Across the Universe

... 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.

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).

... 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.

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 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.