In my Opinion this is one of the better films about the Beatles. I know some arty types prefer Backbeat but I feel that this movie captures the Beatles more accurately. I don't mean everything about the film is accurate but they capture the personality, talent and spirit of four young Liverpool lads who became the Beatles.Stephen MacKenna is outstanding as John and the other actors do passable impersonations of the others. Brian Jameson is good as Brian Epstein and Nigel Havers is brilliant as George Martin.On stage they look and act like the Beatles and there is enough music to keep fans happy, remembering that this is the early days before they hit it really big.So for genuine Beatles fans this is a movie well worth seeing.

Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan.

The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.*** SPOILERS here on *** Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only "Johnny B. Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film.

We all know that dramatic adaptations of historical events are almost never 100% accurate, otherwise they would not be "adaptations". However I felt that this film reflected a certain consultant's true feelings.Now I know I wasn't there and Pete Best was, but it seems odd to me that this movie (on which he acted as a primary consultant) contradicts other people's recollection of certain events. For example Pete Best is portrayed as a strikingly handsome, highly proficient drummer. This simply isn't true (the drumming proficiency). Many people will say that Best was at best (no pun intended) a mediocre drummer (one can also hear on the Anthology that Best's drumming lacks the drive, timing, and bounce that was distinctive to Ringo's). It seems that Best feels that his dismissal from the band was a grave injustice and a plain old bad idea. They even go as far in this film as to say that EMI (i.e. George Martin) liked his playing, and according to George Martin himself, it was he who told the Beatles that they'd have to use a session drummer because Pete's playing just wasn't good enough.Other than these glaring discrepancies and some chronological conjecture (Stu Sutcliffe died some time after the rest of the Beatles had left Hamburg for good) this is an average made-for-TV movie on one of the greatest bands of all time.