User reviews

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.

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.

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!

For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now. The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.

I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job). Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.

So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate.

"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.

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). >

Those picking out the historical inaccuracies the film is undoubtedly littered with, seem to be missing the point. You will not pass a Beatles exam if you use this film as your primary source of information. But what you will be, is entertained by a film that manages to capture the essence of what made The Beatles so captivating. As well as their music, the public were mesmerized by the interaction between them, almost as though they had created their very own language. They invented and shared a sense of humour that no outsider could penetrate. The film manages to get this across, this to the point where the many factual errors no longer matter.

It is rather a giveaway when a reviewer is from the US, when they describe the accents in the film as 'spot on'. Those from the UK will notice straight away that Stephen MacKenna sports a broad Yorkshire accent, making no attempt at emulating John's distinctive Liverpool accent - Yet, despite this, Mackenna gives us the best portrayal of John Lennon ever committed to screen; His mannerisms, his demeanor, are uncanny and it is a travesty that he has not been recognised for the brilliant job he did.

The rest of the cast are brilliant too, and it is they who lift the film from being an error-ridden waste of time, to a joyous ride.

David Wilkinson as Sutcliffe and Ryan Michael as Pete Best, are two good looking actors, the latter of whom was rather a flattering choice for the average looking drummer.

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.

In my Opinion this is one of the better films about the Beatles. I know some arty types prefer Backbeat but I feel that this movie captures the Beatles more accurately. I don't mean everything about the film is accurate but they capture the personality, talent and spirit of four young Liverpool lads who became the Beatles.

Stephen MacKenna is outstanding as John and the other actors do passable impersonations of the others. Brian Jameson is good as Brian Epstein and Nigel Havers is brilliant as George Martin.

On stage they look and act like the Beatles and there is enough music to keep fans happy, remembering that this is the early days before they hit it really big.

So for genuine Beatles fans this is a movie well worth seeing.

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.