'Across the Universe' didn't suck (spoilers inherent, but they don't matter)

I had zero preconceptions before seeing it and my only hope was, “This better not suck if I had to pay $37.50 for two adults and two students seeing a frickin’ matinee,” but my twins are MASSIVE Beatles fans and they had their 18th birthday Tuesday so I was stuck.

The kids were pretty and not bad singers, once the electronic processing had helped them. Too much This><Close to the real thing references, as if Kesey and Leary trademarked the Merry Pranksters. Loved Joe Cocker because he is the best interpreter of Beatles songs and can make them a bit less Totally Girly. The next time I’m in the hospital I want six Salma Hayaks as my nurses. The plot was, well, a useful enough coathanger and reminded me how much I HATED THE FUCKIN’ SIXTIES! thankyouverymuch. Visually was where it worked. I scarcely blinked. I’m not big on big puppets but they worked and tied it together if you were trying desparately to ignore the exposition.

So buy the DVD and use the scene-change button freely.

I’ve seen previews and I’m intrigued, but I don’t know what the Beatles reference is to. Is the movie just a 60s piece with a lot of Beatles music? Is it some sort of alternate history telling of the Beatles? Visually, as you said, it looks pretty great, but I can’t figure out if there’s supposed to be some sort of tie-in to the Beatles beyond the title and a character’s name.

Oh, and I realized how much London benefited from the Blitz because there’s nothing wrong with Liverpool that wouldn’t be fixed by repeated heavy bombing. And I’ve been in the worst parts of Chicago and never saw anything as shitty as the most “scenic” (nuthin’ my wife loves more than devastated real estate) than the parts of NYC they used.

It is like “Moulin Rouge,” with the characters singing Beatles songs. Or Beatles videos held together by a loose plot.

It’s my favorite movie of the year so far. The Darjeerling Express might top it, if that one is as good as I think it’s going to be. We’ll see.

Julie Taymor + Beatles songs = I knew that no way was it going to suck. It might not live up to my expectations (though it did) but it was NOT going to suck.

Of course, I love offbeat musicals, like Moulin Rouge! (one of my all-time favorite films) and Idlewild. This’ll go up on the shelf next to them.

Ok spoil me. Do we win Vietnam?

Well, things were looking bad for about thirty years but Vietnam is slowly turning into a capitalist society so there is still hope.

Ya gotta look at the Big Picture.

I saw AtU today and yes, it could have been worse. I enjoyed most of the interpretations of the songs and thought that some of them highlighted aspects of the lyrics that I had not thought of before. I thought the “I Want You (She’s so Heavy)” segment was particularly well done, and even Bono did a passable job during the requisite “I am the Walrus” acid-trip sequence.

I liked that they opened with a bit from “Rubber Soul”. “Abbey Road” was well-represented in this movie, as is the post-“Revolver” Beatles (I don’t recall a single song from “Revolver”, come to think about it, an oversight (if I’m right) that’s pretty egregious). I would like to see a breakdown of songs by year/album, because I’m pretty sure that the years 1965 and 66 were seemingly absent, especially 1966.

One question: Is England really that dreary? If it’s not as dreary as portrayed in this movie, why are the “non-London/non-royalty” parts of it constantly displayed as such in many American productions?

Songs I’m surprised didn’t make it, or that I expected during the course of the movie while I was watching it (but never played), or that I missed:

Help!, Tomorrow Never Knows, Yesterday, Penny Lane, She Loves You, Here Comes the Sun, Day Tripper, Dr Robert (I figured that would be Bono’s song), Get Back (JoJo), any song from Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, Maxwell’s Silver Hammer, Piggies, We Can Work it Out

The sheer awesomeness of the Beatles is that you can make another film with completely different songs, this new movie being as chock full o’ classics as this one is.

The theater was about 20% full for the 4:00pm showing (it was a very pretty early-fall day). There were plenty of “hippie”-types, complete with denim jackets, long shaggy hair, and Dead decals.

Saw it yesterday with my girlfriend, who has been looking forward to this movie for over a year. We’ve both seen Julie Taymor’s Lion King live on stage, Frida is one of her favorite movies, and I really dug Titus, so we were psyched to finally have it open here (apparently a week or two after the rest of the country). We weren’t disappointed. I’m not terribly interested in self-indulgent Baby Boomer nostalgia and I think the '60s were one of the worst-dressed decades ever, but Julie Taymor made it all beautiful and visually stunning, as usual.

I enjoyed all the Beatles covers, especially some of the more out-of-left-field selections like “Hold Me Tight” from the beginning (great with female vocals) and the fun stagings of “I’ve Just Seen a Face” at the bowling alley and “I Want You/She’s So Heavy” for Max’s indoctrination into the Army. Max and JoJo were the standouts for me in the talented young cast, Bono was a hoot (despite looking more like a gay biker than usual), but Eddie Izzard’s ad-libbing during “Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite” really rankled me. I thought the most heartfelt moment was Jude’s reunion with Max near the end, rather than his anticlimactic reunion with Lucy that followed. I’m a sucker for honest portrayals of friendship and male bonding, though, so I loved the whole “A Little Help From My Friends” sequence.

Also, did anyone catch Dr. Venture (James Urbaniak) as Sadie’s manager?

JohnT writes:

> One question: Is England really that dreary? If it’s not as dreary as portrayed in
> this movie, why are the “non-London/non-royalty” parts of it constantly
> displayed as such in many American productions?

Most of the British scenes were set in working-class Liverpool in the 1960’s, which apparently really did look quite poor. Much of the U.K. up to the early 1960’s were in a bad financial situation which had endured from the 1940’s. There was nothing particularly unrealistic about the look of those scenes.

According to IMDB trivia: “90% of the songs were recorded live on-set and were not dubbed with studio recordings in post-production”. I guess this doesn’t preclude electronic processing though. TV Caprio (Prudence) is the daughter of a pretty well known singer and Dana Fuchs (Sadie) & Martin Luther McCoy (JoJo) both have music industry experience.

The themes were pretty standard '60s boilerplate, but otherwise I loved it. But then I also loved Moulin Rouge.

Well, I guess I’m going to have to pipe in because, I’m sorry, but AtU did suck.

I adore the Beatles. And I’ve enjoyed Taymor’s previous films, though I’ve found that the full flights of fancy in the rather remarkable (though not perfect) Titus have been replaced by a certain staid conservatism. In both this and Frida, she plays things too straight too much of the time. Though the more impressive visual moments make an impression, they’re way too few and far between.

As in that other mess Moulin Rouge, the film is often perfectly satisfied in rooting the lyrics in an irritating visual literalism, which makes the song interpretetations range from trite to absurd in their obviousness. “With a Little Help from My Friends”? Hey, let’s have some friends palling around! “Dear Prudence”? Hey, let’s stick her in an actual closet! “Revolution”? Hey, let’s set it in an office of revolutionaries! :rolleyes: It’s so incredibly lazy and uninspired.

And then there are the irritating Beatles meta-memes. Hey, let’s name all our characters after Beatles songs! Sometimes (Jude, Prudence, Lucy) we get the actual songs, though the payoff is zilchola. Sometimes (Maxwell, JoJo, Rita, Sadie) we don’t, which simply makes the conceit distracting and stupid. And let’s not even get into the torturously cutsie references. “She came in through the bathroom window!” :snort:

And then there’s the tiresome laundry list of 60s musical & counter-culture cliches. Janis Joplin stand-in? Check. Jimi Hendrix? Check. Timothy Leary? Check. Why? It’s the 60s. We get it! And let’s not even get into the sensitive artist or the pining lesbian or the fresh-faced suburban-turned-flower child atrocities that actually try to pass as characters. Ugh.

And even when the songs embrace something visually promising, half the time they’re cribbing off of something all-too-familiar already. “Something” is such a beautiful song–did we need a tired Titanicesque montage (ooh! sketching a nude! how bohemian!)? “I’ve Just Seen a Face” in the bowling alley would be more fun if it didn’t remind you of the much better musical moments from The Big Lebowski. And as Jude has his little “Revolution” tizzy, all I could think of is: “I’m sorry I had to fight in the middle of your Black Panther party.” (heck, even the girls look almost identical).

So, with so many uninspired interpretations, we’re left with the quality of the singing to buoy us, and sorry, but that’s a fizzle. Virtually none of the songs are sung particularly well (not even the ones sung by Dana Fuchs, who plays an actual singer!), so even the promise of a good musical based on actual, you know, talent evaporates. Don’t get me wrong–there are some times when “amateur” (non-professional) singing is perfectly appropriate for a mood or a song, but there’s so much of it here that the larger impression is A-for-Effort (but don’t quit your day job). The inevitable use of psychadelic visuals for “I am the Walrus” (groovy man!) aren’t nearly so bad because at least you have an actual singer taking a stab at it.

Now, are there some good moments? In isolated cases, yes. “Strawberry Fields Forever” is handled quite nicely (and at least puts to good use the otherwise monotonous Strawberry=Apple equation). “I Want You/She’s So Heavy” is unexpected and though a bit heavy-handed towards the end, still is a breath of fresh air after so many mishandled songs. And “Happiness is a Warm Gun” is bordering on brilliant–taking the obvious subtexts of that song and turning it into some wonderful visual punning (though it owes more than a little to Dennis Potter’s The Singing Detective).

So there are a handful of well-done interpretations (though none that is as breezy and effortless as “Can’t Buy Me Love” from A Hard Day’s Night made over 40 years ago). But there are no characters to care about, so songs that should have some genuine cathartic release–“Hey Jude”, “All You Need is Love”, “Let It Be”–fall flat because nothing that’s happened in the story has earned the goodwill these songs engender. The Beatles are too good for this movie, and the result is that these songs are used as crutches–hobbling us from one tired plot element to another–with zero emotional investment in anything within the film.

A shame. I really, really wanted to like this movie. But my love for the Beatles and the musical genre in general aren’t enough. It was a real risk to make this movie, but in some ways, not nearly as risky as it needed to be. If it had been the Herman’s Hermits songbook, then that’s another thing. But if you’re going to use the Beatles, you’re setting the bar high and you better bring your A game. And in that sense, the film is an unadulterated failure.

Finally got around to seeing this.

I’m sorry to all of you whose lives were changed by this movie, but it was just about the most painful experience of my DVD-watching year. And that’s out of like 1,000 titles I’ve watched this year. It had a scant handful of effective moments, but overall I’d rather watch Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band while standing barefoot in a muddy trench than ever undergo this experience again.

This is one of the things that bugged me the most: the two leads seemed to have had their vocal tracks processed to the point where at times they *both *sounded like Cher.

And the badness of the guys’ wigs was downright distracting.

I’m with ArchiveGuy, for the most part. It wasn’t awful, but it did seem quite contrived and obvious. And why was Prudence there at all? So they could sing about her?

I did enjoy some of the renditions, especially Bono’s “I am the walrus.”

I haven’t seen the film, but ArchiveGuy has produced one of the best-written bad reviews I’ve ever read. Bravo! It kind of makes me want to see it now, even knowing it will likely annoy me more than it’s worth. But a friend of mine is one of the Merry Pranksters with about 1.3 seconds of screen time, so I will probably rent it eventually.

How are the special features on the DVD? Anything cool (assuming that whoever watching liked the movie)? Does Julie Taymor do a commentary track?

Aw, I’m blushing. :o

I can’t say I’d actually recommend seeing it, but if you have any idle curiosity about Julie Taymor, the Beatles, or Evan Rachel Wood’s lovely boobs, then you should probably check it out for yourself.

To the OP - where on earth does it cost you that much to go to a matinee? Are you including concessions?

Wow, a very thought out review. And amusing because, I loved the film for many of the same reasons you hated it. Overall I enjoyed the film - I was intrigued by the premise and thought for the most part it followed through on it’s promise. I did leave slightly disappointed, mostly because although I thought it was great, it really had the potential to be fantastic. I loved the music enough to buy the soundtrack, and in some cases preferred their renditions to the originals. I also liked the way they changed or added to the meanings of some of the songs by their context. “I want to hold your hand” in particular was bloody brilliant, mostly for the way it was sung, but also for the way it took on a new level of meaning. There were some songs I was surprised to find missing, and some that I would have had them sing a different way (Jude and All you Need is Love). The visuals and choreography were great. And I loved all the little nods to things from Beatles songs and to the era in general. Overall I’d say I really loved this film, but would love to see a few things tweaked to make it a truly great film.