User reviews

I saw a sold-out opening night screening of "Across the Universe" last night with a group of my friends who had really been looking forward to it. Many of them were extremely disappointed, while in the critical world, Roger Ebert and the New York Times loved it. Because the film was so highly anticipated, and a number of people have asked me how I liked it, I'm writing this review in an attempt to express why the movie is so divisive. I'm not going to talk about plot, or describe any of the numbers. If you're interested in seeing the movie, they'll be more enjoyable if they're unexpected.

It's a bizarre and beautiful movie musical, almost a music video at times, that uses thirty- three of The Beatles' songs and director Julie Taymor's unique visual style to illustrate both a personal love story and the overall conflict in the sixties. The movie is incredibly original and ambitious, and therefore its failings are as dramatic as its successes. Both stem from the same source: Julie Taymor's self-indulgence. That's nothing new to her movies, "Frida" and "Titus" have the same problem, but in a movie stripped of traditional narrative, it's glaringly obvious. Some songs are impeccably chosen and staged with great creativity, but others are too obvious, or thematically forced so Taymor can cram in another song and stunning visual sequence.

For the first half of the movie, I was frequently divided. One innovative sequence would really pull me into the style, then a forced number or awkward staging would distance me again. When an obvious, recognizable number began, I was torn between a cynical impulse to roll my eyes and an almost exhilarated impulse to laugh and applaud.

"Across the Universe" is a mess. There's no denying that. It is poorly paced and badly structured, and at times its feather-light plot and contrived or obligatory numbers become tedious. But at one point, about halfway through, I decided just to go along for the ride. I delighted in every brash, bold choice, whether it worked or not. I let the poignant moments move me, whether or not I intellectually felt that they were contrived.

The Beatles' music had a huge effect on me; from the fateful day that my friend accidentally copied the first three tracks of "Revolver" onto my computer, a love affair was born. Their songs are inexorably tied to memories beautiful and horrible scattered all over my life, and as I grow older, I'm constantly discovering new, deeper resonances in their familiar refrains. Even when the context was vague or stretched, the film's reinterpreting and revealing new facets of these songs seemed to serve as a tribute to their breadth and greatness. Taymor's damning depiction of the horrors of war, and lyrical portrait of young, idealistic love are both painfully expressive and unique, and simply took my breath away. By the film's shamelessly corny close, I realized that I had just had a genuine cinematic experience. For all the movies that I watch, that's incredibly rare.

In his review in the New York Times, Stephen Holden writes, "I realized that falling in love with a movie is like falling in love with another person. Imperfections, however glaring, become endearing quirks once you've tumbled." I could laughingly list this movie's flaws from now till next week, but I sort of fell in love with its sheer audacity. You might not. It's extremely naïve, and thematically simple, and you could find that endearing or irritating. You may love it, or you may hate it, but you're going to feel something. This movie will not change your life; don't expect it to. But if you let your criticism fade to the background, and abandon yourself to Taymor's passionate fervor, you may have a pretty amazing experience.

The response to this movie is a clear evidence that people have a stupid low tolerance level for musicals. Across the Universe works amazingly, and surprisingly as a great musical, it has some of the most the daring, balls out attitudes towards the genre, that we have not seen since probably Fosse's revolution of the musical back in the 70s with Cabaret and All that Jazz. And even though most of what you hear people praising is the production values of the movie, like cinematography, production design, costume design, I think that Julie Taymor is underrated in a very unfair manner. The movie is fantastic, it was such a pleasing film experience.

Julie Taymor has always been a very visual director, since Titus, I praised her as a director with extremely rich visual ideas, and compared her to the likes of Baz Luhrmann, which is funny now, cause when the film started, I realize Julie Taymor had a very similar intention with Across the Universe, to that of Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge!, however, I'm of the opinion that Luhrmann was modestly effective, while Taymor hits the nail with absolute precision and perfection.

Even though I was a Musical Lover Freak, that I'll admit to, I had a hard time accepting Moulin Rouge!, I enjoyed it visually, as well as the performances, but I don't know, I was sort of a put off with the messy use of music, which really distracted me from the movie, which was supposed to take place in Pre WW1 Paris, but felt like some weird, annoying place, a musical version of a bad Three Stooges Episode, which I know sounds a little too tough on the film, but that's what I though. It was off putting seeing such a comedic portrayal of Toulouse Lautrec, pretending to co-write the score of The Sound of Music with a clumsy 21st Century version of Michael York, only in 1900s Paris.

I'm dwelling over Moulin Rouge! a little too much, I know, but it's just that people have complained in a similar way about this particular film. Beatles fans are put off by the almost exclusive use of Beatles songs in the soundtrack. I'm not a die hard Beatles fan, but I certainly like them, as pretty much most people, and I though that Julie Taymor's concept was amazing. Across the Universe is a Roseate Stone of the 60s, and because it is from the 60s, takes place in the 60s, and is all about the 60s, the Beatles soundtrack is a match made in heaven. The opening scene, is a perfect example of just how effective the use of the Beatles was, the comparison of late 50s, early 60s Americana Life Style, with a very industrial and rough Liverpool Life Style, from there on, the movie becomes a fantastic musical in all the classical sense, it's so classic that the film could be easily translated to Broadway.

People have said the most inane things like "the film has no plot"...no plot? Are you kidding me, the film not only has a wonderful array of characters that not only represent some of the most iconic figures of music in the 60s, but all of those characters are explored, developed, some to a larger extent than others, just like any movie, and on top of that, most of the characters are resonant in today's society with today's socio-political situation.

That is the other interesting element of the film, not only is it a good story, but it is also a politically conscious movie with extremely poignant images about the 60s and today. Not only does it have poignant images, but also, most of the songs have highly imaginative numbers, that are very technically proficient, in the classic sprawling Broadway musical tradition. And regarding the visual and special effects, I think Taymor was a bit gratuitous with the effects back in Frida, but here, they are all in service of the plot, even if some of the scenes seem like scenes that would go great with a little LSD, they are all used for the effect of creating that 60s feel and look in which the movie moves about with a delicious comedic overtone.

All of these praises go to the master behind the film, Julie Taymor, she deserves more credit than what she has been getting, the incredibly imaginative and exciting musical sequences are excellent. Who cares if it's music from the Beatles, the Beatles are pretty much the official soundtrack of the 60s, and it's not like the film is just a big bloated Beatles tribute, it's a tribute to the decade, and the whole music scene of the decade, aside from the numerous Beatles references, there are references to Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Morrison.

I wanted to focus my review on Julie Taymor's work, but, the whole film is amazing, the cinematography, the production design , Albert Wolsky proves he is still champ of the musical genre. And the cast, aside from Evan Rachel Wood, most of them are young, fresh faces, which works wonders, since you are not ever wondering about who dubbed that song, you take all the stuff in, without having second thoughts or reservations.

I recommend you see the film, it's great, and if you have a beef about it using Beatles music, well, I only have one thing to say, DEAL WITH IT, it's not like the film is abusing the Beatles legacy, if anything, it's giving it a standing ovation, and it's fitting for the period, and the tone of the picture, so...that's pretty much it, just..."let it be, let it be, let it be".

A phenomenal feature length video clip with the Beatles songs and Julie Taymor's eye at the helm. The story, of course, is wafer thin but who cares, right? We're not here for intellectual enlightenment but for the forceful, visionary, smart ass style of one of the female filmmakers that has already revolutionize the Broadway stage without, really, changing anything. I believe that's the kind of revolution that leaves a sign. The kind that reassures rather than confuse and "Accross the Universe" does just that. The Beatles are reassuring their message is reassuring. Little did that generation know that things were going to take a terrifying turn. Love! Love! Love! All You need is love. Still true but we've never been, as a society, so far apart. It was great to see teen agers humming the Beatles tunes coming out of the theater. The lyrics are like Gospel or lullabies. Was it only yesterday? It feels like centuries ago. The innocence seems foreign and at the same time so real. It will be nice to go back with the experience of hindsight. It doesn't work like that, does it? No, I'm afraid not. In the meantime the great Julie Taymor gives as a beautiful reminder. And a lovely evening out at the movies.

This film is one of the most bipolar cinematic experiences I've had since George Lucas's 1971 minimalist masterpiece THX-1138 was recut with goofy CGI inserts.

First let's talk about the main gimmick of "Across the Universe": it's a musical using modern remakes of Beatles songs. Some of these new versions, along with very compelling, bold and surreal visuals, are sheer poetry which I'm sure the fab 4 themselves would applaud. But then suddenly get a random toe tapper, full of melodramatic yet sterile vocals (you can hear the auto-tune working overtime) that have no place in the story but for some hastily contrived subplot to serve as a setup for a Beatles crowd pleaser. Yes, I'm talking about the cringeworthy "Dear Prudence" where a minor character with only 10 lines in the whole film randomly locks herself in a bathroom until everyone sings her to come out because the character's name is? Prudence.

On the other hand, I loved Bono's bizarre, humorous and wittily fitting appearance as "Doctor Robert", a self-proclaimed electric messiah who apparently comes to parties with his own personal PA system (or is it a Mr. Microphone cranked to 11?) as he sings to the crowd's orgasmic oohs, "I Am the Walrus".

Another highlight is a very simple, touching and heart-rending version of "Let It Be" sung by a young African-American boy in the middle of the violent race riots and police brutality of Detroit 1960s.

If these last 2 examples are any indication (and there are many more), the talented director Julie Taymor gave some of these songs the red carpet treatment and put them in the most provocative, social and historical context.

But then suddenly there's a really sappy and unnecessary 5 minutes of "I Want to Hold Your Hand" that has no bearing on culture, history or even the plot.

The plot itself is nothing special, but set against the backdrop of the 60s and the domestic unrest over the Vietnam War, it becomes powerful. It's a simple boy-meets-girl story but with tons of quirky characters in the mix (one for every song, and I believe there are 33 songs). My gripe with the plot is that it flirts with making powerful statements about the 60s peace movement, but just when you think it's something you can sink your teeth into, it falls to an inane, predictable romcom cliché, like a misunderstanding because they don't spend enough time together, blah blah blah. (This is one of the moments of "sheer stupid".)

But then, lo and behold, the story shifts to a brilliantly satirical hospital scene with (Vietnam vet) Joe Anderson and (buxom nurse) Salma Hayek singing "Happiness Is A Warm Gun." Thus the needle tips back to "sheer brilliance".

Ultimately I enjoyed this film. It's a worthwhile ride, and the talents of the actors and filmmakers are unquestionable. I just found myself periodically irritated by cheap gimmicks to sell a song or two, and I wish those parts could have been edited out, because otherwise I would've raved about what a great film this would've been.

As it stands, my favorite Beatles remake musical remains "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" featuring the excellent music of The Bee Gees (pre-disco) as well as other fantastic musicians (Earth Wind & Fire, Alice Cooper, Peter Frampton, and who can forget the awesome finale by the 5th Beatle himself, the late great Billy Preston).

This movie was released in 2007 and is 133 minutes. In my opinion, this is too long for a film of this nature. The movie has an extremely incoherent story, that is just an excuse to showcase some young actors singing Beatles songs. I love the Beatles, but I don't really like this movie. On the positive side, the cinematography is dazzling, and the actors can sing. The movie's main problem is lack of a story that makes sense and is easy to follow. When the movie has songs, it is entertaining, but when it goes for plot, it fails. This movie is like watching lots of music videos and watching commercials in between. Overall, this movie feels more like an experience than an actual, quality film.

... and it's nanny was Julie Taymor ...

This probably sounds like I hated the film, but I actually loved it.

It has the time line and self-consciously-culture-smart soundtrack of Hair, yet the campy fun and karaoke stylings of Moulin Rouge. Julie Taymor takes this combination and makes it fun, instead of extra cheesy, and it is visually fascinating instead of the obnoxious MTV-video nightmare it could have been.

I cared about the characters - and the cast of 'unknowns' have great star power and voices. Even though I knew exactly what would happen, the journey there was great. The cameos were fun. The lead was sufficiently hot. The soundtrack is stuck in my head as I write this (the new versions, not even the original songs) All corny jokes and references, and lapses in plot are forgiven, because Ms. Taymor manages to take a movie chock full of things that have been done a million times before and makes it as fresh and exciting as if it were all done for the first time. You may know exactly what's going to happen but you never know how. This is the director's movie!

Definitely a movie journey worth taking.

I am not a fan of mashed up song movies using actors to sing parts of pop tunes that are slotted to formulate a story whose strengths are the songs. The fact of the actual shoehorning of a story into a soundtrack by movie makers another musical blasphemy.

An Amazon Prime membership allowed me to reconsider this prejudice....

I NEED TO TRUIST MY GUT.

While I did like 3 imaginative scenes where the song was turned around for story' sake and it worked or the visual added something to the story as opposed to the story setting up the song.. The Paul, Janis and Jimmy lookalikes were varied out of context and then Joe Cocker and Bono cameos become all out confusion. Cocker did cover Beatles tunes, as does U2, so how should we see their star presence, especially with Cocker, as Bono has a role, albeit played to and for the audience.

I'll know better in the future. If it walks like a pop money grab and talks like a pop money grab, be glad you have discernment of taste.

The last piece is that despite Across The Universe being properly described as Hair meets Moulon Rouge, it is the time period captured for those that were affected as impressionable at the time that appears to have enamored the recommendations of those I respect. I was 6, am knowledgeable, but don't romanticize such times.

I remember the TV as bringing a reality into my home that didn't need such horror reinvented for a psychedelic romantic excursion especially seen in times where our reality (at least in America) is heading back to a similar lying governmental state.

... to have been able to see this film in the beautiful Elgin Theatre with Julie Taymor there to answer questions / talk about the film afterwards (at the Toronto International Film Festival).

Wow!!!

I was carried away, I was moved to tears, I stood up and cheered.

For those who commented about the singing - the actors sang all the songs themselves. What's more, though they did record the songs in studio first as part of the rehearsal process, most of the song performances used in the film were recorded live as they played out the scenes. Perhaps that's why - for me - the songs worked so well; it actually felt like the characters were just moved to sing. Amazing performances from - mainly - unknown actors.

And I felt the story had a strong narrative line, aided / supported by the songs. It used the background of history, not just as a painted backdrop, but to add meaning and depth to the characters and the story they were living. Made me wish I'd been there (born in '65, too young to remember the 60's); I'll have to content myself with living vicariously through Jude and Lucy and the others.

Add to everything else Julie Taymor's glorious visuals, and I was truly swept away. I saw 36 films at the festival, but this was head and shoulders my favourite.

I fell in love with this film, and look forward to sharing it with friends and family who didn't have the luck to see it as I did. It's a film that will, I'm sure, reward repeated viewings.

Julie Taymor intrigued me with her visceral adaption of Shakespeare's Titus (1999), dazzled me by putting Frida's canvasses to life over Salma Hayek's brilliant performance in Frida (2002), and I was hoping that her keen visual style would make this musical magical. I was hoping for Moulin Rouge! (2001); I was hoping too much.

Tying this to Frida, the beautiful Hayek is back (without the unibrow) for a visual feast of a cameo in a well choreographed and edited scene. In fact, as whole, the visual aspects works very well and even if Rodrigo Prieto (one of the best cinematographers of the decade) went on to do bigger and better things after Frida, Bruno Delbonnel, which did Le fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain (2001), is a well-abled replacement. The compositions are artsy, refined, innovative and give life to the movie more than the music or the story. Unfortunately, the main problem of the movie is that beyond that visual prowess, the movie is disjointed and often feels more like a collection of successive music videos-- a sort of more refined typical Bollywood musical. The story is lacking and the adventure is not propelled in the way that say a "Big Fish (2003) was able to while remaining far-out and visually over-the-top. As such, many 'videos' are well-worth the watch ('Strawberry Fields' and 'Let it Be' to name two), but some do not really work like the rooftop finally.

Musically, first off, I am not a big Beattles fan so that did not help and I much preferred the music of Rent(2005), which the rebellious mood of the story reminded me of, Chicago (2002) and Dreamgirls (2006). The other problem with using Beatles song is that they do not work as well as songs that were conceived to move the narrative along as in a real musical. Also, when i comes to musical editing there is only one song that has has a strong musical dialogue with another song. Overall, I was very disappointed with the musical aspect in terms of music and lyrics. I don't think that even using Lennon's 'Imagine'-that was not used-could have saved it in my eyes, but Beatles fan may like it more or be even more critical, I'm not sure.

Still, quite a few nice directing choices and great execution can be seen. The scene where Sadie and Jojo fight on stage is great, Bono's appearance and the following funkadelic bus ride is interesting, the water sequences and the circle in the grass are memorable... A few breathtaking strokes of Taymor's artistry, but no strong backbone like the tale of Hayek's Frida. Keep at it Taymor, but I hope for a more complete piece next time.

I have been anticipating this movie ever since I saw the trailer on IMDb like everyone else. When I first saw the trailer, I said to myself, I'm either going to consider this my favorite movies of all-time, or it's going to be trash. Being a huge Beatles fan and owning all their albums on CD, I had huge expectations about the covers of the songs. I saw it with my friend, who is also a huge Beatles fan but not a huge musical fan. Both of us saw it on opening night to the public and to our surprise it was really good! The covers of the songs were actually really good! Now don't get me wrong, the original Beatles songs will always be the best versions but for what they did, they did a pretty decent job. One of my favorite scenes was the "I've Just Seen a Face" bowling alley scene. So creative and fun! Also the "I Want You (She So Heavy) scene was…interesting…but fun to watch. Eddie Izzard's scene as Mr. Kite was hilarious! Both me and my friend where on the floor laughing. Also Bono's scene singing "I Am the Walrus" was great. Don't listen to the critics that say that "it doesn't do the Beatles justice". Actually, it's the opposite. Any hardcore Beatles fan will appreciate all the jokes that were thrown in there. Even if you're not a hardcore Beatles fan, you will appreciate the fantastic love story.

Just one word of advice, go to this with an open mind. Don't expect Oscar-worthy script and dialogue, expect clichés, not a whole lot of character development from the supporting cast but don't let that ruin the movie for you. Appreciate the artistic mind of the director. I mean who cares if they threw in a character like Prudence just to sing Dear Prudence? It's a great song! For all you "I hate every movie that comes out" critics don't see this. It's too artsy for you. Go see this with an open mind not expecting it to win Best Picture for the Oscar. This is one of the best experiences you will have watching a movie. I'm buying the DVD as soon as it comes out. See this movie Beatles fans!!! It does them justice!!! Please email me with any comments you have.

Set in America during the Vietnam War, Across the Universe is a powerful love story set against a backdrop of political and social unrest: it's a story of soul-searching, self-doubt, and individual powerlessness cleverly conveyed through a multitude of Beatles songs. Like young adults all across America during the 1960's, Jude (Jim Sturgess), Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood), Max (Joe Anderson), Sadie (Dana Fuchs), Prudence (T.V. Carpio), and JoJo (Martin Luther) are in turmoil over the war; questioning their individual roles in the war effort and struggling to find a way to hold true to their beliefs while making a difference in the world. While love proves a powerful uniting force, its limitations become clear as relationships are strained and broken over individual perceptions of responsibility to cause and country. A fairly bizarre juxtaposition of extremely stylized, almost hallucinogenic scenes of swirling colors and reflections, highly choreographed dance segments, seemingly commonplace character interaction, and emotionally packed close-up footage of characters lost in contemplative song, this film imparts a good sense of the confusion and passion of the time and is at once powerful, invigorating, and disturbing. The film runs a bit long at 2-hours 11-minutes and several segments drag noticeably thanks to some incredibly slow song tempos. Warning: this production may change how you think about a favorite Beatles song forever.

Oh, have you seen "Across the Universe"? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445922/) Are we the only ones to find it bad, bad, REALLY bad? I think there's an odd syndrome--I've seen it before, can't remember where--of 60s-and-Beatles-infatuation among people who were born post-60s-and-Beatles, and they seem to take ownership of the 60s and Beatles music in a way that is often extremely distasteful to me. Besides the codification of the 60s into convenient chewy clusters (one character drafted, another one black, a girl "too" involved in the anti-war protest movement , another in the club scene trying to sing like Janis Joplin...), in this movie, it appears they tried to build an entire plot around the 60s and most of the dialog out of (sung) Beatles songs. To me, as soon as you start naming characters "Jude," "Max(well)," "Prudence," "Sadie," "Lucy," you're already losin' me, kid. When half of those characters are ONLY there to support an occurrence of one person or another breaking into song (i.e. "Prudence's" whole raisin-bran d'etre in the ENTIRE movie was to have a scene where she's shut herself in a closet pouting and everyone outside the closet sings "Dear Prudence," now THAT's just stupid. They shoehorned songs into the plot, and plot lines into song-ops. The one English guy always sings with a smile on his face and everyone has these pure, clear (let's call it "plear") voices fresh out of "Fame" (they were born after THAT, too, I think). WAY too many telegraphed references to well-known Beatles and 60s trivia, like the use of apples and strawberries and the comment to Max about killing grandma with a hammer. There are a few cool animation bits (well, one, really), but ALL of that might not be too bad, but they ALSO had to bring my man Jimi into it! Now they're making me mad. The characters are zero-dimensional. The acting is out of Junior High, rising only occasionally to Sophomore level. The writing is just execrable. I had to watch it through because these are my heroes from, and this is the soundtrack of, my youth, and frankly I couldn't tear myself away, just like that reporter and the Hindenberg--"Oh the humanity!"

Pure emotion. No one can mix theater with film like Julie Taymor. From beginning to end the film takes you on a psychedelic beatle ride that grips you by the ears, the heart and the soul and never lets go. Even now. Hours after the projector was shut off. Every song adaptation interpretation and setting is spot on, fans of the Beatles will recognize that every detail in Taymor's images recall an instance, a photograph, a line or a quote from the band. Even the girl that comes in through the bathroom window. Nothing is left to chance, everything is on purpose. Amazing. Easily the best film of the year. And in regards to people saying it's a two hour music video.. well... yeah, what the heck were you expecting???

a precious musical. for rich cultural references, for performances, for the trip in the heart of things, for special poetry, for the flavor of classics and for lovely simplicity. a love story. like many others. but special because it is in middle of a kind of magic, doing you nostalgic and dreamer and part of a colorful show. a film about Vietnam and beat generation and looking for real happiness. all - as a spell. so, a fireworks show. not great, maybe. but seductive at whole.and this, maybe, for me, as admirer of Jim Sturgess, it could be the purpose. a return to a form of pure joy , old and refreshing, to the musical who gives fresh air and a lot of hope.

Julie Taymor's film Across the Universe has been high up on my most anticipated list for a year now. Taking classic and lesser-known Beatles' tunes, she has crafted a contemporary musical about a group of young adults at the turning point of life during the start of the Vietnam War. While highly ambitious and oftentimes gorgeous to behold, the film ultimately ends up being a failed attempt at genius. Visually stunning, almost every sequence assaults your eyes with beauty and unique splendor. Unfortunately, Taymor may have fallen victim to excess. Trying to jampack every character ever used in their music becomes overkill, adding scenes that add nothing to the story but a way to add more songs.

By gleaning each name she could use as a character, Taymor finishes with mixed results. While it worked for Lucy, an effective Evan Rachel Wood; Jude, relative newcomer Jim Sturgess in a great turn as our lead; and Max, Joe Anderson with the best performance of the film, it was too strained for others like Mr. Kite and Dr. Roberts. Sure Bono is fantastic as the psychedelic Roberts, but his sole purpose in the movie is to get the crew over to Kite, who, while played nicely by Eddie Izzard, is totally unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Along with these moments is a scene that introduces Martin Luther McCoy as JoJo, a guitar player getting away from the tragedies at home. A perfect example of how uneven the film is, this sequence involves a pimp and his whores singing along to "Come Together." Sure the choreography is great, but the pimp is just plain awkward staring into the camera with a stoic face as JoJo keeps walking away. It isn't all a waste, though, because the moment when he walks down the street, through a mob of clone-like worker bees, is fantastic to behold. How she could ruin moments of shear brilliance with those of gaudy frivolities is beyond me. Even when taking the lyrics literally with "I Want You (She's so Heavy)" comes a number that is truly stunning. Having Uncle Sam hijack Max's life, culminating into the troops carrying the Statue of Liberty is somewhat breathtaking if not entirely heavy-handed.

It is also this anti-war imagery that causes a bit of a problem. If Taymor kept with the strict stance throughout, I wouldn't have minded so much. A film can go against my beliefs on subjects as long as it is honest with it's own motives. What goes wrong here is the fact that we are allowed a glimpse into a single moment with Lucy and her reactionary boss that completely subverts the peace over violence mantra. By allowing such an easy scene just squeeze in so that the story can smoothly transition into the eventual climax is both lazy and hypocritical. The emotions and viewpoints that Lucy and Jude hold so close to their hearts are too easily changed, but I guess all you need is love.

Right from the start we experience what is in store. After our entry-point with Jude on the beach, introducing Lucy's character—very reminiscent of Ewan MacGregor's opening from Moulin Rouge!—comes a lovely collaged montage of waves rumbling over scenes to occur later on in the film. These waves are layered with newspaper clippings helping to give an overview of the political barometer of the time period. After this is a nice juxtaposition of Lucy, Jude, and Prudence's lives as they start their journey in their hometowns, ultimately bringing them together in New York City. It is the event that begins JoJo's trek that solidified my enthrallment into the film and eased me into a wondering at what could happen next. Unfortunately, the scene of prostitutes follows and jarred me out of my trance, making me conscious of the horrible along with the beautiful.

All the acting is above average, if not superb, and the set pieces meticulously orchestrated. Despite the seemingly shoddy CGI work at times, especially during an underwater/above the water sequence, the visuals are spectacular. Julie Taymor needs credit for the imagination and fearless mentality to even attempt what she has. Before the film, she spoke about how Evan Rachel Wood was 17 at the time they filmed. Turning 20 a few days ago, the movie finally sees the light of day. A lot of work went into the final project and it shows. It is just a shame that the film's ambitions outweigh what actually shows up on screen—a whole that doesn't succeed past the sum of its parts. In the end, even though a disappointment in overall execution, those parts that work are a sight to behold and highly worth experiencing on the big screen, especially having the opportunity to see the world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival.

I absolutely loved it.

It's very hard to describe, because I wouldn't classify it as a traditional musical. It's not set up so that there's a scene, then a song, then a scene again; everything just flows seamlessly. Wonderful acting from all of the cast,with some great improv from Bono and Eddie Izzard. Definitely standout performances from Dana Fuchs (who has the most AMAZING voice), Martin Luther, and TV Carpio. Also a nice cameo by Salma Hayek, who apparently asked Julie Taymor if there was a part for her in the movie, and when Julie told her that she could be one of the nurses, Salma replied "ONE of the nurses, Julie?"

Overall an excellent film. Taymor fans will definitely appreciate it (it has a lot of her traditional colorful imagery, masks, and puppets). I'm planning on seeing it a few more times just to take it all in. It's certainly going to be a film you have to see more than once to really appreciate.

One of my (many) pet peeves with modern movies is their penchant for including redundant cover versions of classic rock songs by today's would-be superstars so as to make them more palatable to mainstream i.e. teenage audiences too young to remember the originals or those who performed them. Needless to say, I was very sarcastic about the potentially disastrous – not to mention blasphemous – idea of making a musical film with the immortal songs of The Beatles (mostly) sung by a group of anonymous young actors. Even if, in hindsight, the film is not without its flaws, I must applaud veteran screenwriters Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais and director Julie Taymor – not just for their bravery in making this almost impossible task work but because, more often than not, the results are brilliant and occasionally dazzling.

To begin with, 33 songs from The Beatles' repertoire are redressed to suit the actors who perform them and the characters they portray are also named after famous Beatles creations: the main protagonists are British dockyard-worker Jude (Jim Sturgess) who goes to America to look for his janitor father whom he has never met; along the way, he makes friends with spoiled rich kid Max (Joe Anderson) and soon falls for his sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood); meanwhile, their sluttish landlady Sadie (Dana Fuchs) is silently lusted after by Asian misfit Prudence (T.V. Carpio) but the former has set her own sights on colored guitarist Jo-Jo (Martin Luther McCoy) whom she engages in her own rock band. The narrative takes on some of the most important events in late-1960s American history – the Civil Rights protests, the Vietnam War, etc. – as Max is enrolled in the Army, Lucy becomes a political radical, Sadie's band are stopped by the police while playing a rooftop concert (recalling The Beatles' own famous farewell performance!), they all ramble through America in a bus and Prudence joins a traveling circus show...

Some of the song numbers are ambitious and inventively realized: it's hard not to love seeing Joe Cocker playing a vagrant in a train station as he twitches himself into the first bars of "Come Together" or having Bono as the eccentric Dr. Robert bursting into "I Am The Walrus" during a psychedelia-tinged party sequence but it's the partly-animated "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" army-recruiting sequence which impresses the most; still, the more pastoral passages like "Because" (sung by the stoned group of friends as they lie carefree on the village green) and Evan Rachel Wood's solo "If I Fell" are quietly remarkable in their own right. However, not every song revisit is a success: circus barker Eddie Izzard's "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" is surprisingly dreadful, Sturgess' low-key rendition of "Revolution" is ineffective and, unfortunately, "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" (one of my favorite Beatles album tracks) is marred by some uncalled for choreographic gymnastics! Still as a cinematic collage based on The Beatles' Songbook as performed by other people, it's far more successful than it has a right to be and clearly light years ahead of the notoriously abysmal SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND (1978) and, consequently, essential viewing for long-time Beatles fans of all persuasions.

Wow I didn't think I would like this since I'm not really a Beatles fan but it kinda blew my mind. Just awesome. A really good story set in the turbulent 1960's, with a satisfying romance between an American named Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood) and Jude from Liverpool (Jim Sturgess). The movie also traces a small group of friends and musicians who are swept up into the emerging anti-war and counterculture movements, along with the star-crossed lovers, Jude and Lucy.

Interesting versions of more than 30 Beatles songs preformed by the cast, complete with cool cameos (Bono, Joe Cocker) and musical numbers with amazingly trippy choreographed dance routines. This was just so good.

A couple numbers stood out for me: "Come Together" with Joe Cocker, just wow, the business people dancing and shuffling on the busy New York street and "I want You(?)" with the brother getting inducted into the army was downright scary with a very Pink Floyd, Another Brick In The Wall feel to it.

I'm not one for the musicals but I can't wait to watch this again. 06.13

I'm pleased to report that "Across the Universe" isn't nearly as insufferable as I had expected it to be. As a die-hard Beatles fan, my initial trepidation was not entirely unwarranted, given that the one previous attempt at crafting a movie around the Fab Four's oeuvre was the kitschy, lamentable "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," as bad a film as has ever stunk up the inside of a movie theater. Faced with such an appalling precedent, I certainly did not have high hopes for this latest endeavor, which, from its previews, looked to be another Beatles-inspired travesty in the making.

The good news is that "Across the Universe," written by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais and directed by Julie Taymor ("Titus"), never sinks to the level of that earlier fiasco, although it does come perilously close a few times - mainly in the second half of the film when it lapses into pseudo-psychedelia of the worst kind. But, luckily, that doesn't happen very often, and much of the film is surprisingly sweet and charming in its intentions and approach.

It's the early 1960's, and a scruffy Paul McCartney look-alike named Jude (Jim Sturgess) leaves his home in Liverpool to find meaning, adventure and purpose in America. While there, he falls in love with Lucy (Evan Rachel Ward), a beautiful young blond who becomes actively involved in the antiwar movement when her fiancé is killed in battle and her brother is shipped off to fight in Vietnam. Their love story is played out against the backdrop of the turbulent '60's, a time of free love, flower-power fashions, peace demonstrations, drug use, and anti-establishment radicalism, all of which find their way into the fabric of the film.

The Beatles' canon, which served as the perfect soundtrack for that extraordinary era, is so uniquely rich in songwriting material that each fan is sure to find something to carp about regarding which songs the filmmakers have chosen to put into their film and which they've opted to leave out. I would have preferred more selections from the band's earlier period and slightly fewer from their later, even though I realize that the latter provide the kind of narrative richness and thematic depth around which a group of filmmakers can more easily construct a full-bodied story.

Most of the songs are seamlessly sewn into the narrative, although there are times when we can sense the scenarists stretching the material to make a certain song fit. For instance, there's a character named Prudence who serves no real function in the story other than to give the other characters a chance to sing "Dear Prudence" to her ("Jude" and "Lucy" are marginally more forgivable since they are at least the names of the main characters in the movie). "Across the Universe" works best when it keeps its vision simple and close to everyday life. Conversely, it runs into the most trouble when it edges towards surrealism and stylization, often slipping over into pretentiousness and self-indulgence when it does so. Taymor exploits her trademark fascination with puppetry and masks, but the visions she creates with them often feel outdated, cheesy and campy. Particularly egregious is an ill-conceived scene featuring Eddie Izzard as a Timothy Leary-inspired Mr. Kite, a sequence that has the "Sgt. Pepper" movie imprimatur stamped all over it. Bono doesn't fare much better as Dr. Robert, trapped as he is in one of the most poorly shot psychedelic nightmares since the Beatles' own "Magical Mystery Tour" movie from 1967.

Still, these are minor lapses in a movie that is often funny, touching and captivating in its own right. Most of the credit, of course, goes to the Beatles themselves whose songs are so musically rich and lyrically resonant that they can both define a specific era and literally reach out across the universe at one and the same time. With their film, Taymor and her crew have captured a good deal of that timelessness.

I'm tempted to spill my credentials when it comes to Beatles music, but it's not exactly material in reviewing this movie purely on its own merits, so I'll resist.

There's good and there's bad, but if my score is any indication, the bad greatly outweighs the good.

The good: Some decent song renditions, and a misplaced Joe Cocker. If this movie wasn't attempting to have a consistent plot, it'd be a fun collection of mediocre music videos, and I'd be less strict about judging it, but alas...

The bad: ...there is an attempt to portray a story. It's vapid to say the least, and inexistent if you're truly critical. As a result, the characters are two-dimensional and uninteresting. The movie flows along at an astoundingly disjointed pace, creating any and every excuse to have a musical segment possible - usually falling flat on its face in the process - with the most literal interpretations of the songs possible and some truly poor imagery and symbolism.

As if the audience didn't have enough of being slapped in the face with giant Uncle Sam poster singing "I want you," the movie depicts just about every 60's cliché you can imagine. There's a clone for Janis and a clone for Jimi, a naked, scant Vietnam War subplot, Timothy Leary and Ken Kesey (Bono is just a giant turd after all) references, Greenwich Village; it's as if they just stuck as many 60's events as they could into a bowl, randomly arranged them in a line, and decided to order the movie as such. The whole affair is a mess, but in the end the events just resolve themselves with no real actions taken by the characters.

The worst part about this movie is that there will be people that absolutely love it. They'll call it "sweet," or "pretty," or "fun." It's safe to say that, if they do, you can go ahead and null their opinion on movies from here on out, because this overlong, self-righteous, 60's-for-the-cell-phone-generation trash heap is none of the above.

As someone who was literally a child of the mid - late 60's & and a student of the time period, I first want to thank everyone who had anything to do with the making of this film! Your timing could not of been better! You helped me to remember the fervor, passion and idealism that made up the mid-late 60's. It's been many years since I have burst out sobbing in a movie theater! Thanks for helping to lift the fog a bit! As an activist, you have collectively given me some badly needed renewed vigor!

I also feel so very, very sorry for all the critics of this movie who don't have a clue about what it all this means, or whose hearts have grown so hard with such bitterness, cynicism or despair; or have just simply sold-out; or plain no longer care! All your ranting and raving and nay saying won't do a thing to take away one moment of the adventure, creativity, experimentation, excitement or passion that made this time in history so great!

I also what to thank the brilliant filmmakers for paying homage to so many great cultural icons, organizations and events of the period: Walter Cronkite, the greatest broadcaster of the 20th century. Baba Olatunji, the Nigerian Drummer and social activist, his double looked like he came right off the Drums of Passion album cover! I can now see him smiling from heaven! The tremendous scene with Bread and Puppets, a living, breathing, direct link to 1960's radicalism, warmed my heart! You even went up to their stronghold in Glover, Vermont, to film part of the scene! Bravo! The SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), which did not advocate violence, and the much smaller splinter-group that morphed into an organization advocating extreme measures, called the Weather Underground. The brave Martin Luther King, Jr. and his intervention in a labor dispute, which cost him his life. The historic occupation of the Ivy League, Columbia University by its students protesting both the Vietnam war and the intense poverty that surrounded the school. Ken Kesey and his legendary bus. The Jimi Hendrix & Janice Jopplin characters who show such dignity, and a passion for music. And, of course, the Beatles! Their music reaches deep into my soul. You gave me insights into the meaning of their tunes that after all these years never crossed my mind!

I also enjoyed being bathed in all the very colorful special affects. The 60's and early 70's were a time of outrageously bold colors and design. Something brilliantly portrayed in Across the Universe! The only film I intend to purchase on DVD that has been released this year!