Reviews

I don't quite understand the high rating of this film... to me it's like a long MTV which tries to fit in as many Beatles song as possible. The characters are boring and have very weak personality (with the exception of Max, played brilliantly by Joe Anderson)... There are things good about the movie, the costumes and colouration are brilliant, the songs were sang pretty well by the actors/actresses although not jaw-dropping, and few songs (such as Because, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Strawberry Fields Forever etc) were presented very well... but other than that, there isn't much to it... the plot is weak and unlike Mamamia and We Will Rock You, the songs dictated the plot in Across the Universe, but it should be vice versa.

I truly loved this movie, it is entertaining, funny, idea is fresh and creative, and the music, believe it or not, was pretty good (most of them).

I also loved the fact that it gave the rock industry (in particular the Rolling Stones Magazine) a good dig. Such as: 1. The whole story is based on a guy with relatively modest music talent who made it to the big time. This is kinda true as many musicians at the early 60-70s made it big and became nowadays legends, not for some extraordinary musical talents, but because they had (1) the guts to pick up a guitar on stage and perform (2) the passion to perform and write music (3) a bit of luck (to be discovered by record companies), and most importantly (4) because there were no other competitors at the time, people listen to what they have. Good examples are the likes of Freddie and the Dreamers, Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Ramones, The Who, Guns and Roses etc. Even the likes of Elvis, The Rolling Stones and The Beatles can be put into this category. Elvis was a great performer, but not really a great composer, and The Beatles are great song-writers, but looked at how the Rolling Stones Magazine rate them - George Harrison no. 23 of Greatest Guitarist of All Time?! John Lennon, Paul MaCartney & Mick Jagger top 20 singers of all time? On the other hand, a lot of musicians faded into the abyss despite having huge talent simply because they are reluctant to constantly step into the lime light, just ask Nick Drake.

2. Their dig at Bob Dylan was great... Many artist can write nonsense (best examples are Bob Dylan & John Lennon) in their songs, and people think they're genius because "you guys are idiots... this song is very deep". Yet when an Average Joe does the same thing, he's considered an idiot.

3. The Beatles are the greatest band in the world, and I truly love them. But they can also act like a bunch of spoilt kids, simply because they're just human, but people often goes to their shrine and bow to them like they're Gods.

4. Punk music are often written by some mad and angry yet rich and wealthy drug-addicts who really had nothing to complain in their lives, but choose this form of music to whine about how they cannot get laid at nights.

5. At the end of the movie, one final dig was on the modern industry, where young money-driven artists take some 70-80's oldies and make it into some pathetic semi rap song. And boy are they awful. Just listen to what Jay Z did to Forever Young, Eminem to Dream On, Gym Class Hero did to Breakfast in America...

Over all, a 9 out of 10 from me. Except a few jokes (such as cutting Dewey's brother & dad in half) I thought was unnecessary, this movie is brilliant and I've been watching it over and over again. So underrated and cult.

This movie ain't about Sherlock Holmes, but some pathetic Holmes wannabe. More like a Jacques Clouseau movie than a Holmes movie. Also Jude Law is just the wrong person to cast as Dr. Watson, no matter how charming he is, he's just not Watson, period.

In Summary:

The "Sherlock Holmes" played by Robert Downey Jr tries hard to be characteristic but fails

whereas the real Sherlock Holmes from the book IS effortless characteristic.

Enough said.

This movie is simply crap. Nothing make sense, the plot, the acting, the entire load of rubbish from the promotion.

I can't believe this piece of bullock still manage to get a 6.9 rating, instead topping the bottom 100 list where it belongs. What's everyone thinking? I'm not saying that movie needs to be intelligent or have a fantastic plot, but where movies like "Dude where's my car" and "Bringing Down the House" at least offer some pretty good laughs, this movie is just plan stupid and uncomfortable.

Jason Statham is just the idiotic self as he's always been. I didn't expect anything from this stupid, ugly and self-centered person anyways. I was really sad to see Amy Smart involved though. Surely such a classy and talented actress, who were absolutely brilliant in Butterfly Effect, should have been much wiser in choosing her films. But seeing that she also appear in other cheap movies like Just Friends, maybe she ain't that brilliant after all.

None of the plot in the movie make sense. Why would someone who is nearly dying still tries to contact his girlfriend (Despite him mentioning how much he loves her, no one can feel it as their performances were just crap)? That scene at China Town signals one of the lowest point as far as Hollywood comedies goes. The ending was crap, too, and I am not sure whether the director wanted to make this film an all action movie, a romance, a drama, or a comedy. It seems they never figured it out themselves.

My Advice: Avoid this Piece of Sh*t.

To me, this is one of the best movie of our ages. The acting, by Hugh and Grant, was outstanding... Others were great too. The soundtrack is awesome, well done Badly Drawn Boy. And the ending, where Will stepped out of his "Island-Living" to stand beside Marcus was simply awesome and touching. Hugh's voice is surprisingly good, maybe he could have been a successful singer as well! I've heard that the book was pretty good but this may be one of the few movies that actually surpasses the book where it originated.

All in all, one of the best movie I have ever seen.

Shih-Ping from Taiwan

I love this movie. It's not only funny, some parts are absolutely hilarious. I was laughing so much that I nearly fell from my sofa. Not only being a comedy, it has it's own style and an uniquely-cool approach. It's a pity those so-called "serious movie critics" never sees it and find it funny.

Chyler Leigh is absolutely lovable (she's so uniquely beautiful, just like her character in the movie) and did an excellent job. Chris Evans is not bad too. I don't know what's all the fuss of the movie world today, where movies have to be so deep and confusing (and boring) to win an Oscar or to appreciated. Personally, on a lazy Sunday afternoon, I would rather pay $10 to go to a cinema with some pop-corns and soft drinks and watch a funny and stylish comedy like "Not Another Teen Movie" (Plus I get to see those hot chicks in the movie! Very hot!), than watch Academy-recognized films like "The Queen", "The Good Sheperd", or "An Inconvenient Truth", movies that will make me fall asleep.

I'm not saying that I'm right or wrong about this, or everyone should feel the same with me. This is just my view of movies. Movies for me are to entertain, not to make me fall asleep as I can do the same with an old history textbook.

When I've saw the trailer of this film I thought it was going to be one of those typical Hollywood love films, especially since the fact that it involves actors like Hugh Grant and Colin Firth.

But I was way wrong.

This film look at love through another point of view. The plot is unrealistic yet it is believable, unlike many other romantic films. This film catches my attention from the beginning to the end, and although it has its flaws, I really enjoyed it and I am confident to say that I've never ever seen a romantic film so unique: It mix sweet love, comedy, tragic and bitterness all in one, with an overwhelming emphases on love, it's main core.

The stories that are, in my opinion, the flaws of the movie are the one involving two porn-movie stars (what's the point?) and the insistence of love between two very small kids (un-touching and also unbelievable). But as these were relatively minors sub-stories, it doesn't destroy the movie. The other stories are simply fantastic and enjoyable. Bill Nighy did an outstanding job and he turned out to be one of the most enjoyable character (from an audience point of view) in the movie, and his story with his manager is both funny and touching. Hugh Grant is another scene-stealer and his little speech was outstanding, and although a real Prime Minister will not behave in any of the things he's done in the movie (unless he/she want to create a big international crisis), it does add hugely to the entertainment value of the movie (which is all I care). Emma Thompson plays arguably the only tragic story in the movie and did an outstanding job (she's so good that it's amazing she wasn't nominated for any major awards). Other stories were great too, I won't go over them in detail but this movie is a very under-rated yet an extremely well-made masterpiece. 9.9/10!

This is one of the most intelligent and touching movie I've seen. The reason for it's intelligent is the well-edited and well-thought script and story lines. The reason for it being so moving is because the fine acting by its performers.

Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart both did outstanding jobs for this movie. The former, especially, deserve a lot of praise as it shows that he not only can act in comedies, but he also can act in more serious shows. People should give him a lot more credit, as not many actors can do so, even the best. Look at the pathetic performances by Nicholas Cage in National Treasure (an usually serious actor trying to be funny), and Owen Wilson in Behind Enemy Lines (an usually funny actor trying to be serious), and then you'll see its not something everyone can do easily. Ashton may not deserve an Oscar for his performance here, but he should at least get those critics to shut their mouth about his acting skills as he clearly can act, and act very well.

Sorry folks, not all movies that win Oscars are boring, but no one can argue that those more so-called "intelligent" and "complicated" movies, especially movies that portrays a story of a particular person (and mostly dull-characters), has a lot higher chance to win an Oscar or get nominated, than movies such as "Dude, Where's My Car" or "Not Another Teen Movie". Those movie critics are the most boring group of people with hardly no sense of humor. Just like what Richard Curtis said: I would rather make a movie that the critics hate but the audience love. And every movie maker should have this in mind.

Well, after a long suffering 2.5 hours of life wasted watching the awfully dull and extremely anti-climax movie, I think it has a huge chance of being nominated for an Oscar (both film and for its leading character - Matt Damon), but it will never win most people's heart as we pay money to watch movies to get enjoyment, not to suffer and watching a horrible life-story of a no-body for 2.5 hours! FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T SUFFER MY FATE! MY ADVICE IS: DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!