something happened to me yesterday
tom boswell once wrote in a seriously misguided column about how baseball is *cough* better than football that - and i am paraphrasing here - every time you go to a baseball game you will see something you have never seen before. well, tom boswell is a proven idiot, but as it happens i have my own corollary to his infamous assertion: every time i go to the movies i expect to see a trailer for the worst movie ever. it finally happened.
in the moments yesterday before spiderman filled the screen (and really, what's all the fuss about here? it's about time they gave the guy some personality. but that's a post for another day...), at long last the preview for which i had been waiting was finally shown. from that great visionary director julie taymor comes "the most original, exhilarating, spectacular, groundbreaking motion picture of the year" - a motion picture that finally answers once and for all the great unasked question "what if i tried to write a movie script based entirely on beatles songs?"
of course, this being your normal motion picture, the producers of "across the universe" can't afford to pay licensing fees on a soundtrack composed exclusively of beatles songs, so we are "treated" (see also: "i am sam") to a bunch of half-assed covers. not to mention a lead character named jude. and a bunch of other 1960's cliches. imagine "forrest gump," only not as subtle. i could go on, but you shouldn't have to take my word for it. watch below.
Comments
How the hell does this stuff get greenlighted? Is Hollywood really run by chimps?
Worse than 'Magnolia?' Is that humanly possible?
CS: another of my long-standing debates with your son is that of the best film of 1994. we both disagree with oscar's selection of "gump" he's in the "pulp fiction" camp. i fall into the much smaller (though more right) "quiz show" demographic. either way, "forrest gump" is a piece of crap. i commend you on your good taste.
CC: i actually like "titanic." it's not the best movie ever, certainly, but there was enough prelude to shipwreck that the manufactured love story seemed somewhat plausible. now - i WILL admit that i have a major crush on kate winslet and her appearance in this fine film (topless, no less) may cloud my judgement. i am completely comfortable with that.
JODI: i didn't see "magnolia," but i feel confident that "across the universe" is worse.
1) ATU looks dreadful.
2) Pulp Fiction should have won best picture in 1994
2a) Samuel Jackson should have won best supporting actor
3) I think one's ability to get fired up about the loathsomeness of ATU is directly proportional to one's love of the Beatles. Let's just say I'm not all that worked up.
4) Titanic really wasn't that bad. Celine Dion notwithstanding.
5) I agree that my mom is an enlightened soul. Happy Mothers Day!
2/ no.
2a/ probably.
3/ probably.
4/ yes.
5/ yes.
2a/ no. (i just looked it up. martin landau won that year for his role in "ed wood." that's the right call. samuel l. jackson was very good, though. he should have won best actor.)
I disagree with #3. The blinded beatlemaniacs, who believe every other band pales in comparison, will pay their $12 to see ATU, love it, then come to Werner's blog in hopes of seeing him eat his shoe. But I won't allow it to happen.
[this is gag-ariffic]
Magnolia sucked and I thought I was only person across the universe (haha, sorry) that disliked Forrest Gump. I couldn't even stand the commercials, and everyone I knew said I would like it. I rented it like 5 years later and I was right, they were wrong. I also thought Philadelphia stunk.
I will find a way to love this movie, because I know that all of us truly don't care as much about voting our conscience as we do about watching HR eat a shoe on camera.