Birth of the Beatles

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.

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.

As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). >

Of course, this movie is hilariously inaccurate, but when I first viewed it I was 14 and knew nothing of The Beatles. I thought it was cool then and I still like the look of the film. The music is also fun to hear. So, find your Beatles history elsewhere; just sit back and enjoy.

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!