While the film can certainly drive my car, the writing and characters don't seem to have that same driving quality.

Rating: 7/10 (29 October 2007)

The critics across the nation, as indecisive and inagreeable as they are, seem to have come to the conclusion that it's a visual fest with a story and music that fall in different categories. I certainly can agree with that categorization, because all three of the film's elements are vastly different to each other, and the film had quite a task to blend them together into what it is: a hippie-revolution era Beatles music musical with acid-trip visuals.
The film opens on Jude, an Irish dock worker in his 20s, singing "Babe" to the camera. If that doesn't establish what you're getting into, nothing else will. We see his departure into America and meeting anti-war activists Max and his sister Lucy, whom Jude falls in love with.
While the film's theme is all about the '60s anti-war movement and the idea of revolution in the modern age for years to come afterward, the film has a hard time getting a grip on this smart idea. The most obvious thing to talk about is the choice of music. In case you weren't informed (by the film's marketing or title), all the song and musical numbers are cinematic re-workings of The Beatles. This has caused the biggest line-separation of the film's viewers. With the die-hard fans of the band, half say the re-workings are bastardizations of the original work, while other fans feel they were made with great respect to the original work. Another population of the critics say The Beatles' should not have had any part in the music of the film and original music would have suited it better. As for me? My only complaint is that, while the Beatles were indeed an important and influential band of the era and suit it well, they were not the only band that did so. What if the film had musical numbers by the works of the Rolling Stones? The Doors? Bob Dylan? Different musical influences would have most likely added diversity to the music.
But that isn't to say the numbers are boring or dull at all! The music is well orchestrated and suits what happens on screen perfectly. Which brings me to the next element of Across the Universe: the visuals. To call the visual effects "eye candy" is an insult. An "eye feast" would be a little more appropriate. Your eyes never want to wander away from the screen in some truly amazing scenes. Even the dark scenes are bright and joyous, and don't even get me started on the hippie trip-out scenes. So if you're one of the many who don't want to hear The Beatles "bastardized", you can take your iPod to the film and enjoy the insane effects and beautiful visuals.
And, like any musical, the visuals and songs are selected to fit in with the plot and story, which brings us to the final element of the film: the story. This is, without a doubt, the film's true "flaw". While it has a great spark, focusing on revolution in the '60s in the anti-war movement, it has no real drive to bring the characters into the movement itself. Jude merely seems like a follower of the movement simply to stay with Lucy, the girl he loves. He never seems to feel the revolution and movement into his own life, sticking with the "misunderstood artist" attitude throughout. Lucy stubbornly sticks to the group of anti-war activists for no real reason except that she lost a family member from the war some month's prior. While the reason is strong, it doesn't seem to inflict onto what she's doing and why she's doing it. All in all, the characters follow through the personality stronghold, but are beautifully portrayed nonetheless.
But if for nothing else, the film must be seen for it's marvelous diversity from everything else that's come out lately. Though far from original (you can't really call a musical that uses songs from another band 'original') it sticks out more than even musicals like Chicago and Rent by a milestone.