User reviews

This is a film above all about the triangular relationship between John Lennon, Stuart Sutcliffe, and Astrid Kirchherr (four-sided if you include Astrid's boyfriend Klaus Voormann, five-sided if you include the band John and Stu were members of: the Beatles) -- a film about real events, about love and life and tragedy -- played out to a backdrop of the Beatles' visits to Hamburg and their performances there.

Based primarily on interviews with Stuart's mother and sister and with Astrid Kirchherr, it's been often criticised as a 'crude caricature', for its factual inaccuracies about the Beatles' time in Hamburg, about the musical performances portrayed, for the one-dimensional portrayal of the "minor" characters, including Paul, George, Pete and John's girlfriend Cynthia, and even for the fact that the actors aren't exact doppelgangers for the characters they portray (they're pretty good likenesses, though).

I can accept all these criticisms, but somewhat to my surprise they didn't spoil the film at all for me. If you want detailed accuracy about the Beatles, this is not for you. Read the books. But if you want to see a film which tells a good story well, and which will give you a real feel for the vibes of the time and for the characters it claims to portray, and an insight into one important aspect of the early history of the Beatles, I think you will enjoy this. I thought I wouldn't, but I did. And I will watch it again. And, did I say? it's about the Beatles.

This is not a biopic, nor does it pretend to be, but it does claim to tell the story of Stu and Astrid, and I thought it did that very well. I don't object at all to the use of some artistic licence, such as Astrid's excellent English. Contrary to some other reviewers, I found the portrayal of the quiet, enigmatic Stu by Stephen Dorff quite excellent, a perfect foil to the bitter, sometimes thoughtful, and wholly charismatic John Lennon, portrayed just as well by Ian Hart.

I first heard the Beatles just before their first British record "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in Autumn 1962. This film portrays events mostly more than a year before then, and even longer before their last stint in Hamburg, at the Star-Club in December 1962, the subject of a famous amateur recording. Apart from the Polydor recordings by Bert Kampfaert, we have little to judge objectively what the band sounded like in 1960-61, but judging from the 1962 live recordings, and the comments of those who heard them before they were famous, I'm quite prepared to believe the Beatles sounded then very much like the band used for the soundtrack to this film. OK, the band aren't the Beatles, and some of the details are a bit askew, but the rock-and-roll standards portrayed were all part of the Beatles' act, and are performed much as they performed them. Everyone tells how Stu Sutcliffe often played turning away from the audience, as often seen in the film. It's hardly a realistic portrayal of the Hamburg clubs on the Reeperbahn in the early 1960s, but I've seen worse, and if you have little idea what life was like for the band before 1962, this will not be a bad introduction.

Comparisons with "A Hard Day's Night" are ingenuous: that was a film made by the Beatles early in 1964 after they were famous (in Britain at least); this is a film about the band when they were teenagers, before pretty much anyone knew them outside Liverpool and Hamburg. Not the same at all. And of course, they didn't sound back then like the Beatles' later recordings, or even like they did on their tours of the US and elsewhere. Perhaps the only recording you can really compare is their first album "Please Please Me" (and the live Star-Club recording, if you have it).

It's a film, for goodness' sake. I enjoyed it as one, and I hope you do too. The characters rang true, especially Ian Hart as John Lennon, and the story is well worth telling, and well worth watching. And, did I say? it's about the Beatles.

It's 1960 Liverpool. Stuart Sutcliffe (Stephen Dorff) is a painter and John Lennon (Ian Hart) is his best friend. Stuart joins the early Beatles on the bass going to Hamburg, Germany on their first oversea trip along with Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Pete Best. German photographer Astrid Kirchherr (Sheryl Lee) introduces Sutcliffe to her avant-garde circle. Her influence and his poor playing cause friction within the band and his relationship with Lennon.

This is a Beatles movie without the cooperation of some of main players. Lennon is the leader. McCartney is a bit of wet blanket which probably annoyed the real Paul. I love the performances of Dorff and Hart. Also I love the two men's deep friendship. This is a deep bromance movie.

The film is a marvel. The only evidence of post-fame Beatles nostalgia that doesn't seek to cash-out. It is no less than a kick-ass rock n' roll film, with deft photography, powerful direction and an incredibly hard garage soundtrack. Recommended for fans of garage raunch and pre-invasion british blues.

This is an excellent depiction of the Beatles ' Hamburg days .But the movie real heroes are actually Sutcliffe,Lennon and Astrid.The movie was made some years after Goldman's infamous book and there are hints at an homosexual relation between John and Stu ("you're jealous of me!"Astrid would have said to John!) but the director does not insist and he finally depicts a true friendship.He pits Stu's down-to-earth world against Astrid's chic elitist intellectual one : they go to the pictures to see Melville's "Les enfants terribles" (actually a Cocteau story),and she seems to be very fond of the French culture:Cocteau,Sartre ,Edith Piaf ,Rimbaud,;and she was ahead of her time since fifteen years later,rock singer Patti Smith had the same idols.The scenarists also sketch a parallel between the Klaus Voorman/Astrid relationship and "les enfants terribles" Ian Hart is an excellent John Lennon,in turn cynical,violent,delicate,nasty,hateful;Gary Bakewell resembles Paul,but he is not given a single moment to shine ;as for Georges ,he is completely insignificant.The music is very exciting .Even when Stu (Dorff) sings his ditty in a gleeful croak ,it's rock and roll ! At the end of the movie,the dialog begins to ring false.Everybody acts as if the Beatles were to become huge ;at the time ,who could have predicted such a career?It's a rebuilding of history a posteriori.And if the final lines about Astrid,Stu and Klaus are useful,those about the Beatles are overkill:everybody knows that they were the biggest group of all time.

A must for Beatles' fans anyway.

Cards on the table I am a big Beatles fan so this movie depicting their formative years before they hit the big time was bound to appeal to me. Filmed in a gritty, realistic manner as befits the group's early stamping grounds of their native Liverpool and then in particular the fleshpots of Hamburg, it well conveys the sheer slog that the band had to put in to build up not only the stamina to play for hours on end, but also in the end, the best dynamic for the group itself, as inept musician Stuart Sutcliffe either jumps or is pushed out of the band just before they achieve their initial success.

Some Beatles historians might point out that the replacement of Pete Best on drums by Ringo Starr was every bit as important in the group's development but you wouldn't know that here. Ringo does get a token look-in near the end but Best barely gets a line to speak throughout the whole movie, as he again falls through the cracks in the band's well documented history.

Messrs McCartney and Harrison are very much peripheral players too as the film concentrates on the triangle of John Lennon, Sutcliffe and his German born girlfriend Astrid Kirchner to provide the dramatic arc in the narrative. Lennon is portrayed as the archetypal angry young man although we're told nothing about his troubled background or how he came to be this way. Significantly too, no clue is given that the band's success actually came from the songwriting partnership and indeed burgeoning friendship of Lennon and McCartney which had started by this time.

Instead the narrative plays up the friendship of Lennon with his fellow art student Sutcliffe with the former forgiving the latter's musical deficiencies out of friendship and misguided loyalty. Sutcliffe's true talent lay in art and it takes a chance meeting with the charismatic Miss Kirchner, herself a talented photographer often credited with helping establish the Beatles mop-top look, for him to recognise that his place wasn't playing faltering bass in the band but expressing himself with his art.

Tragically, just when it seemed as if he too, like the band, was making headway in his chosen field of expression, he was struck down by a brain aneurysm at only 21 years of age. As is usual in many Beatles biographies, McCartney is portrayed as something of the heavy in demanding Sutcliffe leave the band while Lennon is lionised as the tortured leader of the band torn between loyalty to his soulmate and his ambition for the group.

I suspect that the film would appeal mostly to Beatles completists like myself rather than to the wider public. The soundtrack comprises their then repertoire of rock 'n' roll classics and these are put over with almost punk like energy. Of course the rough edges would be smoothed out as the group transitioned to success swapping the jeans and leathers for Cuban heels and Savile Row suits.

The actors' resemblances to their real life counterparts are satisfactory and the performances too are reasonably convincing. Still, throughout, I wondered if the background story was strong enough to carry the whole movie which may imply some criticism of the sometimes downbeat direction of the material.

Nevertheless, it can't have been too easy to bring alive another, on the face of it, clichéd story of a band trying to make it, even if that band was the Beatles and I appreciated the clear intent to bathe the unfortunate Sutcliffe in deflected rather than reflected glory.

I think that it's especially appropriate that "Backbeat" was released right after the 30th anniversary of the Beatles coming to America: everyone was remembering them, and then a really good movie shows their early days. Specifically, it focuses on when they went to Hamburg and met artsy photographer Astrid Kirchherr. I should identify that this movie is for mature audiences only: aside from the language and sex, it shows how John, Paul, George, Pete, and Stu got addicted to speed so that they could keep playing; as a result, they got little sleep and their eyes got all glassy as they laid awake.

A really effective scene is right after Stu leaves the Beatles. Hoping to devote his life to art, he goes out and gets all drunk. Around this time, East Germany's government erects the Berlin Wall. Watching it on TV, Astrid and Klaus hold hands to be supportive of each other. When Stu sees this, he gets all violent. This scene - possibly more than any other in the movie - shows his mental breakdown.

All in all, a great movie. We also see that they first met Ringo in Hamburg. I'm sure that we'll all be remembering "Backbeat" for years to come. Rock on, lads!

Let me just go ahead and say what everyone else is thinking: what's wrong with just making an honest, unvarnished biopic about the Beatles? They're the biggest band of all time. They're the 20th Century in a nutshell. Doesn't that make their story worth telling on its own, without making us all wade through some distracting, artsy-fartsy angle? "Birth of The Beatles" tried to do it, but it looks like crap now, and they got too much of their info from Pete Best, who has the personality of cardboard and the brains of a bowl of oatmeal. "Nowhere Boy" was pretty good, but again, can't just make a movie about John Lennon getting into music, can we? Better throw in the old busted Oedipal legends for some extra flavor!

I get it. Most people going to the movies are not total rock music geeks, nor total dorks about The Beatles. Filmmakers and studios probably don't want your average Joe to get bored and walk out. But aren't The Beatles worth an honest examination?

Let's state some facts:

When the Beatles went to Hamburg in 1960, they were a bunch of dorky, green, naïve suburbanite kids with garbage equipment who had no idea what they were doing. They sucked.

Part of why they sucked was that their "genius" leader John Lennon decided they should have a bass player that didn't know how to play at all, just because he was a good-looking, pseudo-beatnik painter, and Lennon wanted his band to look artsy.

They got good because they played for hours, and hours, and hours in front of people. They learned how to perform, not just to play, but to entertain people. It was an old-school, vaudevillian, total immersion in showbusiness and stagecraft that most musicians today can't fathom. That experience is what transformed them from a bunch of moronic teenagers into the greatest rock band of all time, and seeing that education, that transformation unfold on screen could be magical.

But no, what seems to be more important is conjuring up this myth that Astrid Kirchherr and Stu Sutcliffe, who in reality were footnotes to the Beatles' story, drove an apparently sexually confused and perpetually pissed off John Lennon (and no one else, who was that other guy, "Paul" something?) to create the greatest musical act of the 60's because he was so bitter that he couldn't be as cool as/sleep with either of them.

Look, this Hamburg period in the Beatles' story is super-important. There's not a lot of tangible remnants of that period, it wasn't very well-documented. A lot of it has just passed into legend. And now, thanks to the dudes that made "Backbeat," this mythical, too-cool-for-school Beat Martyr Stu Sutcliffe is the focal point of the story, instead of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison. That's not fair, and I hope one day that someone makes a movie about this subject and actually tells the truth. After all the hours those guys put in on those tiny, crappy stages, they deserve it.

There's no doubt in my mind that 'Backbeat' is the best movie ever made about the Beatles. Dare I utter such blasphemy-- it may even be better than 'A Hard Day's Night!'

Director Iain Softley (his first film!) and his co-writers chose a period and a time that have always held a lot of romance for the group's fans, their trial-by-fire apprenticeship in the seedy nightclubs of Hamburg, Germany c. 1960. This was the crucible in which the band was transformed from noisy amateurs to professionals ready to take on- and change- the world. The focus is on two young friends from Liverpool, John Lennon (Ian Hart) and Stuart Sutcliffe (Stephen Dorff). (As a critic once noted, dead men don't file lawsuits.) Stuart is a sensitive lad with a great talent for painting. John is a cynic with a very large chip on his shoulder. He may be sensitive and intellectual, too, but he'd rather die than admit that to anyone. His artistic passion is expressed in the rock & roll music he's driven to play. Stu likes the image more than the music, so he buys a bass guitar, turns his back on a promising art career and joins the band. The fact that he can barely play his instrument is not lost on bandmate Paul McCartney (Gary Bakewell.)

Playing a backbreaking schedule in Hamburg they meet up with two young Germans who become important in their lives- Klaus Voorman (Kai Wiesinger) and especially Astrid Kirchherr (Sheryl Lee), two "exi's", sort of latter-day beatniks or early hippies. Stu and Astrid fall in love and John is both irritated and fascinated by her. Soon Stu has to choose between his love for Astrid and painting and his deep emotional ties to John and the band.

The actors portraying the most well-known characters (Hart, Bakewell and Chris O'Neill as George Harrison) all bear striking resemblances to their look in the early '60's. But this movie not only gets the style right, but the substance as well. Paul McCartney has said it was full of inaccuracies (like John singing "Long Tall Sally," always Paul's number) but as an avid Beatles fan since 1964 my view is that it's a very honest portrayal. Ian Hart shines in his evocation of the complicated personality and tortured soul of John Lennon. He practically looks like a twin of John's son Julian. Sheryl Lee also stands out as the super-cool Astrid in a restrained but powerful performance. The musical performances are fine, too, done by a band including Mike Mills of R.E.M. No Beatle originals are used in the movie but that's OK because at the time they were mostly playing powerful cover versions of American rock and soul. In fact the "B word" is not seen or uttered except once, just before the film's conclusion.

This movie is a triumph for all involved and even though it's not "official" it will only add to the great legacy left by the Beatles.

A film which concentrates on the short musical and artistic career of Stuart Sutcliffe, the Scottish-born bass player from the days when the Beatles were a quintet playing the Reeperbahn of Hamburg, and his love affair with the German artist Astrid Kircherr.

I suppose there are two types of people who will watch this film: those who know little or nothing about the Beatles's time in Hamburg, and those who do. The former will probably enjoy the film for what it is; the latter will find it annoying. I am sorry to say that I am in the latter camp. There are so many historical inaccuracies that it is hardly worth listing them. The most annoying to me was the placing of the recording of "My Bonnie" before Stuart Suttcliffe had left the band. I thought that was totally unnecessary. Another inaccuracy is depicting Paul McCartney trying to kick Suttcliffe out of the band so that he could take over the bass. Also, the length of Astrid's hair is based on a self photograph of hers. Contemporary photographs show her with shoulder length hair.

As well as the Beatles themselves, who walk onstage and start to play without plugging their guitars in, the film also features the real life characters Astrid Kirchherr, Cynthia Powell Lennon and Klaus Voormann, who are named, and Bruno Koschmidder and Tony Sheridan, who are not.

Since John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe are dead, the film makers can imply that the pair had homosexual feelings for one another and not get sued.

The rest of the Beatles are reduced to one dimensional cutouts: the serious one, the quiet one, the cipher.

That's what the film got wrong. Let us see what the film got right.

When you look at an historical film - especially one that covers a period within living memory - one can find lots of anachronisms with the fashions of the time. Normally I will home in on half a dozen things that were not around in 1960/61. Not in this film. The shooting and direction - apart from the little melodrama at Sutcliffe's death - was good, and the scene where Sutcliffe spazzed out and threw red paint all over the bathroom was excellent, the red paint signifying blood, as though a murder had been committed.

But alas the scriptwriters were not up to the same standard as the wardrobe department, the cameramen, the musicians and the director, and I found titles of Beatles songs yet to be written, like "Hard Day's Night" and "Eight Days a Week," being worked into the script utterly ridiculous. What were the scriptwriters trying to do?

Finally we see the side to the Beatles that no one really knew - what happened before and what they were before. Stephen Dorff gives off another simply brilliant performance as Stuart - the man who could have been but never cared enough he was "Just along for a few laughs". Being a Beatles fan I've always been interested in their personal lives and this movie gets more personal than any documentary or news reel could. As to how true the events are I'm not sure but it was a definitely enjoyable movie.

What a good movie this could have been. The only reason it is interesting at at all is that there are no other movies covering this period in the Beatles history, but please. The historical inaccuracies alone just kill it. But worst of all they just don't sound anything like the Beatles. Just listen to the Cavern Club stuff on the Anthology DVD's and you will see what they sounded like just a year later. OK I know the Beatles had a ball in Hamburg, drugs, girls, etc but this is so far off the mark it's just silly. Lennon comes off as a complete dick head with no artistic qualities and Stu as some sort of genius while he could hardly play bass. Stu was about 5ft4in tall in real life but here he's as tall as Paul. This is one of those movies you can watch over and over because it plays like a TV movie of the week, but I always feel a little used afterward, this was really just a rip off and a money maker on the Beatles name. Oh and Stu was already out of the band when they recorded "My Bonnie".

This movie is the Beatle fan's worst nightmare: 1. Ian Hart doesn't resemble John Lennon 2. I don't believe that John had an affair with Astrid, he was in love with Cynthia at the time. 3. The movie showed the band going to Hamburg twice, neither of those visits involved Brian Esptein, who met them in Germany. 4. George Harrison, 17 at the time, looks about 25. 5. As you already may have noticed, the movie doesn't contain a single Lennon-McCartney composition. It also never portrayed the conflict of Rock 'n' Roll music: jazz music was still popular at the time. 6. In Hamburg, the audience was hard to please. In one club, the German audience threw chairs at them, in another, drunk men got on stage and took over the mike. 7. Also,Backbeat didn't quite capture John's abrasive behavior on stage. In the movie, neither of the band mates appeared drunk, nor did they swear/yell profanities at the audience; which is whatreally happened according to one biography on the Beatles.

A Hard Day's Night is much better. If you are looking for an accurate film, you've come to the wrong place, mate.

I won't attempt to cover the detail that so many others have simply to add. Sheryl plays Astrid very well, she implies the flavour of those early days of popular music very much in the raw. Not musically perfect or electronically sanitised but real thumping music for kids which they (and I was of that time albeit a little younger than the characters) loved. Remember there had been nothing like it before. Even Elvis's influence lacked the raw dark, smoky, sweaty feel of Hamburg, the Cavern Club and many venues that have disappeared from history. Astrid's art work through pictures captured the early feel of the Beatles and their lives/times like no other. When you look at those photos you can almost touch that slightly dangerous era.

The various films about the Beatles early years all contribute varying flavours of that time without individually capturing the whole and I would recommend Beatles/film buffs to look up and watch all versions.

Most of all the individuals.John was THE leader. Paul the workaholic perfectionist. George dedicated to improving his art while not taking any of it too seriously. Stuart doing his best for his friend John but inevitably his destiny (sadly abbreviated) was art. Pete was only transitional and Ringo who had already performed with them became an important factor. Tony Sheridan and others in Hamburg made important contributions and Brian Epstien was the final and very important cog.

Enjoy all of the films.

Honestly I expected much more of this film than what I got. As a dedicated Beatles fan I was appalled by what I was watching. First of all the script is clearly flawed, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies, among one of the things that enraged me was that they basically made Paul McCartney out to be the villain of the story when in fact that was the farthest thing from the truth. In fact John wasn't actually that upset when Stu told him he wanted to leave the band he was more upset with the fact that Stu was staying in Germany and not returning with them to Liverpool.

Another thing that didn't anger me, but annoyed the hell out of me was Stephen Dorff's awful Liverpudlian accent. It was just really annoying and it took me completely out of the story. No matter how much Dorff resembles Sutcliffe he is the worst choice to play this role. I don't believe that at the time he was an experienced actor that was prepared for a role as demanding as this one. The dialogue was pretty shoddy, apart from the stuff being uttered by Hart, Bakewell and O'Neill. Honestly every time Sheryl Lee and Stephen Dorff opened their mouths I wanted to puke. The love scenes were cheesy and dated. Also in real life Miss Kirchherr didn't even know a word of English and had to communicate with Stu and the rest of the lads with a dictionary. Wouldn't it had been easier for them to have hired an actual German actress who spoke English to play the role of Astrid rather than an American with a crappy German accent. Also the music being played is very punk rock, a genre and a style that didn't even exist back then. The producer of the film said "this was done to better convey the way the music came across to the audience, at the time", well as "wonderful" as an idea as that is, what it does is to confuse and annoy the audience especially real Beatle fans like myself that have seen footage of the real Beatles performing classics like Long Tall Sally which was by the way massacred in this film. Another thing, the whole movie sells it self as the story of Stu Sutcliffe, the Beatle that could have been. Honestly who cares? What people want to see going in to this film is John Lennon, or Paul McCartney or even George Harrison, or poor Ringo, who doesn't even have lines in this movie he's in it for less than a minute and he's lying on a bed sleeping for the entire two seconds he's on the screen. Could it have hurt the producers to give the poor guy a line or two if merely for the fans' sake, also Ringo was one of their closest friends in Hamburg and even played a few gigs with the Beatles themselves when Pete Best didn't show up to some gigs, which was actually quite often. So it wasn't like they were going to stretch the truth if they gave the actor playing Ringo a bigger role. But no instead they write more crappy love scenes between Dorff and Lee who barely have any chemistry. Poor Astrid Kirchherr, she is portrayed in this movie as a lovesick, slutty harpy who tore Stu and John apart. She was actually very close to all the Beatles even Paul, who had his differences with Stu.

It would have been more interesting (and better) if the film focused not only on Stu, but on all the Beatles and presented the growing problems with the band, like Pete Best's absence and his lack of interest, or the songwriting partnership between John and Paul and the fight for leadership, or George's frustration as the youngest member of the band, or their growing friendship with Ringo.

But not all is bad, there are some good things though not many. Ian Hart is absolutely fabulous as John Lennon, if there is one person who can completely embody the icon it's him. He delivers the lines so well that it feels like he's improvising some of the stuff, and who knows maybe he did. Gary Bakewell looks and acts like a young cocky Paul McCartney and does what he can with what is given to him. He's written like a villain, even though for most of the film we actually agree with him but that's also due to the fact that the writers in trying to make Sutcliffe interesting and sympathetic due the exact opposite, he's just an annoyance and as soon as he's on the screen you want him to go away. Scot Williams and Chris O'Neill also do a pretty good job with the little they're given. Lee's accent is atrocious as is Dorff's and that pretty much messes their whole performances. Jennifer Ehle is passable as Cynthia

No wonder the real Cynthia Lennon was upset when this film came out, she's portrayed as a pathetic melodramatic woman. It's not Ehle's fault though it's more the writers and director's fault. I don't even know what kind of pathetic research Ian Softley did when he wrote the script and made this movie, but obviously he should of done more.

The ending is sappy and melodramatic, but what do you expect from such a cheesy and historically inaccurate biopic.

It's difficult to come up with the superlatives enough to describe a film such as "Backbeat"; a film that grabbed me from the first moment I saw it and has never let go. It is a film that has everything, from great acting, great music and great dialogue, right down to the underpinning love story between John, Astrid and Stuart. Ian Hart is a revelation as Lennon, which detracts the attention from equally superb performances from Stephen Dorff and Sheryll Lee. Certainly Dorff has not bettered his performance in this since. If you haven't seen this film, and whether you have or have not any interest in the Beatles, then get it on video or DVD now. 10/10.

Softley's 'Backbeat' is my favorite movie I've ever seen. I'm a huge Beatles fan and I've watched many biographical films about The Fab Four like 'Birth of Beatles' for example, and I must admit that this production from 1993 is the best of them all. This picture shows us the Hamburg's episode (early 60s) of Beatles career and it concentrates on relationship between John Lennon (fantastic play by Ian Hart) and Stuart Sutcliffe (aka The Lost Beatle). Lots of laughs, lots of tears and above all - great music ! A must seen for Beatles fans.

I grew up on the Beatles' music and was therefore delighted to see this captivating biopic about their early days in Hamburg, with Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums) still onboard, in the days even before they fashioned their hair into mopheads and long before Lennon told his aristocratic audience to rattle their jewels. The plot focuses on Stuart Sutcliffe and his relationship with John Lennon. In a way, the movie shows us the Beatles as most of us do NOT know them -- the setting is neither London nor NYC (Liverpool plays a relatively minor role), they're not being chased by hordes of screaming teenagers, their drugs are still beer and tabs (and some amphetamines); most of all, they're still a rock 'n' roll band trying to break through.

That's actually one of the movie's biggest assets: it manages to convincingly show the group as a kickass rock band, although they're playing covers of US-American hits for the most part. The actors playing Lennon, Harrison and McCartney are surprisingly convincing.

Some fans have criticised the movie for being inaccurate, because, for example, John's later wife Cynthia is shown as a homely girl with a scarf, whereas she stated that she didn't like wearing scarfs. And I'd say it's true that Stephen Dorff's portrayal of Sutcliffe is too aggressive, histrionic, over the top (in scene, for example, he needlessly attacks the Klaus Voormann character in a way that would probably get him an extended stretch for attempted manslaughter in the real world). But as long as you keep in mind that this is not a documentary, the average non-stickler fan should be more than happy with this fare.

Riding a voracious roller-coaster and watching Ian Softley's "Backbeat" could be considered one in the same. From the excitement of the opening credits, to the lackluster conversations between infamous Beatle John Lennon and former-band member Stuart Sutcliffe in Liverpool, to the empowering nights of playing music in Hamburg, to the cliché drama over a girl named Astrid, to the emotional true formation of the Beatles, this film should have a subtext that it could, if viewed in one sitting, cause stomach butterflies or cramps. With Softley's eye, the audience is strapped in tightly as "Backbeat" goes up and down, left and right, in and out of darkness, and in the end all you are left with is a perturbed expression captured on an invisible camera. One must ask the question, is this film about the choices of Sutcliffe, or is it just another chapter about the Beatles and their rise to popularity?

With equal screen time being shared between crucial friendship Lennon and Sutcliffe, the argument can be set that Softley struggles with who to allow the camera to capture, the charismatic Ian Hart (giving us a fresh face to Mr. Lennon), or the subdue and forced accent of Stephen Dorff playing Sutcliffe. For this critic, an entire film based off Hart's performance, or seen through Hart's Lennon's eyes would have been sheer icing on Softley's cake, but since we were forced to stifle through Dorff's performance – we are stuck with him, and where this film ultimately suffered. What makes this roller-coaster worth perhaps riding a second time is Softley's ability to cast stronger secondary characters that seem more viewable than our front and center players. Gary Bakewell's McCartney is perfection, while O'Neill, Williams, and whoever played Astrid's original lover were complete eye-candy. Each actor grew their characters further than the page, and used this film as a showcase for their talent. "Backbeat" is worth the rental for the sheer background characters alone, and for Hart's John Lennon, but our central characters, Sutcliffe and Astrid, seemed cliché-ly perfect, too instantaneous in love, and at times purely fake. What forces me to say this are the scenes that the two (Dorff and Lee) share together. While the art they create is full of passion, the chemistry that they share is not. Softley is too generous with these two – giving us no reality to base them in. While the 60s were carefree in nature, where does Astrid stumble upon the castle in which she lives? Money seems of no concern, and it is confusing (with no pre-story) how easily Sutcliffe can give up his best friend's band and the random disasters that can be caused at German limbo parties. If this were a true story of simply Sutcliffe, than we would have followed his eyes, intermixed with the Beatles as a cameo, and really seen his artwork. It isn't until the final act of this film that his artwork gets any recognition, which again makes it difficult to understand Sutcliffe's tangent rational.

Enough with the negative; what was engrossing about this film? "Backbeat", while playing to typical biopic clichés, still maintained a level of entertainment. The songs would walk in and catch your toes tapping along. Softley used American songs to give the Beatles that sense of "cool" as well as to demonstrate how well they performed on stage. Their energy, both the actual Beatles, as well as Ian Hart and his group had enough energy for anyone watching this film. They were charismatic, exciting, and destined to be stars. This was obvious from the beginning, the Beatles did it all themselves by performing eight days a week, with little to no food or sleep. They captured the essence of "grunge". For me, that was enough to continue with this film from beginning to end. Sutcliffe's artwork, because it was so thinly used in the film, was exciting to see as well. The same can be said for Astrid's photography. The Beatles' art (both music and printed) was brilliant, these characters were brilliant in their lives, but I just felt like Softley dumb-ed them down for audiences. The final act was pure rubbish, again with the opportunity to see Sutcliffe do his work – yet limbo miserably, that it nearly sours the remaining moments of this film. Outside of the story, flawed as it was, Softley and his cinematographer should be fully credited for the roller-coaster sensation felt throughout the film. There would be this great scene of Astrid looking at the band that would steal your breath, and then we would jump to the band – in what felt like a different filming ratio, and then back to Astrid. It felt like the audience was saying, "Ohhh … urgggg …. Ohhhh".

Overall, "Backbeat" was an entertaining film, in fact, it stands above the mediocre level of entertainment to say that I could view this movie a second time – but it would be with much argument and comments through the peanut gallery throughout. The music stands out, Softley defines the time perfectly (almost as if anyone who could carry a tune could swoon those German women), but he cannot define his characters. This is a biopic, in the short sense of the word, about Stuart Sutcliffe, yet the audience watches nearly equal screen time between he and John Lennon. While I agree Lennon's influence on Sutcliffe and their friendship is worth the film reel it is printed on, I do not believe it fully grasps the art and lifestyle that Sutcliffe embodied. With a hodgepodge of beautiful scenes, why couldn't Softley use that tricky camera work to define Sutcliffe's art – to make his art the second main character? "Backbeat" was an entertaining two hours, but not worth a second repeat.

Grade: *** out of *****

Well, what a great surprise this midday movie turned out to be! I'd never heard of it & didn't surprise its title had anything to do with lyrics of the Chuck Berry "Rock & Roll Music" hit that the Beatles subsequently had a hit with. As a Beatles fan from my childhood days when they were thrust into the world spotlight virtually overnight, this gives an invaluable insight into the days of Beatles' youth, when they were unheralded imports to Hamburg nightclubs where they worked long hours for little rewards, along with others of the "Merseybeat" "British invasion" about to conquer the pop charts all over Britain, Australia and the United States.

I notice some comments suggesting historical inaccuracies but "Backbeat" has plenty going for it. The drama between Stu (who was destined to be a 'forgotten Beatle' and John Lennon was intriguing, so too Stu and their photographer friend Astrid.

As far as the comment about it not being as good as "Hard Day's Night" I would agree with. Nothing could compare with the raw energy of these euphoric real-life Beatles skits of exuberance & mischievous innocent frivolity that complemented their insightful and often profound lyrics and catchy tunes. Though I would suggest "Backbeat" would run rings around the Beatles' subsequent movie "Help" which was pathetically ridiculous when recently viewed, but for their musical hits.

Don't let harsh critics turn you off this! "Backbeat" offers much more than any criticism that might be leveled at it!

I really enjoyed this film, I do however doubt that i would have enjoyed it as much if it hadn't been for the absoloutely storming soundtrack made up of Fifties covers which you believe would have been played by the Beatles at that stage in their careers. Add to that the fact that the Band used to create the sound of the Beatles consisted of some of the leading musicians of the 90's. They bring their own interpretation to the music just as you believe the Beatles would have done, The only exception to this is the Drum beat which tends to sound more like the 90's than the 60's that being said it does make it more accessable to a contemporary audience.

Now as for the actual film itself, It was built on an interesting story about Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennons best friend, Choosing between music and Art, the latter enevitably wins out with the help of Astrid. Much of the story is of a Tug Of war between John lennon trying to keep him involved in the music and Astrid who sees his artistic potential. It's a story that has been played over and over again but is refreshed in the context of surrounding characters that you feel you already know.

The Characteristically funny Lennon, Business like McCartney, Shy Harrison all come across very comfortably. But they are merely bit characters as this film is more about the choices of sutcliffe than it is about the fab four.