sweetlittlepie
Honestly I expected much more of this film than what I got. As a dedicated Beatles fan I was appalled by what I was watching. First of all the script is clearly flawed, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies, among one of the things that enraged me was that they basically made Paul McCartney out to be the villain of the story when in fact that was the farthest thing from the truth. In fact John wasn't actually that upset when Stu told him he wanted to leave the band he was more upset with the fact that Stu was staying in Germany and not returning with them to Liverpool. Another thing that didn't anger me, but annoyed the hell out of me was Stephen Dorff's awful Liverpudlian accent. It was just really annoying and it took me completely out of the story. No matter how much Dorff resembles Sutcliffe he is the worst choice to play this role. I don't believe that at the time he was an experienced actor that was prepared for a role as demanding as this one. The dialogue was pretty shoddy, apart from the stuff being uttered by Hart, Bakewell and O'Neill. Honestly every time Sheryl Lee and Stephen Dorff opened their mouths I wanted to puke. The love scenes were cheesy and dated. Also in real life Miss Kirchherr didn't even know a word of English and had to communicate with Stu and the rest of the lads with a dictionary. Wouldn't it had been easier for them to have hired an actual German actress who spoke English to play the role of Astrid rather than an American with a crappy German accent. Also the music being played is very punk rock, a genre and a style that didn't even exist back then. The producer of the film said "this was done to better convey the way the music came across to the audience, at the time", well as "wonderful" as an idea as that is, what it does is to confuse and annoy the audience especially real Beatle fans like myself that have seen footage of the real Beatles performing classics like Long Tall Sally which was by the way massacred in this film. Another thing, the whole movie sells it self as the story of Stu Sutcliffe, the Beatle that could have been. Honestly who cares? What people want to see going in to this film is John Lennon, or Paul McCartney or even George Harrison, or poor Ringo, who doesn't even have lines in this movie he's in it for less than a minute and he's lying on a bed sleeping for the entire two seconds he's on the screen. Could it have hurt the producers to give the poor guy a line or two if merely for the fans' sake, also Ringo was one of their closest friends in Hamburg and even played a few gigs with the Beatles themselves when Pete Best didn't show up to some gigs, which was actually quite often. So it wasn't like they were going to stretch the truth if they gave the actor playing Ringo a bigger role. But no instead they write more crappy love scenes between Dorff and Lee who barely have any chemistry. Poor Astrid Kirchherr, she is portrayed in this movie as a lovesick, slutty harpy who tore Stu and John apart. She was actually very close to all the Beatles even Paul, who had his differences with Stu.It would have been more interesting (and better) if the film focused not only on Stu, but on all the Beatles and presented the growing problems with the band, like Pete Best's absence and his lack of interest, or the songwriting partnership between John and Paul and the fight for leadership, or George's frustration as the youngest member of the band, or their growing friendship with Ringo. But not all is bad, there are some good things though not many. Ian Hart is absolutely fabulous as John Lennon, if there is one person who can completely embody the icon it's him. He delivers the lines so well that it feels like he's improvising some of the stuff, and who knows maybe he did. Gary Bakewell looks and acts like a young cocky Paul McCartney and does what he can with what is given to him. He's written like a villain, even though for most of the film we actually agree with him but that's also due to the fact that the writers in trying to make Sutcliffe interesting and sympathetic due the exact opposite, he's just an annoyance and as soon as he's on the screen you want him to go away. Scot Williams and Chris O'Neill also do a pretty good job with the little they're given. Lee's accent is atrocious as is Dorff's and that pretty much messes their whole performances. Jennifer Ehle is passable as Cynthia No wonder the real Cynthia Lennon was upset when this film came out, she's portrayed as a pathetic melodramatic woman. It's not Ehle's fault though it's more the writers and director's fault. I don't even know what kind of pathetic research Ian Softley did when he wrote the script and made this movie, but obviously he should of done more. The ending is sappy and melodramatic, but what do you expect from such a cheesy and historically inaccurate biopic.
Andy (film-critic)
Riding a voracious roller-coaster and watching Ian Softley's "Backbeat" could be considered one in the same. From the excitement of the opening credits, to the lackluster conversations between infamous Beatle John Lennon and former-band member Stuart Sutcliffe in Liverpool, to the empowering nights of playing music in Hamburg, to the cliché drama over a girl named Astrid, to the emotional true formation of the Beatles, this film should have a subtext that it could, if viewed in one sitting, cause stomach butterflies or cramps. With Softley's eye, the audience is strapped in tightly as "Backbeat" goes up and down, left and right, in and out of darkness, and in the end all you are left with is a perturbed expression captured on an invisible camera. One must ask the question, is this film about the choices of Sutcliffe, or is it just another chapter about the Beatles and their rise to popularity?With equal screen time being shared between crucial friendship Lennon and Sutcliffe, the argument can be set that Softley struggles with who to allow the camera to capture, the charismatic Ian Hart (giving us a fresh face to Mr. Lennon), or the subdue and forced accent of Stephen Dorff playing Sutcliffe. For this critic, an entire film based off Hart's performance, or seen through Hart's Lennon's eyes would have been sheer icing on Softley's cake, but since we were forced to stifle through Dorff's performance – we are stuck with him, and where this film ultimately suffered. What makes this roller-coaster worth perhaps riding a second time is Softley's ability to cast stronger secondary characters that seem more viewable than our front and center players. Gary Bakewell's McCartney is perfection, while O'Neill, Williams, and whoever played Astrid's original lover were complete eye-candy. Each actor grew their characters further than the page, and used this film as a showcase for their talent. "Backbeat" is worth the rental for the sheer background characters alone, and for Hart's John Lennon, but our central characters, Sutcliffe and Astrid, seemed cliché-ly perfect, too instantaneous in love, and at times purely fake. What forces me to say this are the scenes that the two (Dorff and Lee) share together. While the art they create is full of passion, the chemistry that they share is not. Softley is too generous with these two – giving us no reality to base them in. While the 60s were carefree in nature, where does Astrid stumble upon the castle in which she lives? Money seems of no concern, and it is confusing (with no pre-story) how easily Sutcliffe can give up his best friend's band and the random disasters that can be caused at German limbo parties. If this were a true story of simply Sutcliffe, than we would have followed his eyes, intermixed with the Beatles as a cameo, and really seen his artwork. It isn't until the final act of this film that his artwork gets any recognition, which again makes it difficult to understand Sutcliffe's tangent rational.Enough with the negative; what was engrossing about this film? "Backbeat", while playing to typical biopic clichés, still maintained a level of entertainment. The songs would walk in and catch your toes tapping along. Softley used American songs to give the Beatles that sense of "cool" as well as to demonstrate how well they performed on stage. Their energy, both the actual Beatles, as well as Ian Hart and his group had enough energy for anyone watching this film. They were charismatic, exciting, and destined to be stars. This was obvious from the beginning, the Beatles did it all themselves by performing eight days a week, with little to no food or sleep. They captured the essence of "grunge". For me, that was enough to continue with this film from beginning to end. Sutcliffe's artwork, because it was so thinly used in the film, was exciting to see as well. The same can be said for Astrid's photography. The Beatles' art (both music and printed) was brilliant, these characters were brilliant in their lives, but I just felt like Softley dumb-ed them down for audiences. The final act was pure rubbish, again with the opportunity to see Sutcliffe do his work – yet limbo miserably, that it nearly sours the remaining moments of this film. Outside of the story, flawed as it was, Softley and his cinematographer should be fully credited for the roller-coaster sensation felt throughout the film. There would be this great scene of Astrid looking at the band that would steal your breath, and then we would jump to the band – in what felt like a different filming ratio, and then back to Astrid. It felt like the audience was saying, "Ohhh … urgggg …. Ohhhh".Overall, "Backbeat" was an entertaining film, in fact, it stands above the mediocre level of entertainment to say that I could view this movie a second time – but it would be with much argument and comments through the peanut gallery throughout. The music stands out, Softley defines the time perfectly (almost as if anyone who could carry a tune could swoon those German women), but he cannot define his characters. This is a biopic, in the short sense of the word, about Stuart Sutcliffe, yet the audience watches nearly equal screen time between he and John Lennon. While I agree Lennon's influence on Sutcliffe and their friendship is worth the film reel it is printed on, I do not believe it fully grasps the art and lifestyle that Sutcliffe embodied. With a hodgepodge of beautiful scenes, why couldn't Softley use that tricky camera work to define Sutcliffe's art – to make his art the second main character? "Backbeat" was an entertaining two hours, but not worth a second repeat.Grade: *** out of *****
crbowles
I really enjoyed this film, I do however doubt that i would have enjoyed it as much if it hadn't been for the absoloutely storming soundtrack made up of Fifties covers which you believe would have been played by the Beatles at that stage in their careers. Add to that the fact that the Band used to create the sound of the Beatles consisted of some of the leading musicians of the 90's. They bring their own interpretation to the music just as you believe the Beatles would have done, The only exception to this is the Drum beat which tends to sound more like the 90's than the 60's that being said it does make it more accessable to a contemporary audience.Now as for the actual film itself, It was built on an interesting story about Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennons best friend, Choosing between music and Art, the latter enevitably wins out with the help of Astrid. Much of the story is of a Tug Of war between John lennon trying to keep him involved in the music and Astrid who sees his artistic potential. It's a story that has been played over and over again but is refreshed in the context of surrounding characters that you feel you already know.The Characteristically funny Lennon, Business like McCartney, Shy Harrison all come across very comfortably. But they are merely bit characters as this film is more about the choices of sutcliffe than it is about the fab four.
