Across the Universe 2007 123movies

Watch: Across the Universe 2007 123movies, Full Movie Online – Across The Universe is a fictional love story set in the 1960s amid the turbulent years of anti-war protest, the struggle for free speech and civil rights, mind exploration and rock and roll. At once gritty, whimsical and highly theatrical, the story moves from high schools and universities in Massachusetts, Princeton and Ohio to the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the Detroit riots, Vietnam and the dockyards of Liverpool. A combination of live action and animation, the film is paired with many songs by The Beatles that defined the time..
Plot: When young dockworker Jude leaves Liverpool to find his estranged father in the United States, he is swept up by the waves of change that are re-shaping the nation. Jude falls in love with Lucy, who joins the growing anti-war movement. As the body count in Vietnam rises, political tensions at home spiral out of control and the star-crossed lovers find themselves in a psychedelic world gone mad.
Smart Tags: #song #protest #artist #near_death_experience #vietnam_war #black_pantyhose #female_stockinged_legs #pantyhose #title_directed_by_female #reference_to_jack_kerouac #sexy_woman #pretty_girl #year_1968 #philosophy #human_condition #humanist #humanism #love #counterculture #spirituality #social_satire

Find Alternative – Across the Universe 2007, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	7.3/10 Votes: 111,125
	53% | RottenTomatoes
	56/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 1164 Popularity: 13.502 | TMDB

Reviews:

An incredible experience
Pure emotion. No one can mix theater with film like Julie Taymor. From beginning to end the film takes you on a psychedelic beatle ride that grips you by the ears, the heart and the soul and never lets go. Even now. Hours after the projector was shut off. Every song adaptation interpretation and setting is spot on, fans of the Beatles will recognize that every detail in Taymor’s images recall an instance, a photograph, a line or a quote from the band. Even the girl that comes in through the bathroom window. Nothing is left to chance, everything is on purpose. Amazing. Easily the best film of the year. And in regards to people saying it’s a two hour music video.. well… yeah, what the heck were you expecting???

‘Hair was bad enough, but this is a load of dandruff.’
I can’t better Philip French’s dismissal (above) of this film (from his ‘Observer’ column). I am embarrassed for Ms Taymor, who – on the evidence of ‘Titus’ and ‘Frida’ – is a hugely talented filmmaker.

But here the director’s talents are only intermittently diverting, and cannot save what is an utterly pointless project.

As ‘versions’ of the originals the songs are often attractively delivered, though too often with a bland professionalism that entirely lacks any edge. The Gospel choir, and perhaps some of ‘Sadie”s numbers, are quite powerful in themselves, but even these positive examples hardly rate a notice in the context of what heights cinema musicals have already hit. The song-and-dance routines – though fanatically well disciplined (as if that would subdue all opposition!) – are uniformly appalling, and would have instantly bombed on the stage of any professional theatre. They are all manic energy without real engagement.

It does not help that all the characters are annoyingly and rather dishonestly tangential to historical reality – like a reminiscence of the great originals (‘Jude’ = ‘Paul Macartney’, ‘Sadie’ = ‘Janis Joplin’ for instance), or merely inserted as an incarnation of a song (the otherwise pointless ‘Prudence’), or of something wildly trippy in a cartoonish way (a brilliant Eddie Izzard completely wasted in a misfiring farrago entirely bereft of any identification with the hippy ethos – to call it ‘pastiche’ would be to wildly over-praise it).

Even the more ‘down-to-earth’ scenes back in Liverpool lack any substance at all: Even the Albert Docks location looks as gentrified here as it has become in reality, at the hands of the property developers. (One would have expected the well-known team of British writers to have got this right, at least.) In fact the whole picture suffers from a total failure to identify with the time and culture it is feverishly and showily pursuing.

And the more it pursues, the further off is that authentic psychedelic rainbow.

Perhaps Julie Taymor is in pursuit of her own lost girlhood, which would explain the self-indulgence in the unspeakably trite American family clichés … But surely better, in such a case, that she should have created or commissioned a more focused screenplay: This one seems hopelessly hung-up on squeezing in the absolute max. of Beatles songs.

And we don’t even get a decent pastiche of Dick Lester’s witty style of early Beatles’ music-video, for God’s sake! Humour is indeed direly lacking – how the team of Clement and la Frenais, the writers of the gloriously funny and characterful ‘Auf Wiedersehen, Pet’ saga, could ever agree to pen this flat, bland, po-faced, Americanisation of a major part of their own popular cultural heritage from the industrial North of England is beyond me! And the hyper-Hollywood style of ‘musical number’ sits very ill with the naivety at the heart of the subject. The truth is, I am afraid, that the film is ludicrously over-ambitious in terms of mere personal grandstanding by the director at her most showy: ‘Look at me, isn’t this brilliant?’ Actually, ‘No, Ms Taymor.’ As director she neither reveals nor evokes any love for her subject. It is indeed a really stupid movie, whose ambition is all for the perfection of the surfaces, but which possesses not one spark of inspiration whatsoever.

But the biggest mistake of all was to portray the whole era as some kind of alternative reality, existing ‘Across the Universe,’ which actually lacks inspiration and magic in direct proportion to its distance from the original milieu that inspired the songs (a kind of Anti-Oz one might say). Crucially, since the film’s entire mise en scene is set neither in any convincing ‘then’ nor in any engaging ‘now’ it is difficult to see what possible relevance or attraction it possesses for any audience.

Taymor has been lost in this No-Man’s-Land, which is the result of exposing the inadequate simplicities of the sketchy plot to the whole industrial panoply of Hollywood: She wanders through a scene of artistic devastation, amongst groves of burnt-out and songless trees. And were that (or something like) a defining image of her own creation, we might at least have had a half-decent anti-war movie! As it is, even Cliff Richard’s safe old ‘Summer Holiday’ vehicle seems more relevant and punchy.

And what sublime madness could a Ken Russell in his reprobate heyday have wrought with such a subject ….! But we torment ourselves with such ‘might-have-beens.’ Or rather, these things have been before, and far better done, and there was absolutely no reason for this film to exist in the first place. It is a completely misbegotten enterprise and will be utterly forgotten by next week, if not sooner.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 13 min (133 min)
Budget 45000000
Revenue 29625761
Status Released
Rated PG-13
Genre Drama, Fantasy, History
Director Julie Taymor
Writer Dick Clement, Ian La Frenais, Julie Taymor
Actors Evan Rachel Wood, Jim Sturgess, Joe Anderson
Country United States, United Kingdom
Awards Nominated for 1 Oscar. 2 wins & 18 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix SDDS, Dolby Digital, DTS, Dolby Atmos
Aspect Ratio 1.78 : 1 / (high definition) (Streaming/TV), 2.35 : 1, 2.39 : 1
Camera Arricam Cameras, Panavision Cameras and Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, USA (prints), EFilm (digital intermediate)
Film Length 3,647 m (Sweden), 3,677 m (Portugal, 35 mm)
Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format), Super 35 (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic)