Backbeat (1994)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Beautiful, moving film.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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.

This is a film above all about the triangular relationship between John Lennon, Stuart Sutcliffe, and Astrid Kirchherr (four-sided if you include Astrid's boyfriend Klaus Voormann, five-sided if you include the band John and Stu were members of: the Beatles) -- a film about real events, about love and life and tragedy -- played out to a backdrop of the Beatles' visits to Hamburg and their performances there.Based primarily on interviews with Stuart's mother and sister and with Astrid Kirchherr, it's been often criticised as a 'crude caricature', for its factual inaccuracies about the Beatles' time in Hamburg, about the musical performances portrayed, for the one-dimensional portrayal of the "minor" characters, including Paul, George, Pete and John's girlfriend Cynthia, and even for the fact that the actors aren't exact doppelgangers for the characters they portray (they're pretty good likenesses, though).I can accept all these criticisms, but somewhat to my surprise they didn't spoil the film at all for me. If you want detailed accuracy about the Beatles, this is not for you. Read the books. But if you want to see a film which tells a good story well, and which will give you a real feel for the vibes of the time and for the characters it claims to portray, and an insight into one important aspect of the early history of the Beatles, I think you will enjoy this. I thought I wouldn't, but I did. And I will watch it again. And, did I say? it's about the Beatles.This is not a biopic, nor does it pretend to be, but it does claim to tell the story of Stu and Astrid, and I thought it did that very well. I don't object at all to the use of some artistic licence, such as Astrid's excellent English. Contrary to some other reviewers, I found the portrayal of the quiet, enigmatic Stu by Stephen Dorff quite excellent, a perfect foil to the bitter, sometimes thoughtful, and wholly charismatic John Lennon, portrayed just as well by Ian Hart.I first heard the Beatles just before their first British record "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in Autumn 1962. This film portrays events mostly more than a year before then, and even longer before their last stint in Hamburg, at the Star-Club in December 1962, the subject of a famous amateur recording. Apart from the Polydor recordings by Bert Kampfaert, we have little to judge objectively what the band sounded like in 1960-61, but judging from the 1962 live recordings, and the comments of those who heard them before they were famous, I'm quite prepared to believe the Beatles sounded then very much like the band used for the soundtrack to this film. OK, the band aren't the Beatles, and some of the details are a bit askew, but the rock-and-roll standards portrayed were all part of the Beatles' act, and are performed much as they performed them. Everyone tells how Stu Sutcliffe often played turning away from the audience, as often seen in the film. It's hardly a realistic portrayal of the Hamburg clubs on the Reeperbahn in the early 1960s, but I've seen worse, and if you have little idea what life was like for the band before 1962, this will not be a bad introduction.Comparisons with "A Hard Day's Night" are ingenuous: that was a film made by the Beatles early in 1964 after they were famous (in Britain at least); this is a film about the band when they were teenagers, before pretty much anyone knew them outside Liverpool and Hamburg. Not the same at all. And of course, they didn't sound back then like the Beatles' later recordings, or even like they did on their tours of the US and elsewhere. Perhaps the only recording you can really compare is their first album "Please Please Me" (and the live Star-Club recording, if you have it).It's a film, for goodness' sake. I enjoyed it as one, and I hope you do too. The characters rang true, especially Ian Hart as John Lennon, and the story is well worth telling, and well worth watching. And, did I say? it's about the Beatles.

Well, what a great surprise this midday movie turned out to be! I'd never heard of it & didn't surprise its title had anything to do with lyrics of the Chuck Berry "Rock & Roll Music" hit that the Beatles subsequently had a hit with. As a Beatles fan from my childhood days when they were thrust into the world spotlight virtually overnight, this gives an invaluable insight into the days of Beatles' youth, when they were unheralded imports to Hamburg nightclubs where they worked long hours for little rewards, along with others of the "Merseybeat" "British invasion" about to conquer the pop charts all over Britain, Australia and the United States.I notice some comments suggesting historical inaccuracies but "Backbeat" has plenty going for it. The drama between Stu (who was destined to be a 'forgotten Beatle' and John Lennon was intriguing, so too Stu and their photographer friend Astrid.As far as the comment about it not being as good as "Hard Day's Night" I would agree with. Nothing could compare with the raw energy of these euphoric real-life Beatles skits of exuberance & mischievous innocent frivolity that complemented their insightful and often profound lyrics and catchy tunes. Though I would suggest "Backbeat" would run rings around the Beatles' subsequent movie "Help" which was pathetically ridiculous when recently viewed, but for their musical hits.Don't let harsh critics turn you off this! "Backbeat" offers much more than any criticism that might be leveled at it!

Back in the Sixties when I was a mere teenager I read some of the stories about the Beatles and the background they came from. I knew of Stuart Sutcliffe and his story only months before the Beatles came into the consciousness of America.But until I saw Backbeat I did not KNOW Stuart Sutcliffe and the curious triangular relationship with John Lennon and German photographer Astrid Kirschner. Seeing Backbeat I do feel I was transported back to Liverpool and Hamburg of the early sixties and the origins of what became the Beatles.Sutcliffe was a good friend of John Lennon who was part of the group he and Paul McCartney put together back in the days when they were searching for an image and a sound. Sutcliffe had his own ambitions however, he was a talented artist. He also had an irreversible brain tumor and a guaranteed limited time on earth.I think that Stephen Dorff's background from a musical family no doubt helped in portraying Stuart Sutcliffe. I had seen Dorff previously in The Power of One and was amazed at his uncanny ability to get an Afrikanse accent right in a South African story. He does similarly here with not a British accent, but a Liverpudlian one. He certainly got no complaints from white South Africans or Liverpudlians for either film. He's got the best ear for speech patterns this side of Robert Mitchum.Sheryl Lee is a fetching Astrid Kirschner, beloved of Sutcliffe and possibly of Lennon also. Ian Hart plays John Lennon, not the poet of Give Peace a Chance, but an angry working class kid from Liverpool who wants to succeed in the music business. It's like looking in young Lennon's soul.The other Beatles are there, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Peter Best and there's a brief appearance by Ringo Starr who was drumming for another band and would be the piece that completed the revolutionary quartet eventually. But that's after this story finished. And the story is really about John Lennon and his good friends Astrid and Stu. For as long as the Beatles performed and as long as he performed there was a bit of Stuart Sutcliffe in their music, Lennon saw to that.