Give My Regards to Broad Street

A movie for two kinds of people:

(1) Avid admirers of the undeniably talented Paul McCartney who are interested in watching their hero branch out into startling new directions (acting, screenwriting), as well as to see and hear him perform one of his best songs from the 80s (the lovely "No More Lonely Nights") and offer fresh reinterpretations of his many hits (including a version of "Here, There, and Everywhere" that may be superior to the much loved rendition that appears on the Beatles' "Revolver" lp); and

(2) Those who take a mean-spirited pleasure in seeing one of the high and mighty fall, quite spectacularly, on his face. The stench from a dozen bad Elvis movies could not hope to compete with the travesty that is this film. But then Elvis had the good sense not to write his own screenplays. Then again, there really isn't a screenplay here at all, only a credit for one given to Mr. McCartney. That, it seems, is the problem. The cast, including Ringo Starr, just stand in front of the camera with nothing to do. Only when McCartney is performing does this egomaniacal enterprise show any competence or even signs of life. Next to this, "Magical Mystery Tour" is the classic that Mr. Mac seems to think it is.

I'm not going to review the film per se because so many have done that. I want to explore Sir Paul's motivations for making this film. He said on the Tonite Show that he had had his season of mania with the Fab Four and wanted to explore something different. At the time he's a father of four and lives a full but more sane lifestyle. I don't care if you're a nobody or a famous entertainer, everybody gets the jitters when putting themselves out there with something new. It's a frightening proposition. I acted in a movie that made the Tribeca Film Festival and went on to Netflix. Critics were not very kind to us and for my part there was only one critic that wrote _the movie would then cut to pointless scenes with the father of the protagonist_ At least it wasn't personal! The slings and arrows hurt Sir Paul as much as they hurt me.

People complain that it's not so much a movie as it is an extended music video, it has no arc and has disjointed scenes (possibly the same critics that gave _HELP_ rave reviews.) Approach it like that, as a fan of Sir Paul. The Eleanor Rigby scene in the theater was wonderful I thought. Expect it to be just an extended music video with Ringo and Paul dressed in period costume rowing down a river for no logical reason. And give him some grace and kudos for putting himself out there. I did, and as a Beatles fan growing up in the 60's I enjoyed it. I didn't love it, but I did enjoy it.

If you're a McCartney fan, it's the equivalent of a hour and a half music video. No real plot. Silly dialogue.

It's essentially a self indulgent effort. Much in the same line as Magical Mystery Tour. Not as creepy, but not as inventive either.

But I saw it in HD at home last night and the soundtrack was certainly worth it.

EXCELLENT sound.

So if you would like to see what is essentially a McCartney / Beatles Video starring Paul and Ringo, this is right up you're alley.

Some minor parts as well may have some interest to fans.

Again, if you're not a McCartney fan, then you'd probably skip this one.

If you are, and can get it with full sound, then do it.

If you're a big enough fan of Paul McCartney's to get past the fact that there's not too much to the plot, I would recommend for you to see it. The music is fantastic (he even kept the classics such as Eleanor Rigby, Here, There, And Everywhere, and The Long and Winding Road) and it's also just a fun little movie to watch if you're in a good mood. It's certainly not the greatest thing our Paul has ever done, but it not the worst either (Yeah, remember the Magical Mystery Tour same story: good music, bad plot). I give it a 7/10.

While watching this movie, I couldn't help but wonder just how much pot Macca was smoking at the time. How else could one explain the otherwise inexplicable '80s Eurotrash kitsch of "Silly Love Songs," or the "Eleanor Rigby" sequence?

Although ostensibly directed by Peter Webb, rumor has it that Paul actually took full control of the film early on, and the lack of directorial experience shows (rather painfully). Paul is credited with writing the script (such as it is), which seems to have been composed on a napkin or on the back of an envelope.

The "plot," or rather "dramatic scenario," (if it can even be dignified as such) seems to be something of an echo from the equally flimsy premise of "A Hard Day's Night," in that the protagonist(s) (Paul or The Beatles) are shown romping around a TV or film studio of some sort, constantly passing by costumed actors and extras, the whole thing serving as merely an excuse to perform their songs. I suppose one could claim that the setting in both films could be interpreted as a commentary on the "artifice" and theatricality of showbiz, or some other such pretentious mush. But where "A Hard Day's Night" overcame its lack of plot and low budget with the raw enthusiasm, charm, and sly humor of the Beatles in 1964, the 1984 Paul possesses none of these qualities, instead content to waltz around gaudily decorated, overblown sets in a kind of dope-fueled haze. Paul, and everybody else in the film, including Tracey Ullman, Ringo, Paul's wife Linda, Ringo's wife Barbara Bach, and Beatles producer George Martin seem bored silly, as if they can't wait for the shoot to be over. The film is supposed to be a "dream within a dream," and they certainly act as if they're sleepwalking through it!

Ah, well--at least you can get a nice hit of trashy, kitschy '80s nostalgia from it.