Across the Universe

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.

... 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.

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.

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).

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.