sweetlittlepie 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.

ukmitchell Despite excellent performances by Dorff and Ian Hart, this film is a horrible melange of poor screen writing and a lack of any desire for historical accuracy. It is a horrendous misrepresentation of Sutcliffe and Lennon, and Ian Soiftley seems determined to just fill each scene with angry shouting and pointless and senseless actions to cover up the lack of character development and the lack of any reasoning for the characters' behaviors. The characters come across as the most superficial of clichés and stereotypes. One should avoid this film entirely for it is slanderous and superficial, despite being about some of the most complex and fascinating people in the history of music. The saddest thing being that people will see this film thinking it is an accurate portrayal of the people whose lives the film is based upon, and the deep and complex relationship that Sutcliffe and Lennon actually had in real life, but the inaccuracies abound. Spoiler Alert: The film shows an entirely fabricated scene that has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever, in which Sutcliffe in a jealous rage attacks a platonic male friend of his girlfriend, Astrid. I have done research on this, and there is no basis in fact whatsoever and in truth, both Lennon and Harrison have been quoted in stating how gentle and nonviolent Sutcliffe was. This is just one of the many scenes that seem to indicate that the screenwriters just wanted to cash in by making a film about the Beatles without any true research, and to just fill each scene with as much violence and rock and roll as they could to make up for the mindless screen writing. The film limps to its closure without the viewer having any idea why any of the characters said or did anything that was played out in the film. Lennon comes across as a whiny, angry, homophobic mess, and Sutcliffe comes across as a moody jerk with no emotional depth or logic. Given the subject matter, this could have been quite a film. For a much more accurate and riveting film about Lennon and Sutcliffe, view the made for TV movie titled "Lennon."

Lee Eisenberg I think that it's especially appropriate that "Backbeat" was released right after the 30th anniversary of the Beatles coming to America: everyone was remembering them, and then a really good movie shows their early days. Specifically, it focuses on when they went to Hamburg and met artsy photographer Astrid Kirchherr. I should identify that this movie is for mature audiences only: aside from the language and sex, it shows how John, Paul, George, Pete, and Stu got addicted to speed so that they could keep playing; as a result, they got little sleep and their eyes got all glassy as they laid awake.A really effective scene is right after Stu leaves the Beatles. Hoping to devote his life to art, he goes out and gets all drunk. Around this time, East Germany's government erects the Berlin Wall. Watching it on TV, Astrid and Klaus hold hands to be supportive of each other. When Stu sees this, he gets all violent. This scene - possibly more than any other in the movie - shows his mental breakdown.All in all, a great movie. We also see that they first met Ringo in Hamburg. I'm sure that we'll all be remembering "Backbeat" for years to come. Rock on, lads!

aliseliz I really enjoyed this film, but I just had a little trouble with the music. It was truly terrific, but Dave Pirner sounds nothing like Paul McCartney by any stretch of the imagination, nor does Greg Dulli sound anything remotely like John Lennon. I thought it was great that they used such well-known and talented musicians as Thurston Moore and Dave Grohl, but couldn't they have found somebody that sounded a little bit more like Lennon and McCartney? Ok, enough about that. I didn't know the whole story about Stuart Sutcliffe, and I had no idea that *SPOILER* he died. That was awful. But I really enjoyed learning more about one of my favorite bands, especially since I completely missed out on their heyday. (John Lennon died about six months before I was born! Oh, the agony!) I really didn't know much about the early days of the band, so this movie was very informative. I thought all the actors looked incredibly like their real-life counterparts. I had already see Ian Hart portray Lennon in The Hours and the Times, so I knew his characterization of Lennon was awesome, and made me enjoy his performance in Backbeat all the more. I highly recommend this film to all Beatles fans and anyone interested in rock 'n' roll history.