Cast-ing + Acting (a disaster!)
-
ian-simpkins — 17 years ago(July 09, 2008 04:58 AM)
I only managed to watch about half an hour of this on TV last night; truly dreadful - watch the far superior "Backbeat" for the story of the Beatles' early years if you're interested.
The giveaway for me was that all the music the band played were cover versions recorded by the Beatles - no Lennon/McCartney or Harrison compositions on the soundtrack (at least not in the bit I heard). To me this indicated a pretty limited budget which rather summed up the film. -
johnston.scot — 17 years ago(July 10, 2008 07:52 AM)
And in Backbeat, as you perhaps didn't notice: "all the music the band played were cover versions recorded by the Beatles - no Lennon/McCartny or Harrison compositions on the soundtrack."
Then again, this movie did have a limited budget (more limited than Backbeat, and muchmuchmuch more limited than, say, Hellboy II). It was a made for TV movie, after all. -
vickyanders1 — 17 years ago(July 09, 2008 07:27 AM)
As a born and bred scouser, this poor excuse of a film made me cringe. Only the actor who played Ringo (and Sylvia to some extent) managed to carry the accent off accurately.
Just terrible, terrible viewing. -
dansherry43 — 16 years ago(November 16, 2009 02:45 AM)
The actor playing John Lennon had a Liverpool accent that was about as authentic as Dick Van Dykes cockney accent in Mary Poppins.
The locations were authentic, and thats all that can be said in the films favour.
Otherwise, utterly, utterly dreadful. -
caspardw — 11 years ago(September 08, 2014 03:22 PM)
Yes, the McCartney actor was astonishingly like the real Paul. The film's Stuart Sutcliffe was on-model, and even though the guy who played Lennon was too beefy-looking, he did capture the expressions and mannerisms convincingly enough. Care had been taken to ensure that even minor characters such as Klaus Voorman looked right. The Astrid actress was well-cast, and her tin-foil-wallpapered flat really did look just like that. Whatever other failings the movie suffers from, the casting and attention to accuracy of detail was overall pretty damn good.
-
thatguy_78757 — 16 years ago(May 16, 2009 02:30 PM)
The "John" actor didnt look like the iconic lanky 70s lennon, but he DID look those pictures of a young pre beatle John
I thought the same for paul and george, they didnt look like "The Beatles" but they did resemble the pre fame teenagers -
beatles8 — 12 years ago(August 25, 2013 03:49 PM)
I agree! Other than Lee Williams (Stuart) and Scot Williams (Pete) the casting and their performances were awful! The guy who played Paul was ok too, but he was too old to play him. Especially the guy who played John I couldn't believe it was John Lennon, I was literally about the cry when I found out. Also there are lots of false facts in the movie, too.
So, to the ones who haven't watch the movie, DON'T WATCH IT.
It's just a waste of time.