The greatest movie ever!

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I'll give this movie a 4 just on the basis that it's better than "Backbeat" (90's art-film hogwash about the bromance between John and Stu), and it gets a little bit of a pass for being the first movie to really tackle the beginnings of The Beatles.BUT! There are still plenty of things about it that make my skin crawl. The actors look ten+ years older than the 20 year-old Beatles they're playing. Especially in the early scenes the guys are treated like wacky cartoon characters; sweet, goofy, ambitious young men with a dream in their hearts! In reality, the post-Hamburg, pre-Epstein Beatles were raunchy, groupie-screwing, foul-mouthed, drunken lunatics, Lennon especially. I feel like this movie kinda makes them out to be boy scouts (but again, in 1979, the full extent of their hedonism probably was still pretty unknown). Like a lot of other reviews have stated, Pete Best was the main historical consultant on this, so all the circumstances around his sacking should be taken with a grain of salt (listen to a pre-Ringo recording of The Beatles - Pete straight sucked at drums).I've said this about "Backbeat" too, but it should be noted that The Beatles were pretty notoriously terrible before they shipped off to Hamburg. I know they only had so much time to cram in a lot of info, but the film shows very little musical growth; we just have to pretend that they were amazing from the beginning.Other things: in addition to a very polished, 1964-sounding Beatles on stage in Hamburg, there's also an overwhelmingly syrupy, dramatic-sounding score all over everything. They have Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison being a lot nicer to Pete and Stu than they allegedly were in real life (they gave Stu endless grief for being a crappy musician, and couldn't stand Pete Best's moody "bad boy" BS). Like in "Backbeat", Allan Williams, their first manager, is completely absent from the film. Brian Epstein is treated like a sensitive little toddler rather than the extravagant, genius businessman he was.I dunno, I always think the main issue with these Beatle movies is that the writers never actually know enough about The Beatles to accurately capture everyone's personality/the history. This is like watching...well, a mediocre TV movie. It makes the most badass rock band of all time look like they belong in a stupid after-school special. I recommend "Nowhere Boy" or "The Beatles Anthology," but this one's okay I guess, especially for how old it is.

I've been a Beatles fan for most of my life. Grew up 30 miles from Liverpool a few years later than the boys did. So I could be mean and point out some of the liberties the filmmakers took here. But all in all this isn't bad. The actors are easily recognisable as their characters and the accents aren't too far off. The major players in the Beatles story are all there, and the settings (Liverpool, Hamburg) evoke the era and are believable. The songs come over really well - sounds like Rain were a decent band in their own right. The larking about on stage is also captured perfectly. But Astrid looks a little too much like Anne Robinson (and not blonde enough) for my liking - she even winks at one point! The early relationship between Brian Epstein and the Beatles seemed very real. Well, Pete Best was there at the time and, as an adviser, should have helped them to get it right. He obviously believes (to this day) that there was a long-running conspiracy to replace him with Ringo. And I think he's right.I think my favourite cameo in the film is Nigel Havers as George Martin. The posh tall classically trained English gent, running a comedy label as part of EMI, was the only record executive to recognise the unique talent that changed popular music for ever.Good job, lads.

Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan.

There are a number of things that are not correct, although this is not too important since what happened to whom and when is still in dispute. The most blatant liberty with the facts I think is when they start to play at Bruno Koschmidder's Kaiserkeller, when in fact they played at the Indra and moved to the Kaiserkeller later.I agree with Semprinni20 that the film was biased in favour of Pete Best's version, but if he is the story consultant then I guess he calls the shots. I also agree with Semprinni that the recordings Pete Best plays on say the last word on the subject of why he was fired.Although the film is not such a lavish production as the later film "Backbeat", I prefer this film because it is more accurate, and because it has a better script with deeper characterisation.There is plenty in the film that is quite substantial - such as Brian Epstein trying to hide the fact that he has been "queer-bashed," only to find out that the band knew he was Gay all along. Little touches like the band going into a café and ordering "Corn-Flakes mit Milch." My favourite scene, which does have some bassis in fact, is where at an audition Stuart Sutcliffe has just bought his bass guitar but can't play it, so he stands with his back to the impresario and tries faking it, but gets caught. That's rock 'n' roll.Well worth watching.