What's it like? Better than BackBeat? I always love the people who play Paul - was the person who played Paul attractive? I'm a George girl and always get frustrated because the George's never look as good as the real thing
---
Maybe attractive is not the word you are looking for, the actor that plays Paul (Rod Culbertson)was very well cast because of his acting , timing and mannerisms. I also think that because he had that boyish look and had the "eyes" of the cute beatle. I think though if you really look closely he's the only one that had something going on with his hair. I don't think that it was all his. I could be wrong but I've seen this movie abour 20 times. But who cares, I mean you had to have alot of hair for this part and then you had to let it hang loose. Very good makeup I think.
The actor that played George was probably cast the same way. He also had the "eyes",look, mannerism, and overall attitude of the quiet, soft spoken & intelligent beatle. I persoanlly think that he was the most physically matched and most good looking guy out of all of them.
The actor that played John, I must agree with the other members was by far the total package. If you compare the voice, acting, mannerisms, attitude, almost erie identical look with John Lennon you can see why most people feel that he just plays it perfect.
The actor that played Ringo was puuurrrfect. His nose alone and goatee really did the trick.
The actor that played Brian, (Manager) was excellent. He really brought the whole movie together and highlighted the highs and lows with the boys including a real gut wrenching scene with the boys when they are rehearsing "Love me do". The movie also demonstates and social etiquette that he possesses and perils that can accompany a lifestyle that was at that time not yet an open discussion.
As far as Pete Best, They could have looked for a really really good looking actor, but I guess the actor that they had could pull it off. Stu was also the same situation. I suppose that acting is more important and takes precendent in these things. Just look at Backbeat, now there was really good acting in that movie and the music was EXCELLENT!. Dave grohl was involved in the music. But none of the actors looked anything like the Beatles at all. Besides, who really gave a crap about the Stu, John, and Astrid triangle ayways. So when you boil it down "Birth of the Beatles" is the only movie,(with albeat it's minor flaws & error's) that really captures the flavor and sense of history being written for the casual & avid fan alike.
The group RAIN made the soundrack for this movie and I undestand now after much speculation that their music was sped up and they actually did sound a little bit chipmunk funny. To date no one's made a bettor movie about them to this point. To me this really is a must see. My favorite scene is when the boys are singing "P.S. Ilove you". It was shot in black & white in photo segments shot by Astrid This really captures the feel of the early sixties. Nothing is bettor that seeing the boys walking down the streets of Hamburg or the back alley streets of Liverpool in their steel toed leather boots whilst eating fish & chips. "A chip, please?". I love it!
YES ..it's better then Backbeat !!,but its never been released on VHS or dvd in the USA .Its a PAIN to find ..it was a made for tv movie but i never seen it run on tv any more ?Come on Dick CLARK release this movie on DVD ...
shareI just found this recently on YouTube. I remember seeing it years ago. I thought it was a decent movie overall, with several errors, of course, and decent actors who looked somewhat like the people they played. However, when you watch the videos of the Beatles performing live, you see a big difference in how Paul acts and how Rod Culbertson acts when on stage. My feeling was that Culbertson was doing a lampoon of Eric Idle in the Rutles who was doing a lampoon of Paul McCartney.
Overall, well worth the effort to find and watch it. Check out YouTube to see an edited version.
Its a decent enough movie, good in evoking the rpiod maybe because it was made in the late 70s, but always felt it takes too many liberties with the actual story of the band.
Its that man again!!