Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. | Reviewer: Anonymous | 6/15/09

I love Across the Universe. It's one of my favorite movies. The fact that there were so many Beatles songs in it was an added bonus. I loved the Beatles before the movie, and I loved them after.

For the people who are saying that the whole thing is one big acid trip, that's because the movie was placed in the 1960's. Drugs were very much a part of pop culture and it's quite realistic to have the characters drawn into that. A movie like that isn't there to censor everything and only display the nice and good things about the 60's. You can't pick and choose. You have to take the good with the bad.

I have to agree that they did rely a little too much on the songs to carry the movie through, but I honestly loved that aspect. If you love the Beatles, who doesn't want to hear their songs over and over again? And they had a lot of talented actors and actresses performing. No, they didn't sound anything like John, George, Ringo, and Paul (and Pete, depending on where you're from). But at least they weren't American Idol rejected little upstarts who thought they could outdo them. And do you know how many more Beatles albums were sold after the film's release as opposed to before? The movie opened the floodgates for more teenagers to listen to the original Beatles.

So, why are some people whining about it?

People love to bicker. This is my proof. | Reviewer: V. | 4/13/09

I like both versions on the song for "Being for the benefit of Mr. Kite".
Now donʻt get me wrong here, mate, I love the Beatles. My dad is friends with Ringo Starr from secondary school. I realise that yes, many people love the way Eddie Izzard sang it, and yes, many people prefer the Beatles. But honestly, both versions are good.It is hard to duplicate the Beatles because, well, theyʻre the Beatles.
But Eddie Izzard did a fine job for being Eddie Izzard. He was great.His odd, "Mad Hatterʻ ramblings added perfectly to the song. This scene is my favourite scene in the film.
I think that truly the only difference is the original is by the Beatles and is a song and that the Eddie Izzard version is not a song, not by the Beatles and he added his own twist on it.
Both are great! (Oh and, acid trip scenes are what make this film a truly "60ʻs" film, because without it, it just wouldnʻt be the same.)

wrong | Reviewer: Anonymous | 3/23/09

Across the universe was a terrible movie. They let the songs tell the story, sure, but the plot was horrendous. They ruined a lot of great songs with terrible interpretations and they forced certain beatles songs tell a story that they werent composed to tell.


I like both | Reviewer: Anonymous | 2/12/09

being for the benefit of Mr. Kite is a great song and Eddie Izzard did a damn good job with this song. the idea was The Beatles song was perfect show of the times. before you judge listen to the commentary.

the song is just good.... | Reviewer: anthony | 12/12/08

I think that people who are saying Across the Universe wasn't a good music are the hardcore Beatles fans who hate every version of that isn't the original. to them, i have this to say.
TIMES HAVE CHANGED!! the reason why the movie was made to reintroduce the beatles to the new public and tell a story. Yes the story obviously isn't what you wanted it to be, but a lot of people loved the movie and it turned a lot of people to the music of the beatles. so i say this, every song they used in the movie was re-done awesome. The originals were also awesome.

Here we go, | Reviewer: Mariana | 11/4/08

The version in the movie was very playful and in my opinion made sense,
No, it was not sung but SO WHAT?
oh, and those complaining that the movie was based around the lyrics only: Half the people don't even know whatthe backround of the songs are! Might as well just base it on the lyrics

I like both versions, but... | Reviewer: Anonymous | 10/28/08

While I love the version by The Beatles, I have to admit I like the Eddie Izzard version too. Both are very good, but I do agree that the movie was too much of an acid trip and that they used the lyrics rather than the actual meanings of the songs as a basis for the movie. And although I enjoyed the wierdness of the Eddie Izzard scene, the movie is just one whole friggin acid trip except for the final scene and the whole cast seems like a bunch of junkies. Like Rent but, you know...Without AIDS...And good.

Not better or worse. Different. | Reviewer: Anonymous | 9/9/08

It would have been far more difficult to include the song in Across The Universe and keep context. I love both versions. Eddie is a scream and I think he was a welcome addition to the movie's celeb cameos.

I agree, the spoken word was different. But I enjoyed the clever spin they put on it to reintroduce Prudence to the characters.

One last thing - if you have a problem with acid trip scenes, perhaps you should not watch movies referencing the era. It was rather prevalent. I'm not a supporter of chemical controlled substances, but it's important to remember that it became part of the culture back then.

being for the benefit of the beatles | Reviewer: Anonymous | 7/29/08

The across the universe version was NOTHING like the original- it was just another acid trip scene. I agree it wasn't even sung. I suggest that everybody obsessed with the movie listen to the original music because it seems like people arent appreciating the talent of the beatles.

Yes. | Reviewer: selladore | 2/20/08

Eddie Izzard did a freakin' great job with this.

I loved it. It suits him so well, it even meshes with his comedic style. Which is why I think he did such a great job with it.

And considering the context of the movie it was used in, it was quite good!

across the universe | Reviewer: blah | 2/1/08

even though I wouldn't say the song is better, I wouldn't say it's worse.

Eddie Izzard is incredible, and his ramblings make you laugh. Of course it wasn't sung, he can't sing! He would have ruined the song! He was perfect for the role, and watching him gave you a feeling of happiness and silliness.

hmmm | Reviewer: sally | 1/28/08

"I though Across the Universe butchered the song, mainly because it wasn't really sung." I so agree.

Corie: "with the movie, Across the Universe, its (the song has)become even better!"
Well yeah, Eddie Izzard is absolutely brilliant, but I would hardly say the song in *better* in Across the Universe! It's lost its musicality!

For the benefit of Mr. Kite | Reviewer: Cristina | 1/29/08

This song is so awesome...one of the best from the Beatles! I also liked the movie's version, even though I'd liked it even more if it were sung, anyways, the scene was just fascinating!

if I had wanted to hear the album | Reviewer: glenn | 1/27/08

Eddie Izzard isn't a singer, and he didn't sing. I liked what he did, and thought it was very good in the context of the movie. I guess if you wanted to sit in a theater and listen to the original songs, you should have brought your Ipod to the movie.

1/13/08 | Reviewer: Meh | 1/13/08

I though Across the Universe butchered the song, mainly because it wasn't really sung... he was just talking through the lyrics. It just seemed really strange. Just another trip scene in the movie.