MovieChat Forums > Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978) Discussion > Better Than 'Across the Universe'

Better Than 'Across the Universe'

posted 12 years ago by elmocoloco
8 replies | jump to latest

'Cause it is. This movie never takes itself too seriously and knows that it's good, dumb fun.

"Everybody has their opinion, and yours is wrong." -Dave Barry

[–] jfitzge85 12 years ago

Absolutely. Far more fun, the music is more enjoyably rendered and ATU has zero camp value. This any day.

[–] davidgoesboating 12 years ago

Not setting the bar too high there, but yes, I'd imagine it'd have to be.

[–] preppy-3 12 years ago

Ummmmmmm...you people are kidding right? This movie is terrible. Most of the cast can't sing and they destroy the Beatles songs completely. ATU had people who could actually sing, had a compelling story and characters and were faithful to the Beatles songs. Also Paul McCartney himself oversaw ATU and approved it. He dismissed this as a stupid movie.

[–] DC_Collins 11 years ago

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what McCartney or anyone says about one over the other. I'd say they come up about even, equally bad and equally enjoyable. The more I think of it, I'd say slight edge to SPLHCB for taking itself less seriously.

Every good quality in either movie is cancelled and negated by something crass or misguided.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087239/

[–] VinnieRattolle 11 years ago

I like 'em both, but I definitely like this one more. "Across the Universe" is wildly uneven in tone while "Sgt Pepper" maintains a bizarro '70s silliness throughout.

As for "ATU" having "people who could actually sing," I don't 100% disagree -- but Eddie Izzard's rendition of "Mr. Kite" is far more audibly assaulting than anything in "Sgt. Pepper." Say what you want to about this film's soundtrack, but it spawned several hits that still get frequent radio airplay (as good as some of the covers in "Across the Universe" were, I ain't never heard a single one of em on the radio!).

Of course, in the end "better" is subjective to personal taste. I greatly prefer upbeat movies with a hefty side of corn to downbeat emotional rollercoaster rides, therefore I perceive this as the better of the two films. And there are doubtlessly many people who think both of 'em are complete and utter crap.

[–] htownsteve 11 years ago

i enjoy both.

Son, you can't polish a turd

[–] tabbycat 11 years ago

Say what you want to about this film's soundtrack, but it spawned several hits that still get frequent radio airplay (as good as some of the covers in "Across the Universe" were, I ain't never heard a single one of em on the radio!).

That may just be the best defense of this movie ever.

The best of those covers, IMO, is Earth Wind & Fire's bouncy rendition of "Got to Get You Into My Life." Why? Because 1) they are one of the coolest bands ever, and 2) they actually did something original with it. If you can shut out the Beatles purists screaming "HERESY!!", you'll hear something that really works. Aside from Aerosmith's stab, what did the other covers bring? Nothing but a limp, tenth-rate late-70's Xerox of the original. Take Barry Gibb's cover of A Day in the Life. Well-sung, heartfelt, even slightly more melancholy than the original. But it's the same %#€ damn arrangement as the Fab Four, note for note. In the end, it's not memorable at all. I actually forgot it existed.

That EWF track made an impressive #9 on the U.S. Hot 100, and was included on their bestselling (first) "Best of" album. It is frequently heard today on radio and elsewhere.

[–] brentnevers-72-322973 11 years ago

For the movie and the soundtrack....I will take SPLHCB...but Joe Cocker's cover of Come Together is strong. Of course, he always did great covers of The Beatles!