Across the Universe

email this story
read comments (36)
post a comment

The bottom line with the Joe Roth-recutting-Julie Taymor's-Across The Universe story (as written by N.Y. Times reporter Sharon Waxman) is one thing and one thing only -- the trailer.

We all know that trailers never tell the truth about a movie, but it's hard to watch this one and not be at least a little bit impressed. It's a kids-tripping-out-in-the-late-'60s thing with the cast singing and dancing to Beatles songs, and it kind of looks to me like Milos Forman's Hair. The trailer has an aura of vision and intelligence -- a carefully measured, ultra-colorful, extra-vivid quality is there from start to finish.

The gist of Waxman's story is that Taymor's cut of Across the Universe, which cost $45 million to make, ran two hours and eight minutes. But like many strong directors, Taymor (Frida, Titus) has a tendency towards willfulness and obstinacy, and she freaked when Roth created his own version -- "about a half-hour shorter" -- without her agreement.

"Roth's moves have left Taymor feeling helpless and considering taking her name off the movie," wriites Waxman. "Disavowing a film is the most radical step available to a director like Taymor, who does not have final cut, one that could embarrass the studio and hurt the movie's chances for a successful release in September."

There must have been something askew and/or unsatisfying with Taymor's film for Roth to have stepped in like that. Research audiences must have said some pissy things about it. A guy on the IMDB who may or may not have seen it says "it would be cruel to call Across the Universe a two-hour music video because it tries so hard to be more than that, but it wouldn't be entirely inaccurate either. The movie can be summed up as a series of punctuated scenes and characters each represented by a Beatles song and strung together by a boilerplate love story."

I say again -- look at the trailer.

The costars and cameo-ists are Jim Sturges, Evan Rachel Wood, Joe Anderson, Dana Fuchs, Salma Hayek, Eddie Izzard and Bono. I don't know who plays what. The release date is 9.28.07. A celebration or a roasting at the Toronto Film Festival could be in the cards.

Chiullan on TMNT<< previous | next >>Lane on "Reign"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 20, 2007 at 7:01 PM

comment #1

Josh Massey says ...

I'm not a guy who immediately jumps on studio recuts - often they actually do improve the film. However, when the guy doing the recutting is the big brain behind Christmas With the Kranks, America's Sweethearts and Revenge of the Nerds II, well...

Posted by Josh Massey at March 20, 2007 9:11 PM

comment #2

thatrader says ...

I liked it better when it was called "The Dreamers" and the trailer didn't tell audiences it was the most original, exhilarating, spectacular, groundbreaking motion picture of the year.

What could possibly be groundbreaking about this film?

And I hate Evan Rachel Wood, ever since "Thirteen." Before she turned 18, I used to call her the most overrated piece of underage ass. Then she turned 18 and fucked Ed Norton on "Down in the Valley," fucked Marilyn Manson, breaking up his marriage, and somewhere in between, made this pretentious piece of crap.

Get Julie Taymor on something more interesting stat. She should be bringing to the big screen her adaptations of The Tempest or The Lion King, not a 2 hour Beatles music video that once again can't use any of the original songs, like that one movie about the retard starring my favorite actor losing his self respect.

Posted by thatrader at March 20, 2007 9:33 PM

comment #3

Mike Schaefer says ...

Well... OK, but isn't the point here that Milos Forman already made Hair and it flopped?

I'm a Beatle-centric boomer; I ought to be receptive to this thing, and it just sounds dreadful to me. Never mind how it looks in a trailer -- I mean, the girl's name is Lucy and the guy's name is Jude? Come on. How is that any better than Mamma Mia?

Posted by Mike Schaefer at March 20, 2007 9:35 PM

comment #4

TKC says ...

Stupid question, but: According to the trailer, the movie's already been rated by the MPAA. How's that possible, if they're still cutting and recutting it?

Posted by TKC at March 20, 2007 9:35 PM

comment #5

Arran says ...

Wow. The '60s were crazy, huh? Vietnam, drugs, hippies...

If we are to judge a movie by its trailer, this one looks fucking awful. No '60s movie cliche unturned and with the gimmick of a bunch of wonderful songs being murdered.

Sgt Pepper's, anyone?

Posted by Arran at March 20, 2007 9:41 PM

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

"How is that any better than Mamma Mia?"

Or Beatlemania?

Or, as I now see someone has mentioned, Sgt. Pepper?

I admire Zodiac's cliched-hippie-free San Francisco all the more now...

Posted by le corbeau at March 20, 2007 9:48 PM

comment #7

Arran says ...

Mgmax: Or We Will Rock You...

Posted by Arran at March 20, 2007 10:01 PM

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

thatrader:

>I liked it better when it was called "The >Dreamers"

I thought it was supposed to be a rip-off of "The Wonder Years" myself...

Mike: "Hair" flopped, because it was made a decade too late.

Posted by D.Z. at March 20, 2007 10:08 PM

comment #9

caslab says ...

She broke up Marilyn Mansons marriage?!?!?! HOW COULD SHE?!?!?!

This movie looks like crap, though. I was pretty bummed to watch the trailer and find out that THIS is the new Julie Taymor movie.

Posted by caslab at March 20, 2007 10:10 PM

comment #10

Arran says ...

Holy shit, DZ said something I agree with.

Posted by Arran at March 20, 2007 10:13 PM

comment #11

TheJeff says ...

The bottom line is that Joe Roth is perhaps the least artistically successful non-genre director of the past ten years, and barring America's Sweethearts, his commercial instincts with his own pictures haven't been great either. I can understand the studio being concerned about the film, but couldn't they find someone with intelligence, taste, and style to work it over?

Posted by TheJeff at March 20, 2007 10:15 PM

comment #12

dre says ...

...Uh, okay, I'll be the one guy who agrees that the trailer to this movie looked great.

Posted by dre at March 20, 2007 11:16 PM

comment #13

John Y says ...

And I'll be the 2nd guy who thinks this movie's trailer is amazing, especially the last 30 seconds, which contain an insanely high amount of interesting visual ideas.

Posted by John Y at March 21, 2007 12:06 AM

comment #14

chiyo says ...

Love your BLOGÃ¯Â¼Å½

Here is review from AICNÃ£Æ’Â»com
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31807

I am really looking for this movie because of
Jim sturgessÃ¯Â¼Å½He is unknown nowÃ£â‚¬Âbut he has great potentialÃ¯Â¼Å½I heard he is great atÃ¢â‚¬Å“The Other Boleyn GirlÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¯Â¼Å½Now He plays lead role of
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¯Â¼â€™Ã¯Â¼â€˜Ã¢â‚¬Â(Kevin Spacey also starring.Now filming
at BostonÃ¯Â¼â€°Also he is realy good singerÃ¯Â¼Å½
Ã¢â‚¬Â»Please allow my poor English

Posted by chiyo at March 21, 2007 1:55 AM

comment #15

chiyo says ...

Love your BLOGÃ¯Â¼Å½

Here is review from AICNÃ£Æ’Â»com
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31807

I am really looking forward this movie because of Jim sturgessÃ¯Â¼Å½He is unknown nowÃ£â‚¬Âbut he has great potentialÃ¯Â¼Å½I heard he is great atÃ¢â‚¬Å“The Other Boleyn GirlÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¯Â¼Å½Now He plays lead role of
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¯Â¼â€™Ã¯Â¼â€˜Ã¢â‚¬Â(Kevin Spacey also starring.Now filming
at BostonÃ¯Â¼â€°Also he is realy good singerÃ¯Â¼Å½
Ã¢â‚¬Â»Please allow my poor English

Posted by chiyo at March 21, 2007 1:57 AM

comment #16

Gnome de Guerre says ...

Other than the great visuals during the non-cliche portions of the trailer, it looks cliche though perhaps manipulatively moving (Taymor's a puppetmaster after all, no?)

Anyone know if she's still on that Spider-Man stage musical project? Now that could be fascinating, success or failure.

Posted by Gnome de Guerre at March 21, 2007 3:16 AM

comment #17

le corbeau says ...

I'd dig on the visuals if they weren't in the service of the most basic obvious hippie story (square boy meets hippie chick with wacky friends, they blow his mind, they dance in the park and mock grumpy old people, then The Man ruins it for them by sending him to Vietnam).

Only John Sayles' book Union Dues manages to escape this trap.

Posted by le corbeau at March 21, 2007 5:11 AM

comment #18

DavidF says ...

OK - I hadn't heard anything about this film until the other day.
I just watched the trailer...what to say?
I 100% agree it looks like a Hair rip-off that's bound to include the ruination of some of my favourite songs; I mean, as soon as "Jude" was introduced we all knew what song was going to end the trailer, didn't we?
Then there is the wooden dialogue about the guy's "date with Uncle Sam" or how "music is the only thing that makes sense any more."
Jeeze!
And yet, it's Julie Taymor so I'd like to give her benefit of the doubt - there are clearly some gorgeous visuals in there.
And I know it's not her fault but the "motion picture of the year" crap in the trailer is gawdawful.
AND now we here Joe Roth is recutting it...IMHO the ONLY possible saving grace for this film is Taymor's "Vision." Titus aside I'm not sure she's really proved herself as more than visual stylist yet...people might have knocked early Gilliam for being too visual but even he had Time Bandits.
So, I figure the only way this could be less than a bomb is because Taymor has more going on than the trailer shows. If she failed, so be it. And if there is such a failure the odds that Joe Roth could fix it seem verrrrry long indeed...

Posted by DavidF at March 21, 2007 6:32 AM

comment #19

TheLongshot says ...

Hey, I liked the trailer, even if it does seem cliche. Aren't most musicals?

Personally, I'm always bothered when a studio exec starts mucking with a film. While I don't always feel that directors know best, executives give me even less confidence.

Posted by TheLongshot at March 21, 2007 7:12 AM

comment #20

Walter Sobchak says ...

"Cliches"? What are you guys talking about? Everybody knows that in the 1960's EVERY SINGLE American kid under the age of 25 was either fighting in Vietnam or a hippy.
Didn't any of you watch the NBC mini-series "The 60's"? It was like travelling in a time machine, man.
Far out.

Posted by Walter Sobchak at March 21, 2007 8:12 AM

comment #21

Walter Sobchak says ...

Also, the actors in the above pic illustrate the problem with so many modern movies that portray the 60's and/or 70's. The people in it look more like a 21st Century idealization of what the 60's were like (groovy bellbottoms, man) and not what they really looked like. Hippie by way of Abercrombie and Fitch.
Above posting was right..."Zodiac" nailed it's period. Good job there by all. (except for some airline goofs, but then I'm the airline accuracy nazi...)

Posted by Walter Sobchak at March 21, 2007 8:17 AM

comment #22

Ju-osh says ...

Jeffrey's got a Dreamgirls!

Posted by Ju-osh at March 21, 2007 8:43 AM

comment #23

Balthazar says ...

The guy in the middle of that photo looks so much like Matthew McConaughey that the movie is now totally and irrevocably ruined for me.

Posted by Balthazar at March 21, 2007 9:28 AM

comment #24

Pablo VillaÃ§a says ...

I loved the trailer. And I'll take Titus (which I live very much) or even Frida (which is blah) any day before I'm forced to watch another crap "directed" by Joe Roth.

Having said that, Nikki Finke has a quite different take on all this and she seems to know what she's talking about. After reading her report, I really don't know what to think of this mess and I'd love if they pulled an "Exorcist" and released both versions.

As a film lover and someone who's always curious to study the subject, I think it would make for a great lesson.

Posted by Pablo VillaÃ§a at March 21, 2007 9:46 AM

comment #25

malibugigolo says ...

Don't sign away final cut and then expect it. This is silly.

Posted by malibugigolo at March 21, 2007 10:01 AM

comment #26

jeffmcm says ...

Nobody "signs away" final cut. You get it and you're lucky, or you don't and you prepare to grit your teeth.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 21, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #27

christian says ...

that trailer is awful. it looks like the 21 century version of the bee gee's SGT PEPPERS LHCB with bad dialogue. and in typical bad trailer fashion, edited in the same exact zoom in and out add...

whateva. but to say a studio recut usually improves a film is absolute bullshit. ask jonathan demme or orson welles or...

i'm on taymor's side even if i don't like her work.

Posted by christian at March 21, 2007 11:18 AM

comment #28

Mr B says ...

Yeah, this trailer actually made me laugh and call my wife in and say 'look at this shit!' when i first saw it. I mean, it seems like the South Park joke version of a 60s movie to me.

Posted by Mr B at March 21, 2007 11:56 AM

comment #29

Rich S. says ...

In the age of DVD, projection screen TVs and 5.1 digital surround, why is this even an issue any more? Only about 20 people were going to see this in the theater anyway, regardless of which cut was released. In fact, this all smells strongly of a publicity ploy to sell the "Director's Cut DVD."

Posted by Rich S. at March 21, 2007 12:38 PM

comment #30

Hallick says ...

Yeah, there's a lot of eye-popping imagery in the trailer, but the storyline looks like its asking me to stand up and take a blow to the solar plexus with a sledgehammer forged from dry heaves and stereotypes.

Posted by Hallick at March 21, 2007 3:58 PM

comment #31

cust71 says ...

Regardless, there's nothing to me about the '60s that appeals to me at all. Like every decade, people pine for the "feel" of the era, even though Jerry Rubin went from activist to businessman. Every generation gets its chance at bat, and the '60s generation proved themselves no different than the others. Not that mine's any better. We're probably worse. That being said, Today, Paul McCartney signs a deal with Starbucks. All you need is love, and a triple latte, apparently.

Posted by cust71 at March 21, 2007 5:16 PM

comment #32

christian says ...

that mcartney starfuck thing is depressing.

but to say there's nothing that appeals to you about the '60's is...not right.

not even film? music? sean connery? mini-skirts and go-go boots?
you're too busy text messaging to remember...

Posted by christian at March 21, 2007 5:39 PM

comment #33

cust71 says ...

Christian, don't pigeonhole me. Love the Sean Connery, love the go-go boots and mini's even more, but c'mon. Texting? I'm insulted. Unfortunately, I DID leave a blanket statement. But, since you took me as a person who apparently loves texting and waiting for the new "My Chemical Romance" cd, all the while waiting in line for my emo haircut, what makes us any different? I prefer the '70s and '90s myself.

Posted by cust71 at March 21, 2007 7:29 PM

comment #34

Ju-osh says ...

That preview was cringe-inducing.
Jeff, are you really so in need of continuing cultural validity that the mere 1960's setting of this movie makes it appealing to you?
Cuz it appears so overly polished and cliche-ridden that it makes Happy Days look like a goddamned documentary-quality examination of life in the 1950's in comparison.

Posted by Ju-osh at March 21, 2007 8:02 PM

comment #35

dobbsy says ...

Pablo: "Nikki Finke seems to know what she's talking about.."

Anyone seen the "Black Christmas" ads on her site? Anyone remember her tirades against the Weinsteins for releasing this "crap" as she called it and her calls for boycotts and investor rebellions because of this film she's now got adorning her site?

Posted by dobbsy at March 21, 2007 9:27 PM

comment #36