This is a film above all about the triangular relationship between John Lennon, Stuart Sutcliffe, and Astrid Kirchherr (four-sided if you include Astrid's boyfriend Klaus Voormann, five-sided if you include the band John and Stu were members of: the Beatles) -- a film about real events, about love and life and tragedy -- played out to a backdrop of the Beatles' visits to Hamburg and their performances there.Based primarily on interviews with Stuart's mother and sister and with Astrid Kirchherr, it's been often criticised as a 'crude caricature', for its factual inaccuracies about the Beatles' time in Hamburg, about the musical performances portrayed, for the one-dimensional portrayal of the "minor" characters, including Paul, George, Pete and John's girlfriend Cynthia, and even for the fact that the actors aren't exact doppelgangers for the characters they portray (they're pretty good likenesses, though).I can accept all these criticisms, but somewhat to my surprise they didn't spoil the film at all for me. If you want detailed accuracy about the Beatles, this is not for you. Read the books. But if you want to see a film which tells a good story well, and which will give you a real feel for the vibes of the time and for the characters it claims to portray, and an insight into one important aspect of the early history of the Beatles, I think you will enjoy this. I thought I wouldn't, but I did. And I will watch it again. And, did I say? it's about the Beatles.This is not a biopic, nor does it pretend to be, but it does claim to tell the story of Stu and Astrid, and I thought it did that very well. I don't object at all to the use of some artistic licence, such as Astrid's excellent English. Contrary to some other reviewers, I found the portrayal of the quiet, enigmatic Stu by Stephen Dorff quite excellent, a perfect foil to the bitter, sometimes thoughtful, and wholly charismatic John Lennon, portrayed just as well by Ian Hart.I first heard the Beatles just before their first British record "Love Me Do" became a minor hit in Autumn 1962. This film portrays events mostly more than a year before then, and even longer before their last stint in Hamburg, at the Star-Club in December 1962, the subject of a famous amateur recording. Apart from the Polydor recordings by Bert Kampfaert, we have little to judge objectively what the band sounded like in 1960-61, but judging from the 1962 live recordings, and the comments of those who heard them before they were famous, I'm quite prepared to believe the Beatles sounded then very much like the band used for the soundtrack to this film. OK, the band aren't the Beatles, and some of the details are a bit askew, but the rock-and-roll standards portrayed were all part of the Beatles' act, and are performed much as they performed them. Everyone tells how Stu Sutcliffe often played turning away from the audience, as often seen in the film. It's hardly a realistic portrayal of the Hamburg clubs on the Reeperbahn in the early 1960s, but I've seen worse, and if you have little idea what life was like for the band before 1962, this will not be a bad introduction.Comparisons with "A Hard Day's Night" are ingenuous: that was a film made by the Beatles early in 1964 after they were famous (in Britain at least); this is a film about the band when they were teenagers, before pretty much anyone knew them outside Liverpool and Hamburg. Not the same at all. And of course, they didn't sound back then like the Beatles' later recordings, or even like they did on their tours of the US and elsewhere. Perhaps the only recording you can really compare is their first album "Please Please Me" (and the live Star-Club recording, if you have it).It's a film, for goodness' sake. I enjoyed it as one, and I hope you do too. The characters rang true, especially Ian Hart as John Lennon, and the story is well worth telling, and well worth watching. And, did I say? it's about the Beatles.

We all know who The Beatles was. But not everybody knows how many more played in the band before their big breakthrough in 1961. This film tells the story of one of them, Stu Sutcliffe, best friend of Lennon at that time and a tragic figure. It is a sensitive piece without a doubt and a decent homage to the beginnings of the world's most popular band, but Stephen Dorff as Sutcliffe is pretty horrible, his overacting almost painful to watch. Unfortunately, his performance ruined a lot for me which is the film's greatest pity, because Sutcliffe was an interesting character. He came to the band in 1960 as bass player after Lennon wheedled him into. While staying almost exclusively in Hamburg, Sutcliffe met the German photographer Astrid Kirchherr (who was also the inspiration for the famous haircuts) and fell in love with her. He neglected the duties of being a band member, concentrated on painting instead and spent his time with Astrid whereupon McCartney fired him. So, Sutcliffe accepted within a blink and said that the band is not going to become famous anyway. You bet. However, Dorff was definitely the wrong choice for the role.

What a good movie this could have been. The only reason it is interesting at at all is that there are no other movies covering this period in the Beatles history, but please. The historical inaccuracies alone just kill it. But worst of all they just don't sound anything like the Beatles. Just listen to the Cavern Club stuff on the Anthology DVD's and you will see what they sounded like just a year later. OK I know the Beatles had a ball in Hamburg, drugs, girls, etc but this is so far off the mark it's just silly. Lennon comes off as a complete dick head with no artistic qualities and Stu as some sort of genius while he could hardly play bass. Stu was about 5ft4in tall in real life but here he's as tall as Paul. This is one of those movies you can watch over and over because it plays like a TV movie of the week, but I always feel a little used afterward, this was really just a rip off and a money maker on the Beatles name. Oh and Stu was already out of the band when they recorded "My Bonnie".

A film which concentrates on the short musical and artistic career of Stuart Sutcliffe, the Scottish-born bass player from the days when the Beatles were a quintet playing the Reeperbahn of Hamburg, and his love affair with the German artist Astrid Kircherr.I suppose there are two types of people who will watch this film: those who know little or nothing about the Beatles's time in Hamburg, and those who do. The former will probably enjoy the film for what it is; the latter will find it annoying. I am sorry to say that I am in the latter camp. There are so many historical inaccuracies that it is hardly worth listing them. The most annoying to me was the placing of the recording of "My Bonnie" before Stuart Suttcliffe had left the band. I thought that was totally unnecessary. Another inaccuracy is depicting Paul McCartney trying to kick Suttcliffe out of the band so that he could take over the bass. Also, the length of Astrid's hair is based on a self photograph of hers. Contemporary photographs show her with shoulder length hair.As well as the Beatles themselves, who walk onstage and start to play without plugging their guitars in, the film also features the real life characters Astrid Kirchherr, Cynthia Powell Lennon and Klaus Voormann, who are named, and Bruno Koschmidder and Tony Sheridan, who are not.Since John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe are dead, the film makers can imply that the pair had homosexual feelings for one another and not get sued.The rest of the Beatles are reduced to one dimensional cutouts: the serious one, the quiet one, the cipher.That's what the film got wrong. Let us see what the film got right.When you look at an historical film - especially one that covers a period within living memory - one can find lots of anachronisms with the fashions of the time. Normally I will home in on half a dozen things that were not around in 1960/61. Not in this film. The shooting and direction - apart from the little melodrama at Sutcliffe's death - was good, and the scene where Sutcliffe spazzed out and threw red paint all over the bathroom was excellent, the red paint signifying blood, as though a murder had been committed.But alas the scriptwriters were not up to the same standard as the wardrobe department, the cameramen, the musicians and the director, and I found titles of Beatles songs yet to be written, like "Hard Day's Night" and "Eight Days a Week," being worked into the script utterly ridiculous. What were the scriptwriters trying to do?