[Wynton]

Two diametrically opposed reviews.

An excerpt from Roger Ebert:

Here is a bold, beautiful, visually enchanting musical where we walk into the theater humming the songs. Julie Taymor's "Across the Universe" is an audacious marriage of cutting-edge visual techniques, heart-warming performances, 1960s history and the Beatles songbook. Sounds like a concept that might be behind its time, but I believe in yesterday.

This isn't one of those druggy 1960s movies, although it has what the MPAA shyly calls "some" drug content. It's not grungy, although it has Joe Cocker in it. It's not political, which means it's political to its core. Most miraculous of all, it's not dated; the stories could be happening now, and in fact, they are.

And here's an excerpt from Eric Childress:

Julie Taymor’s Across the Universe may go down in recent cinema memory as one of the most expensive, creative disasters we’ve seen in some time. Scratch off the financial aspect since you can’t put a dollar sign on badness and observers can begin to see the obvious cracks in the foundation with the film itself. The best of the screen musicals have succeeded like most any classic has, combining the elements of its genre with a screenplay and eye towards the emotional journey of the characters as well as the audience. Since any music lover jumps on the Beatles bandwagon as being the greatest band ever (they would barely listen to an argument on the subject), there’s already an inherent love for the rhythm & lyrics that was as much a journey through their career as it was the time it inhabited. Creating a musical in this fashion, even as an experiment, should be a no-brainer – although those who have seen Cirque du Soleil’s “Love” show in Vegas may argue to the contrary. After seeing Across the Universe though, you may never see an audience more ready for a unicycling Eggman.