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've been a Beatles fan for most of my life. Grew up 30 miles from Liverpool a few years later than the boys did. So I could be mean and point out some of the liberties the filmmakers took here. But all in all this isn't bad. The actors are easily recognisable as their characters and the accents aren't too far off. The major players in the Beatles story are all there, and the settings (Liverpool, Hamburg) evoke the era and are believable. The songs come over really well - sounds like Rain were a decent band in their own right. The larking about on stage is also captured perfectly. But Astrid looks a little too much like Anne Robinson (and not blonde enough) for my liking - she even winks at one point!

The early relationship between Brian Epstein and the Beatles seemed very real. Well, Pete Best was there at the time and, as an adviser, should have helped them to get it right. He obviously believes (to this day) that there was a long-running conspiracy to replace him with Ringo. And I think he's right.

I think my favourite cameo in the film is Nigel Havers as George Martin. The posh tall classically trained English gent, running a comedy label as part of EMI, was the only record executive to recognise the unique talent that changed popular music for ever.

Good job, lads.

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). >

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.

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.