Backbeat (1994)

Enjoyable film

Back Beat is the best film Ive seen documenting the early years of the Beatles and the friendship between John Lennon and Stu Sutcliff. The acting is superb as is the music. I enjoyed the film for its insight on Klaus, who later played a significant role in Lennon's band, after the Beatles broke up. While the film does not go deep into the relationship between Lennon and McCartney. It does document the struggles the band went though playing in various Hamburg Clubs for little cash, or sleep, and the Hamburg scene filled with Bohemians, Artists, and avant garde sensibilities. Given the period the film portrays, i.e., the early sixties, it opens a window on a movement that mirrored the American scene of Beat Niks but from an entirely different perspective. And for this reason alone well worth the view. As a downside of the film, if you are expecting a clear presentation on the dynamics of the Beatles (in their successful years) you will probably find this aspect weak or disappointing. August 7, 2008

The long and winding road to fame

This is the story of the early trials and tribulations of John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe, art students and rock musicians from Liverpool. They were scrappy trouble-makers when they formed the Beatles with Paul, George, and Pete Best and went to play in the shabby strip clubs of Hamburg, hoping to make a name for themselves. There, Stuart met and fell in love with photographer Astrid Kirchherr. Although he was very close to John, Stuart chose to leave the group and stay with Astrid, just before the Beatles released their first record.

Ian Hart (Quirrell in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) gives an explosive performance as John Lennon. Being a native of Liverpool, Hart gets the accent right and conveys John's scruffy, irreverent attitude and love of music. American actor Stephen Dorff does a good job as the sensitive, doomed Stuart. None of the actors look much like their characters, but they do project a believable image of the group.

The songs (none of which are by Lennon-McCartney) were sung by members of established bands such as REM. The sleazy locations in Liverpool and Hamburg contribute to the rag-tag feeling of the movie. In spite of ample profanity and nudity, this is a movie that Beatles fans will enjoy, and the DVD has many interesting extras. June 11, 2008

Soundtrack's better than the movie, but still...

...it's worth a viewing. Here's what's good about the movie, the acting is pretty high quality, the story is interesting, about the Beatles before they became famous, and were a band of teenagers tearing up this new rock'n roll music in Liverpool then Hamburg. It's a fun watch for Beatle's fans, an educational look into an earlier period of music for those too young to know the Beatles outside of hearing them nowadays in the supermarket. What's best about the movie is the soundtrack, someone recruited some of the best talent out of 90's grunge rock bands and these 4 guys do a simply amazing job of recapturing the early Beatles. You can comopare if you want, there are recordings of the pre-famous Hamburg era Beatles, but they are of very poor audio quality, so this soundtrack is much better. Now, the negative. There are two ways you can go if you're casting a movie about the Beatles, either find actors who look like they did, or find actors who are musicians who can pull off acting like they're actually playing their instruments (I don't know wny this should be so hard, Denzel Washington could to it, but most actors can't). Well, the people casting this movie didn't do either, so a big shortcoming for me was that 1)the actors look so little like the real Beatles, many Beatles fans aren't going to be able to get beyond this, and 2) the actors aren't convincing when they are performing, in other words, you can't watch too closely when they're on stage or you'll notice that they don't look like they're actually playing their instruments. I know, that doesn't bug everyone, but musicians often get get past this, so... for the most serious of Beatles fans, and those of you who are musicians, I'm going to recommend you get the soundtrack instead, everyone should like that. June 2, 2008

Can we not agree - Oasis is a better band than the Beatles?!?

Riding a voracious roller-coaster and watching Ian Softley's "Backbeat" could be considered one in the same. From the excitement of the opening credits, to the lackluster conversations between infamous Beatle John Lennon and former-band member Stuart Sutcliffe in Liverpool, to the empowering nights of playing music in Hamburg, to the cliché drama over a girl named Astrid, to the emotional true formation of the Beatles, this film should have a subtext that it could, if viewed in one sitting, cause stomach butterflies or cramps. With Softley's eye, the audience is strapped in tightly as "Backbeat" goes up and down, left and right, in and out of darkness, and in the end all you are left with is a perturbed expression captured on an invisible camera. There is no argument that the Beatles have secured their names in worldly culture, and that there is plenty of information covering each living minute of these Brits, AND that the story of Stuart Sutcliffe is an interesting tale about a man who chose love and art versus screaming women and super-stardom, but this critic still winced a couple of times during this 100+ minute semi-biopic. Like the music of the Beatles, Softley has amazing scenes filled with emotion and pizzazz, but where he slips is his focus on our central character, Stuart Sutcliffe. One must ask the question, is this film about the choices of Sutcliffe, or is it just another chapter about the Beatles and their rise to popularity?

With equal screen time being shared between crucial friendship Lennon and Sutcliffe, the argument can be set that Softley struggles with who to allow the camera to capture, the charismatic Ian Hart (giving us a fresh face to Mr. Lennon), or the subdue and forced accent of Stephen Dorff playing Sutcliffe. For this critic, an entire film based off Hart's performance, or seen through Hart's Lennon's eyes would have been sheer icing on Softley's cake, but since we were forced to stifle through Dorff's performance - we are stuck with him, and where this film ultimately suffered. What makes this roller-coaster worth perhaps riding a second time is Softley's ability to cast stronger secondary characters that seem more viewable than our front and center players. Gary Bakewell's McCartney is perfection, while O'Neill, Williams, and whoever played Astrid's original lover were complete eye-candy. Each actor grew their characters further than the page, and used this film as a showcase for their talent. "Backbeat" is worth the rental for the sheer background characters alone, and for Hart's John Lennon, but our central characters, Sutcliffe and Astrid, seemed cliché-ly perfect, too instantaneous in love, and at times purely fake. What forces me to say this are the scenes that the two (Dorff and Lee) share together. While the art they create is full of passion, the chemistry that they share is not. The 60s were a different time, a time where I was nowhere in existence, but this film was made in 1994 - giving off an impression that certain liberties were taken to tell their story. Softley is too generous with these two - giving us no reality to base them in. While the 60s were carefree in nature, where does Astrid stumble upon the castle in which she lives? Money seems of no concern, and it is confusing (with no pre-story) how easily Sutcliffe can give up his best friend's band and the random disasters that can be caused at German limbo parties. If this were a true story of simply Sutcliffe, than we would have followed his eyes, intermixed with the Beatles as a cameo, and really seen his artwork. It isn't until the final act of this film that his artwork gets any recognition, which again makes it difficult to understand Sutcliffe's tangent rational.

Enough with the negative; what was engrossing about this film? "Backbeat", while playing to typical biopic clichés, still maintained a level of entertainment. The songs would walk in and catch your toes tapping along. Softley used American songs to give the Beatles that sense of "cool" as well as to demonstrate how well they performed on stage. Their energy, both the actual Beatles, as well as Ian Hart and his group had enough energy for anyone watching this film. They were charismatic, exciting, and destined to be stars. This was obvious from the beginning, the Beatles did it all themselves by performing eight days a week, with little to no food or sleep. They captured the essence of "grunge". For me, that was enough to continue with this film from beginning to end. Sutcliffe's artwork, because it was so thinly used in the film, was exciting to see as well. The same can be said for Astrid's photography. The Beatles' art (both music and printed) was brilliant, these characters were brilliant in their lives, but I just felt like Softley dumb-ed them down for audiences. The final act was pure rubbish, again with the opportunity to see Sutcliffe do his work - yet limbo miserably, that it nearly sours the remaining moments of this film. Outside of the story, flawed as it was, Softley and his cinematographer should be fully credited for the roller-coaster sensation felt throughout the film. There were breath-taking scenes throughout the movie, but they were typically anchored by choppy editing. There would be this great scene of Astrid looking at the band that would steal your breath, and then we would jump to the band - in what felt like a different filming ratio, and then back to Astrid. It felt like the audience was saying, "Ohhh ... urgggg .... Ohhhh".

Overall, "Backbeat" was an entertaining film, in fact, it stands above the mediocre level of entertainment to say that I could view this movie a second time - but it would be with much argument and comments through the peanut gallery throughout. The music stands out, Softley defines the time perfectly (almost as if anyone who could carry a tune could swoon those German women), but he cannot define his characters. This is a biopic, in the short sense of the word, about Stuart Sutcliffe, yet the audience watches nearly equal screen time between he and John Lennon. While I agree Lennon's influence on Sutcliffe and their friendship is worth the film reel it is printed on, I do not believe it fully grasps the art and lifestyle that Sutcliffe embodied. With a hodgepodge of beautiful scenes, why couldn't Softley use that tricky camera work to define Sutcliffe's art - to make his art the second main character? Ian Hart gave a phenomenal, hands-down, performance as Lennon, and a whole film could have been made about him - but Softley's film cannot support both - so they both suffer. Upon finishing this film, one cannot truly say they knew Sutcliffe at all - outside of the catastrophic ending and the tacky final words as they play in the ocean. "Backbeat" was an entertaining two hours, but not worth a second repeat.

Grade: *** out of *****
April 5, 2008

Sweet, Small Film of the Early Beatles

The Beatles' career is covered in this biopic which emphasizes the short life of Stuart Sutcliffe. Stuart was John Lennon's best friend from art school and he became a Beatle for a short time, not based on musical ability but on friendship. John was very loyal to Stuart and he was distressed when he quit the band to continue his pursuit of being an artist and live in Germany with his girlfriend. Stuart died young of a cerebral hemorrhage. A small film with a bit of charm and a bit of history. The DVD also contains a interview with Astrid his German girlfriend. November 13, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...