technical level. The editing in "Drive My Car" alone is worth getting that disc.

Posted by: Armando at September 15, 2007 11:43 AM

By the way, THIS Beatles fan will not likely go see this (though I can't promise I won't catch it on cable). When I first heard that Taymor was making this film (and I'm a fan of Frida and especially Titus, though I'm finding that that film is not aging well) my only thought was, "why?" It sounded as pretentious and misguided as you describe it. Oh well, that's the power of this music for you!

Posted by: Armando at September 15, 2007 11:51 AM

No Hannah, it isn't just you. In fact, for me, ERW's involvement is a sure sign the film is pretentious. I swear she'll only take roles that are described as "quirky".

Posted by: John at September 15, 2007 1:44 PM

I have a big fat crush on Evan Rachel Wood, which is only enhanced by the fact she's dating Marilyn Manson.

I'll probably go see this. It looks visually sumptious at the very least.

Posted by: Brianne at September 15, 2007 1:46 PM

I'm surprised no one has made the comparision between this and HAIR yet... to me it seems like a blatant rip-off, only they decided to use all Beatles music instead of various 1960's tunes.

Posted by: Kristin at September 15, 2007 4:32 PM

i want to see this and i want to like it, but evan rachel wood's envolvement has thrown me completely off. i find her so wooden, so emotionless...she usually causes me to contemplate gouging my eyes out, and besides, i can't forgive her for that green day video - neither can i forgive green day.

anyhoo, i don't. if i have nothing to do i might be up for it.

Posted by: citizen_cris at September 15, 2007 7:45 PM

I saw this at a special screening, and I left the theatre feeling not only unmoved, but also slightly annoyed at it's pretentiousness. (And as a Beatles fan, disgusted at the poor use of their near godly music.)

This movie is all style and no substance. And it is no where near as relevant, intelligent, or deep as it thinks it is.

Overrated in the worst way.

Posted by: Sarah at September 16, 2007 1:23 AM

Is there anything more boring than a musical movie?

I will definitely not be seeing this snoozefest!

Posted by: S. Ahmed at September 16, 2007 1:19 PM

I saw this at the Toronto film festival last week. I completely agree that it was too long, not very "deep", full of almost embarassing and pointless sequences. At the same time, WOW, Across the Universe was incredibly beautiful, it was so wonderful just for that pop-artistry, some of the songs were SO dementedly beautifully woven into the story and the characters. After all, this is a movie that was strung together to showcase the pop and experimental music of the beatles. It kind of is what it is. I think it is going to be a huge success despite the/my obvious reservations. It wasn't perfect but it really was damn good and worth seeing. ERW and Sturgess were fantastic. MM was in the audience with ERW at the premier and his skin looked blue in real life. Who cares! I love the Beatles. I also think my mom is going to LOVE this movie. Anyway, great review.

Posted by: Adrianne at September 16, 2007 10:02 PM

I saw this film at a test screening and I HATED it. I love musicals and I grew up listening to the "oldies" station and know the Beatles very well. But I still hated this film.

To me, it felt very pretentious and as though they tried to squeeze together a bunch of music videos and somehow make them into a story.

It didn't work. Ugh. I really hated this movie.

Posted by: Ronni at September 17, 2007 12:56 AM

Kristin: I was thinking the same thing about HAIR. The plot parallels described here don't seem to be coincidental.

One nitpick though: Hair isn't made up of "various 1960s tunes." Hair has its own original soundtrack. And it's fucking awesome.

Posted by: lo at September 17, 2007 9:44 AM

twee has now replaced emo as the word I hate the most. rock.

Posted by: twig at September 17, 2007 10:10 AM

Did anyone see the preview trailer for this film and think it was the longest goddamn trailer in the world?!?! I know that plot isn't the reason most people will see this movie, but I still feel like I already know the whole story. Really annoying.

Posted by: The Wandering Parakeet at September 17, 2007 10:25 AM

Jerce, you should warn people about that link to the past! Some of us who were teens in the 70's still have nightmares about the atrocity that was Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, aka The Film That Murdered Peter Frampton's Career.

I love Beatles music, but boy howdy, this new film looks not good.

Posted by: The Seventies at September 17, 2007 4:54 PM

Oprah's promoting this movie like crazy, which is how you know it sucks.

Posted by: Laurie at September 17, 2007 9:18 PM

From the trailers, this looks like it would be a visual feast if one were to ingest certain psychotropic substances and not concern oneself too much about the plot. That is the only way I can imagine finding this movie enjoyable, but sadly the days of ingesting such substances are far in my past. Guess I'll have to give this one a miss.

Posted by: sally at September 18, 2007 2:07 AM

to the person who commented that no one has made a comparison to "hair"... when i read your comment, i literally said outloud, "yes! thank you!"

when i saw the trailer for this, before it got to the more psychadelic aspects (sorry for my atrocious spelling, ps), i thought, "did they really remake 'hair'?"

i saw this movie this past weekend and yes, they basically remade "hair." think "hair" meets "yellow submarine" with some "a clockwork orange" aspects.

what is most troubling is that this "completely original" film is basically an anti-vietnam movie thiry years after the fact. it's not even a "let's use vietnam as a metaphor for what we're now doing in iraq." and while, as a theatre practioner, i respect julie taymor for being an auteur, her originality is running thin (can you still be original when all of your work starts to look the same?).

bottom line to this rambling comment, do not go in with high expectations. you will be seriously disappointed.

Posted by: alm at September 18, 2007 12:02 PM

HAIR was not made of various 60's tunes.

Posted by: Mo at September 18, 2007 12:29 PM

i know (which again, is why "hair" is far more original than "across.."), but the spirit of the film is very "hair"-esque.

Posted by: alm at September 18, 2007 12:40 PM

Does anyone know why this movie was whored out on almost every morning talk show ABC had to offer?

Posted by: Chuggie at September 18, 2007 1:02 PM

Yes, this movie TOTALLY reminds me of Hair, at least in the anti-Vietnam-let's-trip-out-on-love way, which is kind of why I want to see it. Also, it looks visually interesting, and I do love the Beatles, so I want to watch to see how much (in my lowly opinion) they butcher or pay homage to the songs.

Posted by: Ariel at September 18, 2007 8:21 PM

It Won't Be Long.........until this insipid film will fade into kitschdom like Showgirls and "Can't stop the music" starring Bruce Jenner and the Village People. I could not endure the trailer for this film much less see the whole film. I am a die hard Beatles fan who is offended as much by this film as that tv spot commerical using a beatles song for baby diapers with "All you need is LUV's." How can anyone not cringe at this bloated, effete project by this Disney director who is just an excessive set designer and puppeteer? I never indulge in internet postings but this is my divine duty as a Beatles fan to stop the concerted forces of banality to trivialize, sanitize, homogenize, and ride the coat tails of the legacy of the most phenomenal pop band the world has seen.
 

Posted by: peter fasolino at September 19, 2007 9:20 PM

Yawn, another boomer nostalgia trip. Just retire already people. And get over yourselves.

Posted by: the wolf at September 20, 2007 3:53 PM

Any chance that they worked in Maxwell's Silver Hammer?

Posted by: Fuggle at September 21, 2007 6:45 PM

I just want to know why the movie is not playing ANYWHERE in Las Vegas on the day it is supposed to be nationwide. That really bugs me. I'll blame it on O.J.'s new court date and the corporate hoo-has who run the city.

Posted by: T-Mac at September 21, 2007 8:14 PM

I just saw this and I couldn't agree with you more. The previews made it seem like it was a personal revolution of the characters brought on by the times and accompanied by the music, and yet, a lot of the shots were just watching actors you didn't know could sing, sing, rather than a story advancing through the music. I was expected a great story accompanied by great music (the Beatles catalogue could have accomodated just about anything) but instead it was a mediocre story that made me wish they'd rush through the songs and hopefully get back to a plot. The characters were the same at the beginning as they were at the end. However, I was not. I went from enthused, to mildly amused, to annoyed. More of a journey than the cast can claim to have portrayed.

Posted by: Jessica at September 23, 2007 8:42 PM

So it's more like a standard musical, and less like the bastard lovechild of The Beatles and The Wall?

Posted by: fuggle at September 24, 2007 5:11 PM

If you're going to criticize a specific part of a film, at least know what you're talking about. Dr. Robert (Bono) takes them to meet Dr. LEARY, which is obviously not a "pun-inspired" name. There is no Dr. GEARY, and Eddie Izzard certainly does not play that character, because he's too busy playing another character who goes by the name of MR. KITE. That's probably why he sings the song, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" and runs a circus. Go figure. Oh, and they don't "somehow all end up in the woods," they are left stranded there by Dr. Robert who was turned away by Leary, because it is discovered that he, in fact, doesn't know him at all. Robert then decides to head back to his home state of California instead of returning to New York, which is where the central characters reside, so they choose not to join him and stay behind (still quite high on LSD, might I add). And you also forgot to mention that there are other great cameos in it as well, including Salma Hayek, and Joe Cocker who does an awesome cover of "Come Together".

By the way, I saw the film opening night and it was beyond brilliant! I am so glad that they chose to go with Taymor's longer cut as opposed to Roth's shorter one. I wasn't bored for a second, and the visual effects were spectacular. I recommend this movie to anyone who is even slightly interested. It's definitely well worth it!

Posted by: Jessica at September 25, 2007 10:17 PM

I loved it...I wasn't a Beatles fan going in..but now the obsession has begun! It was the best movie I've seen in a long time!

Posted by: guh! at September 27, 2007 11:28 PM

fucking awesome! luscious! i haven't felt 'tingly' for an actor in a long time--jim sturgess is beautiful--no, luscious! i had a really good time! loved it!

Posted by: maxpurr9 at September 29, 2007 1:59 AM

I went in to see this film last night (that's when it opened in our neck of the woods). I was hoping for good songs and visuals, and little else. I REALLY like the film. No, it's not perfect, but the plot is solid, I can appreciate the characters, and the film has maybe a dozen scenes of IMMENSE resonance - gave me goosebumps! One thing MUST be understood: it's a musical, ok? If you don't like music, and if you can't suspend disbelief that well, you'll likely have trouble with this movie. Though I love the Beatles, I was touched by the differing arrangements and singing. "If I Fell" is gorgeous and affecting; it's freed from its now kinda dated-sounding 1964 arrangement and sung a capella. Lennon's vulnerability and melodic gift are stunningly evident. Finally, it's about the 60s, but that doesn't make it "another boomer nostalgia trip." I was born in 1975 - never lived through any of this - and it's clear that nothing as explosive as the 60s has happened since the 60s. So I'd opine that by setting an age-old love story in the context of the most momentous decade of the past 60 years, and by scoring it with the music of a band whose timelessness and talent becomes more evident with every passing year, and by injecting some real visual flash and great singing, you've got a great film.

Posted by: GentillyGuy at September 29, 2007 10:42 PM

a friend asked me on friday to go see it. i agreed without knowing what it was. of course, when i remembered i was going to see this film, i figured i'd check to see what pajiba thought of it... the review pretty much put into words what i didn't know i'd be feeling a few hours later.



my review: meh. the only plus was that the two lead characters were eye candy. and did anyone else notice the actor who plays the brother of the lead female character looks like kurt cobain? irksome.

Posted by: thatgirlshines at October 1, 2007 12:42 PM

RE: Evan Rachel Wood - I thought she was spectacular in Thirteen, I haven't seen her in anything else. So I'm tentatively a fan.

As for the movie itself, it sounds like a failed experiment, with some very interesting elements. Honestly, that's good enough for me. I'm glad Julie Taymor is willing to try something, and if that something is less-than-spectacular, well, that's ok. I'm on board with it purely for the fact that she tried it.

That said... I'll rent it.

Posted by: TK at October 12, 2007 11:57 AM

Is it just my imagination, or is this an old review?

Oh, judging by the month-old comments, it is...wtf pajiba? It doesn't sound like you like the movie that much.

Posted by: ohgrl at October 12, 2007 2:52 PM

The movie went on wide release this week, so i am guessing thats why they bumped it back to the top.

Posted by: the_wakeful at October 12, 2007 3:01 PM

please don't let anyone else's opinion of this film make up your mind for you. this is one of those films that must be seen on the big screen to be truly appreciated. now, it's quite possible when it is all said and done, that you won't like the movie--that happens, a lot...but if you do end up liking it, you'll be very glad you saw it in the theatre! my advise is: don't go in to it expecting ANYTHING--just let it wash over you.

i like to look at the beatles in a sort of 'alice in wonderland' kind of way--meaning it is a "source" for inspiration that anyone can draw from to create their own art--how many different representations are there of alice: movies, art, video games, etc... and yet, the original remains exactly as it was, when first created by carroll. (john lennon himself mentioned that 'lucy in the sky with diamonds' was partly inspired by alice.)
'love' the vegas show and cd, this movie, and any other artist singing/playing their songs--are all new creations, not truly meant to be compared to the originals. that being said, as a beatle inspired artist myself, i like to look at what others have created when inspired by the beatles, so I would obviously go to see this. so it really doesn't matter to me if it is "good" or not, i try not to judge the creator and to take it at face value--did i have a good time? yes! will you? Don't you want to find that out for yourself?!?

Posted by: maxpurr9 at October 12, 2007 3:57 PM

Finally saw it. It blew- after a while you become aware that you're just watching one really long Beatles video- only boring and lame. Visuals don't do much for me anymore- and I didn't think the visuals were so spectacular in the first place. I've honestly seen avatars/icons that are as beautiful, if not more so, as anything in this mess.

Also, ERW still pretty much sucks as an actress.

Posted by: John at October 12, 2007 5:49 PM

It was pretty boring to begin with, but then it really jumped the shark with that pointlessly literal rendition of Dear Prudence. Then the hour-plus crappy music video in the middle was almost like a Disney interpretation of an acid trip. So bad.

Seriously, I think even baby boomers are sick of movies about the sixties. The best part of this movie are the few scenes with Dr. Venture. Oh, and hot British dude. But that's all.

Posted by: Gudrun at October 13, 2007 1:53 AM

I walked out of this movie with my friends and the events proceeded as such:

- Friend: Wanna go get high?
- Me: And lie on a grassy knoll?
- Friend: Yes.
- Me: Okay.

That is about all I got out of this movie. (besides a newfound love for the actor who played Max, ah, I can't help falling for goofy guys)

Posted by: kate at October 13, 2007 12:40 PM

i did see the connection to hair the first second i saw the preview...and it is like hair meets srgt peppers lonely hearts club band which are my two fav. movies so of course i will love the movie (im seeing it tomorrow!)

Posted by: nicole at October 14, 2007 12:02 AM

I have no idea what to make of this movie. The review is all over the place, the comments are all over the place, and it just doesn't sound like anything I'd ordinarily be much interested in seeing. While I appreciate the music of the Beatles as much as the next semi-serious music fan, I was too young for the Beatles to be anything other than a curious historical pop culture phenomenon like Elvis or American Graffiti.

HOWEVER, my seventeen year-old stepson and his seventeen year-old girl friend came back from this movie last night absolutely gushing about how wonderful it was. They had discovered the movie on their own, and it still isn't clear to me what drew them to it in the first place. Now mind you, these are two seventeen year-olds who are actively involved in music and theater (not high school "drama" either -- earlier in the day Tyler was at a call-back about an independent movie role). They are relatively sophisticated, although their naivete can also be breathtaking at times. Comes with the territory, I suppose.

Anyhow, I trust Tyler's opinion on matters such as this more than any other seventeen year-old I can name or even imagine. I still need to flesh out what appealed to him so much, but his endorsement is enough to at least ignite my curiosity.

Posted by: Grover at October 14, 2007 11:25 AM

I think the good in this movie overcomes the bad.. parts were beautiful and moving (the little boy singing Let It Be?) and though it was lacking in areas and pretty long, I thought it was fun.

Posted by: Emily at October 14, 2007 7:57 PM

"boring exercise in vaguely experimental but really just annoying filmmaking as Jude, Lucy, Max, and the rest of their bohemian flatmates cruise through the country with the assistance of Dr. Robert (Bono...yes, that Bono), a countercultural figure who leads them on a trek of self-discovery that's mind-numbing to behold."

Um, let's go back to the real 1967 and the real Beatles, who loaded a bunch of their friends and some circus freaks on a bus, along with a film crew, and wandered around the countryside hoping that something interesting would happen. It was released as a movie called "The Magical Mystery Tour" and it was so bad, that by the time it came to the USA, it was mearly a record album.

As IMDB says: The story follows a bus load of eccentric characters on a magic journey through the English countryside. Rather than a unified narrative, it becomes a series of psychedelic clips promoting various songs including "The Fool on the Hill," "Blue Jay Way," "Your Mother Should Know," "I Am the Walrus" and "Magical Mystery Tour." The Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band are seen in a strip club playing "Death Cab for Cutie."

The Originality Meter is pegging about zero right now.

Posted by: BWeaves at October 15, 2007 4:01 PM

Hello!
Films have gotten so BORING, because of the reliance on special bam-bam effects -- car chases and mind numbing violence, violence violence. There hasn't been a decent film made since "Frida" -- ALSO BY JULIE TAYMOR, in case you have forgotten? It was clever and creative and so is this film. You children are just too young to remember this dark and bloody decade, of course, and the waste of lives and options.But it has shaped our world -- both for better and worse, and Julie Taymor, who wasn't there either, knows that. Amazingly,for those of us who struggled for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War, this film manages to be both respectful -- and visually exciting. And yes, it is refreshing to hear the music of those iconoclasts (get a dictionary and look it up -- illiterates) the Beatles, done differently. Dana Fuchs as Sadie and Martin Luther McCoy, as Jo-Jo, are outstanding. Were you listening? I don't think so. My only regret - no mention of the peaceful 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Rights, and Martin's wonderful speech, "I Had a Dream." Which, most probably, is beyond you.

Posted by: P McKnight at October 15, 2007 5:56 PM

I lurve the Beatles, but almost everything in this movie was boring EXCEPT for the incomparable Eddie Izzard as Mr. Kite

he's like Beetlejuice, Tim Curry and all things hip, naughty, crazy and british rolled into one!!!

Bono was lame

Posted by: Plobes at October 15, 2007 6:22 PM

I lurve the Beatles, but almost everything in this movie was boring EXCEPT for the amazingly talented Eddie Izzard as Mr. Kite

he's like Beetlejuice, Tim Curry and all things hip, naughty, crazy and british rolled into one!!!

Bono was lame

Posted by: Plobes at October 15, 2007 6:23 PM

Oh my god, there wasn't enough pot in the world for this movie.

I nearly walked out when Eddie Izzard came on the screen. (And I love Eddie Izzard.) That was the most incredibly painful cinematic experience of my entire life. And I sat through 300.

(Also, is it just me, or does Bono look more and more like Robin Williams with every passing year?)

Posted by: lise at October 15, 2007 6:45 PM

P McKnight- my mom survived that era (survived is the accurate word, yes) and she said this film annoyed the hell out of her. She's one of the first Boomers and these films are pretty much painful for her because they generally miss the point of the time and just view it as almost glamorous.

I'm guessing you're just playing at being old enough to remember that "dark and bloody decade". Though perhaps not, considering how condescending most Boomers have gotten.

Secondly, Frida was lame. I didn't see anything in that movie that I haven't seen in others. And there have been dozens of "decent" films since (Children of Men, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Darjeeling Limited, Eastern Promises, Lust Caution, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Brick, Away From Her, etc.), in fact, this is one of the weakest films I've seen in years.

Posted by: Sara at October 15, 2007 9:03 PM

Someone has to say it.
The Beatles were, for the most part, pretentious morons. You don't find enlightenment getting stoned and while Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds wasn't ABOUT LSD, it was definitely written while ON LSD.
I say all this having gone through a passionate love affair with their music that lasted a good six years. Then I grew up, saw The Wall, and realized things are much better when they mean something.

Posted by: Ari at October 16, 2007 2:51 AM

Dear P McKnight:

I was living in England during the 1960's and I'm well aware of what was going on.

As you said, "And yes, it is refreshing to hear the music of those iconoclasts (get a dictionary and look it up -- illiterates) the Beatles, done differently." No, it was not done differently. It's been done before. As I mentioned, "The Magical Mystery Tour" was a complete bomb and it was written and directed by the Beatles and starred them. And then there was the movie version of "Sgt. Pepper" which was too bad for words. Perhaps this new movie is a bit better, but it's too much, too late. It's like when I was in high school and all the commercials had 1940's music in them, ugh.

Posted by: BWeaves at October 16, 2007 9:19 AM

im deffinately going to be tripping ballssss when ii watch this one :]

Posted by: gina at October 16, 2007 11:14 AM

Sigh. I can see that this is a generational thing. The younger the respondent the more negative the response to this original and excellent film. This shows up in commercial reviewers also. The more they understand the significance of both the dark and bloody decade of the '60s and the Beatles music, the more they like the film. To educate yourselves on the references to the songs hidden in the film I recommend the Wikipedia article, the very end of the article explains them all, including the psychedelic bus. Too bad that, if you werent there, you just don't get it!

Posted by: Angus Arden at October 16, 2007 4:53 PM

Amazing. I have never posted on this site. Neither has my friend, Angus Arden (real name). yet you rejected both our postings with the statement that each of us had "posted too often." ?? I am guessing that you don't like our opinions -- that this is an excellent film - both cinematically and as a tribute to the Beatles.

Posted by: Pat McKnight at October 16, 2007 5:00 PM

I really, really hated this movie. I liked the guy's voie a lot, all the songs he sang on were pretty great. Everything else was just pure crap though..... I was shuddering the whole movie.

Posted by: Allen at October 18, 2007 3:06 AM

i think it's incredibly unfair to reject the opinions of those of us who didn't live thru the 60's out of hand by saying we "just don't get it." i'm am a big fan of everyone being entitled to their own opinion and certainly, just because i didn't like this movie, it doesn't mean that i expect anyone to agree with me. and you are absolutely right, i didn't live thru the 60's.

however, that doesn't make me less qualified to point out repetitive, uninspiring and unoriginal filmmaking. and this movie, in my opinion, embodies all of those things.

Posted by: alm at October 18, 2007 2:01 PM

you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Across the Universe is one of the most beautiful , inspiring films I have ever seen. Its parts contain romance, adventure, and even sorrow. With a new and exciting twist, (adding mega-famous Beatles CLASSICS to the movie,) this movie is more than a movie--it's a dream. It teaches us that you can do ANYTHING, just like the Beatles went from four lonely boys in Liverpool to the greatest musicians in HISTORY.
Seriously, guys. Ask any random person on the street "what was the best band EVER?!," and I guarentee you that they will say The Beatles.

Again, this movie is not a "snoozefest". It is what you're doing while your sleeping; dreaming. You can dream so big it can change your life, and that's what I think this movie is all about, chasing for your dream and making things HAPPEN while BELIEVING you can.

The creators of this film had a lot of pressure put on themselves. Recreating a Beatles mania MUSICAL? You must be joking. The cast and crew KNEW that this inspiration piece had to be BEAUTIFUL, while making John Lennon, Sir Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr ever so proud. (RIP JOHN & GEORGE)

So take a second look at this masterpiece.
Do you believe now?

Posted by: david at October 19, 2007 11:24 PM

No.

Posted by: depotoad at October 20, 2007 12:37 AM

yes!

Posted by: maxpurr9 at October 20, 2007 7:12 PM

I loved this movie. I loved the Sgt. Pepper movie in 1978 as well (am I the only one?), although I didn't know that many Beatles songs until I became a real Beatles fan in 1980 when a friend who threw parties played their records. I bought all their albums at that time and memorized everything. Most people here seem to be either too young or are the exact '60s generation. I'm in between. I'm 45. I was there in the '60s, but just as a little kid. My generation is documented by "That '70s Show." So I do remember some things about the sixties (as my first memories of anything, ever) but they were things I couldn't comprehend fully until I got older. And some things, like the Vietnam War and the draft, I looked at on TV as an outsider because I'm in Canada and we don't have the draft. This film had a weird choice of Beatles songs in parts, as well as songs they didn't use (I thought for sure we'd hear Get Back, what with both that guitarist named Jojo and the rooftop scene) but overall I couldn't get enough. I love films like this that bring old music into the present, notwithstanding the film itself being a period piece. With Joe Cocker in the film, it was a nice touch adding a piece of his take on With A Little Help From My Friends into that song. I wanted to see some more plot and character interaction, too, but if we saw that, we'd hear less Beatles songs. Basically, the film left me wanting more. I didn't want it to end. The scene with Revolution was hilarious, but only because it was the only scene of its' kind in the movie. The movie does attempt to point out (as a devil's advocate?) that no matter what your cause is, that inevitably, real life gets in the way - jealousy, my way vs. yours when we live together, etc. Complaints are minor - only two lapses in logic: How did Jude get back legally? Did they find that paperwork showing his father is a U.S. citizen? And why does Max never have to get a haircut after he gets drafted? And I did hate the ending. A great scene, to be sure, but that's how it ENDS? They should have had one or two more scenes after that. Here's an idea: How about a sequel that takes these characters into the '70s, with the soundtrack being the four individual Beatles' solo songs? It's never been done! Could you "imagine" that?

Posted by: Beau Hajavitch at October 22, 2007 2:58 AM

I wasn't expecting to, but I actually enjoyed this movie. I agree the lowpoint has to be Izzard.
Never thought I'd hear "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" rendered worthless.

Posted by: Fritz at October 22, 2007 12:16 PM

I hate musicals, and am not a huge beattles fan. In spite of all that, I loved this movie. A great experience.

Posted by: Tim at October 23, 2007 1:44 AM

My teenage kids and their group of friends saw the movie...twice- and from what I'm hearing the movie is huge with high school kids- many of whom had no idea of the scope and creativity of the Lennon, McCartney and Harrison songs. As Lauren, my daughter said, how could they have so many different sounds, so many great songs with so many different layers...

In short, if this Movie moves todays high school generation to appreciate music other the run of the mill hip hop, alternative lite and formulaic rap that dominates the airways- then that's a damn good thing. The movie is introducing the Beatles to a whole new generation of listeners and they are saying the same thing that every previous generation is saying, Damn they were great! Those of you that are bashing it- then perhaps High School Musical is more to your liking.

As for the Vegas show "Love"- Sir George Martin put together the ultimate musical tribute to the boys- it was absolutly incredible and a must see and hear for anyone who believes that Beatles music will be timeless and enduring.

Posted by: Richard M at October 23, 2007 2:01 AM

i thought it was amazing

Posted by: Cait at November 3, 2007 10:24 PM

its nice to hear someone else sing the beatles their way.

it was different and i loved it.

you're clsoed minded and rude and you're negative comments are disgusting.

bye:)

Posted by: nicole at November 4, 2007 6:41 PM

your guys are fuckin dumbbbb

i thought the movie was phenomenal.

Posted by: presley at November 18, 2007 5:51 PM

No need to be rude presley and nicole, especially since neither of you can spell. Personally, I tend to ignore this particular critic, as he never ends up complimenting an overall good movie. (I'm thinking back to Lucky # Slevin, Dan. There's no way Smokin' Aces got a good review, but Slevin got shot down.)

Posted by: Jamila at December 12, 2007 8:06 AM

this was an aweful movie. it was so boring and WAY too much singing.

Posted by: lola at January 27, 2008 12:16 AM

'(...)and WAY too much singing.'

well, it's a musical.

Posted by: natalia at February 1, 2008 1:10 PM

I just have to say - thank you for putting into words exactly what I felt about this film. I think it's one that you need to experience for yourself, really, but for me - parts of it were absolutely sublime, parts were terrible, most was just "meh."

I did like Eddie Izzard, but not really in the context of the movie. It could have largely been due to the fact that I was just SO.EXCITED. to see him pop up.

I appreciate her vision and whatnot, but I just can't get into anything Julie Taymor does.

I did buy the soundtrack though...

Posted by: Mimi at February 7, 2008 3:23 AM

Not perfect, but for those of us whose teen years were shaped by the Beatles and the Sixties, this movie hits a lot of the right notes.

And, nicely, all the main characters end up happy and alive and together at the end.

It's a fun movie, and even though I've seen it on DVD, I might want to see it on the big screen at some point.

Posted by: Sgt. Pepper at February 12, 2008 12:19 PM

Oh c'mon, stop this critical expert textpert choking smokers shit!
the movie is wonderful, adorable, beautiful, and what Beatles fan (except those who like pose as superHigherLevelArrogantCritics) wouldnt LOVE to see all those songs in all those beautiful scenes, all those characters and hidden references...

Man that a hell of a tribute to the Beatles.
YES, he story is but an excuse to beatle! So what better excuse could we have?

Of course it is for Beatles fans! It is obvious, it is a beatles songs movie. Who would be this movie for if not Beatles fans?

The colouring is amazing by the psychedelic part, the actors are great singers, I mean take Sexy Janis Joplin Sadie, and Jo-Jo Hendrix as an example!! IT IS AWESOME.

Smoke some weed, take a drink from dr roberts special cup... whatever, and go see the movie!!

Posted by: The Walrus at February 29, 2008 1:41 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.