catesa I'll give this movie a 4 just on the basis that it's better than "Backbeat" (90's art-film hogwash about the bromance between John and Stu), and it gets a little bit of a pass for being the first movie to really tackle the beginnings of The Beatles.BUT! There are still plenty of things about it that make my skin crawl. The actors look ten+ years older than the 20 year-old Beatles they're playing. Especially in the early scenes the guys are treated like wacky cartoon characters; sweet, goofy, ambitious young men with a dream in their hearts! In reality, the post-Hamburg, pre-Epstein Beatles were raunchy, groupie-screwing, foul-mouthed, drunken lunatics, Lennon especially. I feel like this movie kinda makes them out to be boy scouts (but again, in 1979, the full extent of their hedonism probably was still pretty unknown). Like a lot of other reviews have stated, Pete Best was the main historical consultant on this, so all the circumstances around his sacking should be taken with a grain of salt (listen to a pre-Ringo recording of The Beatles - Pete straight sucked at drums).I've said this about "Backbeat" too, but it should be noted that The Beatles were pretty notoriously terrible before they shipped off to Hamburg. I know they only had so much time to cram in a lot of info, but the film shows very little musical growth; we just have to pretend that they were amazing from the beginning.Other things: in addition to a very polished, 1964-sounding Beatles on stage in Hamburg, there's also an overwhelmingly syrupy, dramatic-sounding score all over everything. They have Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison being a lot nicer to Pete and Stu than they allegedly were in real life (they gave Stu endless grief for being a crappy musician, and couldn't stand Pete Best's moody "bad boy" BS). Like in "Backbeat", Allan Williams, their first manager, is completely absent from the film. Brian Epstein is treated like a sensitive little toddler rather than the extravagant, genius businessman he was.I dunno, I always think the main issue with these Beatle movies is that the writers never actually know enough about The Beatles to accurately capture everyone's personality/the history. This is like watching...well, a mediocre TV movie. It makes the most badass rock band of all time look like they belong in a stupid after-school special. I recommend "Nowhere Boy" or "The Beatles Anthology," but this one's okay I guess, especially for how old it is.

mnkim As mentioned by other reviewers there are a host of inaccuracies within this version of the Beatles early days, and yet. There is something genuinely enjoyable about this film. Just for once the character of John's humour is clearly in evidence. Too many early "Beatles" films show John as the angry young man always shouting and being nasty/violent. While that may have been a facet of his character this simply does not equate with the comments of Tony Sheridan and some other people from those Hamburg days. They talk about Johns magnetic personality. How everyone wanted to be with John, to sit next to him. This simply would not have happened if all he had was anger and aggression. Another aspect to the film is the banter between group members and again the quick fire humour. So while not a good film about a great group I would urge film buffs and especially Beatles fans to view this take to avoid getting a one sided view of early Beatles life.

David Love 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.

genesisj 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). >