Birth of the Beatles

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.

I haven't really paid attention to the accuracy but I did pay attention to the acting. As far as I'm concerned, each actor had the mannerisms of their respective characters down. I thought it was an energetic film and I enjoyed it even though I only saw it twice, 44 years apart! Stephen MacKenna did a brilliant job as John Lennon and I thought the film pointed out key elements of their time together before their fame. Costumes were great. Definitely one of the better musical biographies I've seen. The film really does a great job of showing their beginnings and how hard they worked and basically that they paid their dues.

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.

"Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world. As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best. The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney. The film was produced by a legend of the Rock and Roll era,Mr Dick Clark. Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS". That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing". The same can be said for the director of the "Birth of the Beatles", Mr Richard Marquand. He went on to direct other theatrical blockbusters such as "Star Wars Return of the Jedi","Eye of the Needle",and "Jagged Edge" among many. The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994. However, the critics did not care for it,nor did the public, for it did not have a long life span in the theater. Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. I highly recommend this film.

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.