Did anyone else think Across the Universe was a travesty?

Tools    





I thought it was just Hair with Beatles songs. which i also believe were very poorly represented. I've been a Beatles fan all my life and i did not like this movie. maybe I'm wrong. Thoughts?

__________________
[punches him in the face, grabs him and points his gun right at his throat] I never said anything about the FBI. She's my partner, ese. And if anything happens to her, I will find you and I will kill you. I won't think twice. Come here, look in my eyes. [pushes barrel of the gun into his mouth and cocks it] Look at my face. If anything happens to her, I will kill you. This is between you and me, and nobody sees, nobody knows.



Most of it, yeah. It had some lovely moments, and the music is so inherently good that it hides a lot of the film's many flaws. I still like the underlying idea and a few of the songs were perfectly placed within the story.

So, certainly a major disappointment, but I still managed to get something out of it.



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
Here's my review...

"Is there anybody out there, listen to my story? All about the girl who came to stay..."

From the first shot of Julie Taymor's Beatles' musical, that of Jude singing the line above, a promise of a grand visual and musical experience, and Across the Universe delivers unwaveringly.

Julie Taymor has established herself as the Queen of Artistic Imagination. Her Broadway adaptation of Disney's The Lion King created a new standard for on-stage visualization and effects. Less acclaimed, but nevertheless wonderful, is the creativity she showed in her brutal Titus, the film version of Shakespeare's most violent play. Across the Universe exceeds even her lofty visual aspirations. Not only does she have her normal surreal use of color and puppetry (which seem to fit better in the drug riddled, avant-garde tradition the movie glorifies than most of her work), but she seems to have matured in terms of her basic skill with a camera.

Unlike the other major musical this year, Sweeney Todd, Taymor used train musical theater actors. The affect is a wonderfully melodic tribute to the Beatles, as many of the actors in the film sang these songs better than Lennon and McCartney ever could have.
__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot



...many of the actors in the film sang these songs better than Lennon and McCartney ever could have.
No offense, but this is the craziest of crazy talk.

Regarding the rest: I don't have any problem with musicals in general, but musicals still have to have reasonable stories and plots, especially when the music they're singing isn't even unique. If the music isn't new and the story is so chaotic and fractured, all that's really left is the artistic direction, which is quite good here but does not a movie make.

If Cirque de Soleil is ever made into a movie, I hope they get Taymor to direct. But I came to Across the Universe expecting something that at least vaguely resembled a movie. Instead, we get Kaleidoscope: The Musical. Taymor may have creativity coming out of every crevice, but she should stick to mediums where coherence isn't required.

Or, at the very least, it should make up its mind about what it wants to be. Instead, it sorta-kinda tries to hold together as a story. It wants to be a real movie, and an amorphous experience. The result is, frankly, a schizophrenic mess.

But, like I said, even though they fiddle with it too much for my liking at times, the underlying music is great. It's unfortunate that Across the Universe's only reedeming value is the one thing it didn't have any hand in creating.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
This is from my Movie Tab II mini-review. I found it more coherent than I expected. My main problem was that it was too much of a good thing.

Across the Universe (Julie Taymor, 2007)




The strangest thing to me about this semi-strange movie is that the script was written by the 70-year-old tag team of vets Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. That totally caught me off guard. Even so, I was pretty impressed with the film. Compared to messes like Help!, Magical Mystery Tour, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Tommy (sorry, Lennon), and Pink Floyd: The Wall, this film actually tells a relatively coherent story which covers much of the history of the 1960s. In that way, it reminds me of Milos Forman's Hair. I probably would have given it a higher rating, but about halfway through (somewhere around the time that Bono played Doctor Robert as a cross between Robin Williams and Ken Kesey; then Eddie Izzard took a few too many liberties with "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite"), I started thinking that it was going to be TOO LONG. Even so, it does right its way toward the end. However, Evan Rachel Ward does prove herself to be a fine singer, and she keeps getting more beautiful as the years pass. Plus Julie Taymor is a master visualist.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
No offense, but this is the craziest of crazy talk.
What is so crazy about it? These are mostly Broadway level performers who have had extensive voice training. The strength and beauty of Lennon and McCartney was never their singing ability, but rather their sogn writing, composing, instrumentation, and willingness to experiment with just about everything and anything.

Regarding the rest: I don't have any problem with musicals in general, but musicals still have to have reasonable stories and plots, especially when the music they're singing isn't even unique. If the music isn't new and the story is so chaotic and fractured, all that's really left is the artistic direction, which is quite good here but does not a movie make.
I get what you are saying but the plot here was better than Gershwin's stuff (although I do love me some Porgy and Bess).



Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?
That totally caught me off guard. Even so, I was pretty impressed with the film. Compared to messes like Help!, Magical Mystery Tour, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Tommy (sorry, Lennon),
why I outta
__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."



What is so crazy about it? These are mostly Broadway level performers who have had extensive voice training. The strength and beauty of Lennon and McCartney was never their singing ability, but rather their sogn writing, composing, instrumentation, and willingness to experiment with just about everything and anything.
this is ridiculous. have u listened to the two in succession? there is no comparison. even BONO couldnt pull off I am the Walrus correctly! The Beatles are a one of a kind experience and no amount of "extensive voice training" could ever replicate that.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Here's my review.

Across The Universe (Julie Taymor)




"It's For People With ADD, Who Want To Go On An Acid Trip."


Across The Universe is a musical that tells the story of multiple people living in the time of the Vietnam war. A young man travels from Liverpool to find his father, but ends up falling in love with a young American.

Stanely Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was a a technical and artistically remarkable film, but it lacked a story, had a long running time and had very little entertainment qualities about it, which ended up hurting the film. Julie Taymor's Across The Universe runs down the same path, it's visually beautiful and full of life, but the lack of story and long running time does more damage then one would imagine.

Across The Universe is many things, but above all it is ambitious. It's a musical set to Beatles songs. In a time when the musical is pretty much dead, Taymor relies on visuals and the popularity of the Beatles to bring in the audience. It's a shame that that is all she relied on because the film is severely lacking many things. What it excels in, it does so beautifully, what it fails at is key to what connects the audience to the film. You can't simply have a character sing a verse of a song and expect people to connect just because it's the Beatles.

Across The Universe is for people with ADD and who want to go on an acid trip. The film has no real set course, it jumps from one song to the next and from one bizarre and beautiful image to the next. One minute you're with Bono on a bus, the next you're underwater naked. If you're able to keep up with the bombastic images thrown on the screen then you will really enjoy yourself. Every image that is shown on the screen is ripped straight out of a Beatles song. When you hear Strawberry Fields Forever, you see Strawberry Fields. This could ruin some imagery you might have while listening to those songs.

The film changes it's direction, from the journey of this young man, named Jude, to the anti war movement with Lucy. Yup, those are their names, along with Max and Prudence and Sadie. All the character names are taken out of the songs as well. Also, it doesn't take a genius to know that the song Hey Jude would inspire this character to do something. The characters, who all are modeled after icons in the music industry, such as Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Kurt Cobain, have very little are no arc. With the exception of the two leads, Lucy and Jude, both acted very well by Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess, everyone seems to be one noted. Sadie has one conflict in the film, it is never explored, Prudence has lots of conflict, that is never explored. Prudence even disappears half way through the film, only to show up again at a hallucinating sequences.

A lot of the images are beautiful and you will without a doubt encompass it all, but there are still some that are too bizarre to connect to the story. One scene we see Asian woman naked, with their bodies painted white who stand on water, then they dive backwards under it. What does this, and many other symbolic elements mean? We are never told and can't sit and think because the next image is thrown at us right after.

You will be tapping your toes to the music and singing along as well, if you know the lyrics. There were two or three songs I didn't quite know, but I'm sure the hardcore Beatles fans will know them all. Although, not all the songs are happy dance numbers. Some of them are poorly done, surprisingly I Am The Walrus from Bono is one of them. Jor Cockers take on Come Together is a highlight as well as the army sequences performed to She's So Heavy.

Across The Universe is ambitious, beautiful and will have you singing along to the tunes. It's about thirty minutes too long and has very little character development and plot, but the story is there. It's just sung aloud in song and not really performed. If you can get pass a lot of the obvious film images and metaphors, like Prudence coming out of the closet, then Across the Universe is a film for you.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



I am half agony, half hope.
I enjoy this movie, although I wouldn't rate it as high as I did initially. The glow wore off after two more viewings and what I was left with was a cute love story.
__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
this is ridiculous. have u listened to the two in succession? there is no comparison. even BONO couldnt pull off I am the Walrus correctly! The Beatles are a one of a kind experience and no amount of "extensive voice training" could ever replicate that.
The Beatles were one of a kind. No doubt. But as singers, the actors in Across the Universe are better. And Bono pulled off "I am the Walrus" just fine, even if it was completely different to the Beatles' version.

And by the way, new Styx did a really cool cover of that song. I'd recommend it. I heard a heavy metal cover once, but I do not know by whom.

Freddie could hang.
Quoted for truth.



The voices of Lennon & McCartney were classic because there voices gelled well together in the same realm as a Simon & Garfunkel. Yes, maybe these performers from Across the Universe have more training , but that is no where near what makes a songs sound what it is. It is the chemistry between the vocalist and even the instrumentalists that count. And The Beatles had that chemistry between all four of them throughout there career. The performers from Across The Universe, although very talented in their own way do not and should never be compared to the chemistry that Lennon & McCartney had with their voices.
__________________
Im in a rainbow and Im feeling mighty good



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
The voices of Lennon & McCartney were classic because there voices gelled well together in the same realm as a Simon & Garfunkel. Yes, maybe these performers from Across the Universe have more training , but that is no where near what makes a songs sound what it is. It is the chemistry between the vocalist and even the instrumentalists that count. And The Beatles had that chemistry between all four of them throughout there career. The performers from Across The Universe, although very talented in their own way do not and should never be compared to the chemistry that Lennon & McCartney had with their voices.
The chemistry you speak of does not refer to singing ability.



Oh yes it does. You put together any group of musicians who have spectactualr voices and try to make them a band and most certainly it would not work, because certain voices together just work together better. Lennon & McCartney, Simon & Garfunkel, Groups from the 60's such as The Association and The Byrds. If you would mix them up and add just a different voice element to there mix it would totally destroy the chemistry of the sound. So the vocal arrangements of Lennon & McCartney and even George Harrison with his harmonies are very important to the success of their music. I am not trying to undermine their written abilities, because they were amazing at that aspect, but if that is all they had they would not have been nearly as popular and well excepted as they were. Take a group that has come around about the same time as the Beatles like the 60's band The Beau Brummels. Take a few groups from almost around the same era as the Beatles. The Jefferson Airplane. They started with there original female singer who yes had wonderful vocal talents. Her name was Signe Anderson, but her voice did not gel well with the likes of Paul Kantner and Marty Balin so she was let go and Grace Slick was hired. The rest is musical history. Also a group that I love who was the opening act for Woodstock had a different type of story, but this group had stardom written on the wall until tragedy hit and the Lead Vocalist, Nancy Nevins. This group had many popular songs back in the sixties , but once she was gone the group decided to hang it up as the vocal chemistry was never going to be replaced by another singer. I can go on and on with groups that really had to either stop or drastically change there sound because the vocal chemistry was not there. Fleetwood Mac is another prime example of this. When Lindsey Buckingham left the group they attempted to replace his wonderful guitarmanship with one guy and his vocal talents with another. It did not work at all because the chemistry of the two new band mates did not sound well with Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie. That is just a few examples of bands who with vocal chemistry has faltered or even had to totally disband. So vocal chemistry is very important.



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
Oh yes it does. You put together any group of musicians who have spectactualr voices and try to make them a band and most certainly it would not work, because certain voices together just work together better. Lennon & McCartney, Simon & Garfunkel, Groups from the 60's such as The Association and The Byrds. If you would mix them up and add just a different voice element to there mix it would totally destroy the chemistry of the sound. So the vocal arrangements of Lennon & McCartney and even George Harrison with his harmonies are very important to the success of their music. I am not trying to undermine their written abilities, because they were amazing at that aspect, but if that is all they had they would not have been nearly as popular and well excepted as they were. Take a group that has come around about the same time as the Beatles like the 60's band The Beau Brummels. Take a few groups from almost around the same era as the Beatles. The Jefferson Airplane. They started with there original female singer who yes had wonderful vocal talents. Her name was Signe Anderson, but her voice did not gel well with the likes of Paul Kantner and Marty Balin so she was let go and Grace Slick was hired. The rest is musical history. Also a group that I love who was the opening act for Woodstock had a different type of story, but this group had stardom written on the wall until tragedy hit and the Lead Vocalist, Nancy Nevins. This group had many popular songs back in the sixties , but once she was gone the group decided to hang it up as the vocal chemistry was never going to be replaced by another singer. I can go on and on with groups that really had to either stop or drastically change there sound because the vocal chemistry was not there. Fleetwood Mac is another prime example of this. When Lindsey Buckingham left the group they attempted to replace his wonderful guitarmanship with one guy and his vocal talents with another. It did not work at all because the chemistry of the two new band mates did not sound well with Stevie Nicks and Christine McVie. That is just a few examples of bands who with vocal chemistry has faltered or even had to totally disband. So vocal chemistry is very important.
But again, vocal chemistry makes a BAND great. It does not make a performer great. The truth of the matter is Paul McCartney cannot hit the high note in "If I Fell" and Wood can. That's all.

(For the record, the Beatles are one of my favorite bands and I love their singing voices.)



What is so crazy about it? These are mostly Broadway level performers who have had extensive voice training. The strength and beauty of Lennon and McCartney was never their singing ability, but rather their sogn writing, composing, instrumentation, and willingness to experiment with just about everything and anything.



I get what you are saying but the plot here was better than Gershwin's stuff (although I do love me some Porgy and Bess).
The voices of Lennon & McCartney were classic because there voices gelled well together in the same realm as a Simon & Garfunkel. Yes, maybe these performers from Across the Universe have more training , but that is no where near what makes a songs sound what it is. It is the chemistry between the vocalist and even the instrumentalists that count. And The Beatles had that chemistry between all four of them throughout there career. The performers from Across The Universe, although very talented in their own way do not and should never be compared to the chemistry that Lennon & McCartney had with their voices.
But again, vocal chemistry makes a BAND great. It does not make a performer great. The truth of the matter is Paul McCartney cannot hit the high note in "If I Fell" and Wood can. That's all.

(For the record, the Beatles are one of my favorite bands and I love their singing voices.)
what are you talking about? McCartney can hit all those notes fine. He has a remarkable range. (ie: Hey Jude) classic example. that is a ridiculous falsetto. and if you truly are such a fan, you would know that. Also, If I Fell is writen by a man and sung by one. Of course Wood can hit higher notes. shes a woman and has in general a much higher voice. Her training is geared towards those high notes. thats her range. that doesnt mean she can sing the song better than McCartney himself.



I am Jack's sense of overused quote
what are you talking about? McCartney can hit all those notes fine. He has a remarkable range. (ie: Hey Jude) classic example. that is a ridiculous falsetto. and if you truly are such a fan, you would know that. Also, If I Fell is writen by a man and sung by one. Of course Wood can hit higher notes. shes a woman and has in general a much higher voice. Her training is geared towards those high notes. thats her range. that doesnt mean she can sing the song better than McCartney himself.
I picked If I Fell because when McCartney misses the note on me it makes me cringe everytime. Just saying.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I don't think this has much to do with Across the Universe, but Lennon and McCartney harmonize on "If I Fell", although I'd say that Lennon sings lead. True, McCartney is singing the high end.




I picked If I Fell because when McCartney misses the note on me it makes me cringe everytime. Just saying.
I must have listened to "If I Fell" a hundred thousand times and i have yet to cringe one during the course of the song.