Home / Movie Review: Across the Universe

Movie Review: Across the Universe

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Julie Taymor’s ambitious movie has already divided critics right down the middle, and it may do the same with audiences. (Its 49% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomatometer" and 59 rating on Metacritic represent a near-balance of wide-eyed raves and vicious pans from critics around the country.) When I saw it Saturday in Manhattan, at least half a dozen people walked out. Yet there was sustained applause and cheering when the credit “Directed by Julie Taymor” appeared at the end. (In case you don't recognize the name, Taymor is the gifted, innovative director of The Lion King on Broadway, The Magic Flute at the Metropolitan Opera, and two dazzling but uneven movies, Frida and Titus.)

Even my own reaction is somewhat divided. At several points in the movie, I was happily and deliriously transported in a way that is all too rare in recent movies. The music, the hyper-stylized theatricality, the extraordinary visuals provide a direct, hardwire jolt to one’s nervous system and emotions. I wept at the beauty of it more than once. And it’s not surprising that this sort of power is impossible to sustain for 133 minutes. It’s certainly wildly uneven, but the best parts are as amazing as anything you can see at the movies right now.

The conception, which sounded ridiculous to me when I first heard it and may well sound ridiculous to you now, is to tell an iconic love story set in the 1960s in which the characters express themselves by singing Beatles songs. “Iconic” in this case means that the characters are constantly at risk of becoming symbols. There’s little room for depth in this conception, and indeed none would call the results deep on an intellectual, sociological, or political level. The theatrical shorthand used to depict Vietnam, demonstrations, race riots, and other sixties iconography comes off as shallow and facile in several instances. But it reminded me at times of Milos Forman’s film version of Hair; if you love that movie as I do, you won’t want to miss this one.

Despite its very real weaknesses, in individual scenes the movie can be surprisingly powerful and wonderfully entertaining. There are 29 Beatles songs, which means hardly two or three minutes go by between musical numbers. They are performed by the cast, in simple, straightforward arrangements that are often achingly beautiful. (I am mystified by the critics who have attacked the soundtrack as a Muzak or karaoke bastardization of the original songs. I adore my Beatles records, yet I also enjoyed nearly all of the rearrangements here. Judge for yourself.)

As the two young lovers at the movie’s center, Jim Sturgess and Evan Rachel Wood are quite remarkable. Sturgess has a beautiful voice and a vital, charismatic screen presence, and his genuine Liverpudlian accent helps in the dialogue scenes, which are far less effective than the music. Wood is given several early Beatles songs to sing as heartfelt solos, used to express her innocence in the first half of the film; this works startlingly well.

A few highlights stand out for me: The marvelous opening with Sturgess as Jude, sitting alone on a beach, turning to the camera to sing “Girl” (“Is there anybody going to listen to my story/All about the girl who came to stay?”); a startling and moving “Let It Be,” sung by a young boy killed in the Detroit riots, backed by a gospel choir; a ferocious, phantasmagorically violent “Strawberry Fields Forever,” with strawberries dripping blood and smashing gorily against a backdrop of Vietnam battle scenes; “I Want to Hold Your Hand” transformed into a plaintive ballad of longing (in this case, lesbian longing!); the inevitable but beautiful moment when another character begins singing “Hey Jude” to our hero.

The film does run at least 20 or 30 minutes too long. It would probably benefit from losing several numbers (they should have saved them for the DVD). (The walkouts all occurred just before the two-hour mark. There is a limit to how much of this some people will tolerate, however well done it may be.) But when it works, there’s real magic in it.

If I had to guess, this movie will have a cult following but not a mass one. So catch it quickly when it opens near you. And try to see it on the largest possible screen, with digital projection if you can. The visuals and the sounds of Across the Universe provide some of the year’s great pleasures.

Powered by

About Handyguy

  • vikas

    just downloaded and watched it. With all its obvious shortcomings, it is truly an imaginative version of a well-worn storyline. Many scenes were stunning even when some were verging on cliche.

    I loved the singing and particulary the often witty weaving of the tempo in the music with that in the choreography.
    Like Moulin Rouge, it shows why Bollywood works so well— when you know and love the songs, and the story is archetypal it’s hard to resist the confection no matter what some critical faculties are whispering!

  • Jessica

    I think that this movie was so well put together, exhilarating, and moving. The symbolism in it is very clever and the music is done tastfully. I can understand why people would understand it or enjoy it though. Many people are turned off by musicals, but it’s not your normal musical. I think its very raw and true about the lifestyle it depicts. No bullshit like so many other movies. I cant look at it as a movie, but more of a cinematic experience. You must appreciate different aspects of art, music, and movies.

  • Congratulations! This article has been selected for syndication to the Advance family of websites and to Boston.com, where it will be enjoyed by even more readers.

  • I’ve never seen the Sgt Pepper movie in toto, just a few minutes on TV. It seemed as dumb as a Scooby Doo episode to me. Julie Taymor is a major artist, and the Pepper film was made by hacks. Of course, for those who hate Across the Universe, Taymor’s reputation may just make it seem like pretentious garbage rather than ordinary garbage.

    I think it’s considerably more interesting than that – although I like the less elaborately staged numbers the best. The two that scream “Julie Taymor” the loudest – Eddie Izzard performing “Mr. Kite” and multiple Salma Hayeks doing “Happiness Is a Warm Gun” – are over the top and somewhat annoying, although of course impressive to look at, with Blue Meany puppets and psychedelia galore.

    Taymor’s intentions are certainly more serious than the 1978 Sgt Pepper. But the parts that work best are the simplest. Only occasionally do the social-political ‘statements’ hit home convincingly.

  • I’ve been hearing some bad things about it, but this review definitely makes me want to see the movie.

    This sounds like it goes into the category with a lot of rock-based movie musicals that maybe don’t really work as feature films, but have a lot of individual parts that are really neat. Tommy springs to mind. As story and plot and character, it just wasn’t getting it. But a lot of those songs could be cut out individually and played as really neat music videos.

    How does this rate against the infamous Sgt Pepper movie?