Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison (2010)

The Age of Commercialism

Simply A Masterpiece

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Growing up in the 1960's I was a huge Beatles fan and remember vividly the "Paul is dead" hoax back in the fall of 1969. Naturally, out of curiosity, I also looked at the clues that I heard about on the radio and, like an immature 15 year old, I played my Beatles records backwards. The only thing I really got out of it all was that I ruined some of my records in the process.When I saw this "mockumentary" on Amazon I bought it, again out of curiosity. Unfortunately, my curiosity got the best of my wallet and nothing else. The "voice" was not George Harrison's, but a cheap imitation. Also, what was really insulting to the intelligence of core Beatles fans was the film's awful chronological inaccuracies. For example, "George" talks about the album "Rubber Soul" and it's song contents that offered clues to Paul's demise. Unfortunately, this album was recorded in the Fall of 1965 and released by Capital/EMI for Christmas of that year; a FULL year BEFORE Paul's fatal accident in November, 1966."George" states that "Yesterday and Today" (which was only released by Capital in the US and not in the UK) was made AFTER "Revolver". Again, bull twinkies. Revolver was released by EMI on August 5, 1966, almost a full THREE months before Paul's "accident"; "Yesterday and Today" was released in the late Spring of 1966, again a terrible inaccuracy in the timeline. In short: a lot of goofs, but possibly unnoticed by those who know nothing about Beatles music.This film is an insult to George Harrison. George was a remarkably brilliant musician and couldn't possibly be inaccurate about these accounts.If Paul's death was an MI5 cover up, then why didn't the CIA cover up Elvis' death in 1977? I'm sure that hundreds of Elvis fans would have jumped out of windows upon hearing about his death! Is MI5 more competent than the CIA? Never mind, you don't have to answer that question!All in all, this film is awful. Don't waste your money on it.

Despite the inaccuracies, tricks, and plain lies, this is an interesting and entertaining movie to watch, especially if you're a Beatles fan and remember the controversy in the late sixties (which I do). I agree, however, with those that say this should have been labeled a "mockumentary" and did a great disservice to George Harrison and his legacy. I'm surprised they could get away with that.Still, I found it fascinating because it taught me many new things about the conspiracy theory of that time, when we were all trying to figure out the symbolism on the albums (and in the albums) about whether Paul was really dead. On the factual side, however, and here's where the spoiler alert applies:1. The voice was clearly NOT George Harrison, and even the impersonation was terrible, especially the fake Liverpool accent. 2. Why would George, if he were to leave a tape, do it a manner which conveniently provides a narrative (without hesitation or mistake) to fit a 90 minute format? 3. Why send it to Highway 61 productions instead of the news media? 4. As the movie goes on, the assertions become even more ridiculous such as saying that the girl with Paul the night he died in Nov. 1966 was put into a government witness program and later lost her leg in an accident then forced "Faul" (short for Fake Paul), to marry her under her new name of Heather Mills. I found this one particularly outrageous because Heather was born in 1968, two years after the accident! 5.Surprisingly, I never saw it mentioned that the MI5 go-between, Maxwell, would have most certainly been the subject of the Beatles song, "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" although it may have been in there and I may have missed that part, because I was only half watching by the end. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that if you take it with a grain of salt, and just watch for the entertainment value and the various "clues" that were indeed left at the time, it's still a fun watch. I only hope that younger viewers aren't fooled into believing the overall premise.

I really have only one thing to state about this movie, that its worth the watch. Yes the ideas are a little far fetched and apparently not true (since everyone on here seems to know the men from The Beatles personally so they know this isn't true.....) but I found it very interesting. Whether it was true or not, they made their case very clear and it actually started to sound like it might possibly be true. Maybe they shouldn't have called it a documentary, maybe it should of been called a mockumentary.All I can say, if you plan on watching this, is go into it with an open mind and take what you want from it. Don't expect an Oscar worthy film, because it is far from it.

Sorry, but I can't accept this narrative at face value. The "evidence" is really a re-hash of previously presented material. But it falls apart on the audio quality of the recordings. Supposedly recorded on a mini-cassette recorder, it must of been the single best mini-cassette recorder ever manufactured. Also, while "George's" voice is acceptable, his manner of speaking is too theatrical, as if it's a performance. It's definitely not the speech of a man candidly dictating a story in a state of panic from a hospital bed.But, the story is entertaining...even compelling. And if one day some new evidence, DNA or other, corroborating this story ever surfaces, I think my reaction would be a wry smile.