SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

nicholls_les In my Opinion this is one of the better films about the Beatles. I know some arty types prefer Backbeat but I feel that this movie captures the Beatles more accurately. I don't mean everything about the film is accurate but they capture the personality, talent and spirit of four young Liverpool lads who became the Beatles.Stephen MacKenna is outstanding as John and the other actors do passable impersonations of the others. Brian Jameson is good as Brian Epstein and Nigel Havers is brilliant as George Martin.On stage they look and act like the Beatles and there is enough music to keep fans happy, remembering that this is the early days before they hit it really big.So for genuine Beatles fans this is a movie well worth seeing.

BartSamson 70's cars everywhere and inaccuracies! That's what comes to my mind when I think about this movie. Everything feels rushed, like they didn't have the time to find the correct guitars, the correct sets, the correct backgrounds. And they didn't have the time to tell the story correctly either. Scenes jump from one to another without any sense of segue. For any knowledgeable fan of the Beatles, it feels simplified to the extreme.But on the other hand, the actors playing John, Paul, George and Ringo are good (Paul is often on the verge of overacting though) and they got the voices down! You could listen to the movie without watching it and you would be able to tell who is speaking! It's still a fun movie to watch, even if it's only to pick up flaws and inaccuracies!

semprini20 We all know that dramatic adaptations of historical events are almost never 100% accurate, otherwise they would not be "adaptations". However I felt that this film reflected a certain consultant's true feelings.Now I know I wasn't there and Pete Best was, but it seems odd to me that this movie (on which he acted as a primary consultant) contradicts other people's recollection of certain events. For example Pete Best is portrayed as a strikingly handsome, highly proficient drummer. This simply isn't true (the drumming proficiency). Many people will say that Best was at best (no pun intended) a mediocre drummer (one can also hear on the Anthology that Best's drumming lacks the drive, timing, and bounce that was distinctive to Ringo's). It seems that Best feels that his dismissal from the band was a grave injustice and a plain old bad idea. They even go as far in this film as to say that EMI (i.e. George Martin) liked his playing, and according to George Martin himself, it was he who told the Beatles that they'd have to use a session drummer because Pete's playing just wasn't good enough.Other than these glaring discrepancies and some chronological conjecture (Stu Sutcliffe died some time after the rest of the Beatles had left Hamburg for good) this is an average made-for-TV movie on one of the greatest bands of all time.

davidllewis This is a rather overlooked film, though one with many good points. It goes through the now familiar story of the development of the Beatles, ending (I think) with the tragic death of Stu Sutcliffe. Unlike the later Backbeat, which, though a good film, was flawed by its 'arthouse' approach, Birth of the Beatles tells the story fairly straightly. I'd imagine that casual fans would be more interested in this then die hard fans. But check it out anyway - the performances (particularly that of John Lennon) are very good.