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.

This message has been deleted.

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

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.

I agree that the movie itself was horrible, but the Paul actor looked incredibly like Paul, especially the eyes! It was a startling resemblance!

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.

What did you think of the guy playing Stuart ?

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.

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.

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.

I completely agree with the OP
I couldn't even finish the movie, I felt the actors were so unconnected.

No, I disagree. Did anyone take a close look at the Paul actor. He looks just like the young Paul McCartney. The acting was top notch and they duplicated the scenes in the Cavern almost exactly. It's a movie I would keep in my library.
All Work and no Play Makes Jack A Dull Boy

I agree with his disagreement.
While his resemblance to John was slight, I thought he got the character quite well. Paul looked a bit like the real guy, and also got the character. George and Ringo not so much.
Their haircuts toward the end also leaped out at me. They looked like a cheesy contemporary Beatle tribute band. WAY too much hair!
By normal biopic standards, and given the necessity of putting multiple years into not that many minutes, I thought it was a quite creditable movie.

I disagree.
The John Lennon actor didn't look exactly like John, but he did have an air about him, and he copied certain quirks of John quite well.
The Paul character looked somewhat like Paul too, but his forehead was too big, and his head too square.
Brian Epstein looked a bit like Brian Epstein.
And Cynthia Lennon looked enough like her real life counterpart too.
George didn't look like George at all, and neither did Ringo.
I was hoping they would show George Martin in the scene in which the Beatles auditioned at Abbey Road studios, but alas, they didn't.
All four Beatles looked terrible in a scene set about 1963/64, with their Beatles hair styles (when Epstein walks in and tells them that "I Want To Hold Your Hand is N1 in the USA). Their hair was too big! They looked more like 80s rockers.
The acting was ok. And the script was clever. But cramming all that info into just 90 minutes hurts the narrative, and some scenes seem contrived.
So it't not a great movie, but quite good. I'm a fan of The Beatles and quite familiar with the history of how they grew up, met, and formed the band, and in my opinion this film is an accurate portrayal (given the fact that it's a film) of that time period.

The McCartney actor looked like Paul a bit, but the Lennon guy certainly did look anything but Lennon. In fact, he looked anything but an 18 year old kid.