CommentsXp Best movie ever!

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

GusF Robert Zemeckis' directorial debut, this is an extremely funny comedy about six New Jersey teens and their trip to New York to see the Beatles' performance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" on February 9, 1964, the highest viewed television event in history up to that time. It is an affectionate tribute to and parody of the excesses of Beatlemania. Other than the Beatles' own films and documentaries, this was the first film about the Fab Four.The film has a great cast of then unknowns, most of whom went on to have solid film and/or television careers such as the late Wendie Jo Sperber, Marc McClure, Eddie Deezen, Nancy Allen, Theresa Saldana and Bobby Di Ciccio. The only major cast member whose career went nowhere afterwards was Susan Kendall Newman, in spite of her A-list pedigree as the daughter of Paul Newman (who, in a nice touch, is mentioned in the film). Sperber and Deezen are a laugh riot, particularly in their scenes together. The film features nice performances from Dick Miller (one of my favourite character actors) and Christian Juttner, a very natural teen actor who gave up acting only two years later.Zemeckis directs the film skillfully and it is very well written by him and Bob Gale, the team which would later give the world "Back to the Future", my favourite film of all time. Sperber and McClure also appeared in that film as Marty McFly's elder siblings Linda and Dave. This had an influence on "Back to the Future" as McClure's character Larry Dubois is, much like George McFly, a wimpy character who discovers inner courage when he sees a man abusing the girl that he likes. Both Larry and George say, "Get your goddamn hands off her!" before punching the attacker.Overall, it's a zany, feel good comedy which perfectly captures the zeitgeist. It's a shame that the film was a flop, making less than $2 million on a budget of less than $3 million, but its failure did little damage to Zemeckis' directing career.

mrb1980 Anyone who lived through the early days of U.S. Beatlemania--as I did--should enjoy "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". The movie is a very vivid recreation of an outrageously hysterical event: The Beatles' first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show, February 9, 1964.The plot concerns several young women whose dream is to see The Beatles at Ed Sullivan's studio in New York. Most of the early part of the film deals with the fans attempting to break into the Beatles' hotel room, the second half shows the girls attempting to gain admission to Sullivan's show. There are some fairly slow spots about 3/4 through the film, but the climactic scenes about Ed Sullivan are very fresh and funny.The cast is fine, including Will Jordan with his on-target impersonation of Sullivan, and the actresses playing the fans (Nancy Allen, Wendie Jo Sperber, Theresa Saldana, etc.) are just wonderful. Nancy Allen's adventures in the Beatles' hotel room--with her cuddling Paul McCartney's bass guitar and "harvesting" hair from a hairbrush--are hilarious and absolutely priceless.Just about everything clicks in this funny, happy film. Whether you remember February 1964 or not, it's well worth seeing.

Jason Forestein I don't love Robert Zemeckis; he always seemed a shadow of his sage and master, Steven Spielberg. Oscar wins or not, he's simply not as talented as his teacher. That being said, he's had some seriously, delirious high points (Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Contact, and Back to the Future), but the rest of his oeuvre is, well, cloying at best (Forrest Gump) and atrocious at worst (What Lies Beneath). He's a capable mid-level director who was rocketed to superstardom by his association with a true master of the cinematic artform (though, truth be told, Spielberg has missed the mark on numerous occasions).In any event, one could view I Wanna Hold Your Hand as a microcosm of Zemeckis's entire career--frequently excruciating with bouts of brilliance. Where are the lows? How about the saccharine reiterations of the three four central female characters. For the first 45 minutes, the women are defined by repeated phrases that beat into the audience's brain their too-flimsy characters. Rosie loves Paul, Janis loves folkies, Grace wants to take some photos, and Pam wants to get married.Ultimately, the arcs for the former three characters follow predictable patterns. With Pam's storyline, however, Zemeckis finds the heart of this film and creates a lasting tale that, more or less, makes this movie recommended (though not necessarily essential) viewing.Pam's conflict is fairly straightforward until she finds herself in the Beatles' suite. Then something interesting happens--she does something to a guitar that, well, I don't want to mention here for fear of having the post deleted. She cowers in front of that guitar and she shudders. Later, she clenches the hem of her dress in tightly wound fists between her thighs.What Zemeckis finds between Pam's legs is the nascent youth movement of the 1960s. Pam's running away from her betrothed at the end of the film to the Beatles and that funny feeling causing her to quiver, demonstrates the shift from the cleancut, conformist ideals of 1950s America to what would become a more liberating--sexually and emotionally--period in the late 1960s. The Beatles were at the forefront of that youth movement and, here, the rumblings of the movement are present.What Pam reveals in this movie is among the most emotionally and sexually truthful representations of that turbulent decade. I credit Zemeckis for his willingness to not ignore the sexuality inherent in Beatlemania, and I credit too Nancy Allen for an amazing performance. It's a real shame she's never received the recognition she deserves (for this movie, Blow Out, and Dressed to Kill).The rest of the movie, though, is hysterical, in the late-19th century definition of the word. Mostly, it's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Bobby Di Cicco turns in a performance that is worth seeing, as he's able to find, by movie's end some level of truth in Smerko's character. And then, of course, there's the overzealous Eddie Deezen's overacting, which is shrill beyond all reason. It's rare to find a performance that strident and, at the same time, ingratiating due to the actor's prowess for physical comedy (again, his physical shenanigans are, well, overblown, but I somehow found them riveting).All in all, this movie really isn't a seven--it's probably a six at best--but I cannot shake those scenes of Nancy Allen nor do I want to. They're probably the most wonderful moments Zemeckis ever contributed to celluloid. For that it gets an extra point.

marangakis I love the scene between Nancy Allen and Paul's bass. It is hysterically funny, and amazingly erotic. Beyond that, the film is a loving homage to the Beatles, to their music, to Beatlemania, and to the 1960s, generally. The hysteria of the kids, the hostility of the parents, and the desperation of so many to cash in on the new phenomenon that was the Beatles is captured hilariously, and I think, with some accuracy. Like "American Graffiti," this film has going for it a great script that is complemented by direction that is nostalgic, even sentimental, without being sappy or preachy. It also captured young and talented actors and actresses on the verge of great success.