This movie receives such high praise from other reviewers, because other films about the Beatles beginnings are so bad.Contains much that is out of order and completely falsified. Stewart Sutcliff's death is presented more than six months before it happened.The Beatles are told that they have a recording contract while in England, while actually Brian Epstein (their manager) cabled them in Germany to let them know.The first time they meet George Martin (their producer) it is actually long after they met him historically.They tell Brain they want Ringo in and Pete out before they even meet George Martin, and it was George Martin along with George Harrison who were the biggest advocates in getting rid of Pete.Dick Row (Decca executive) is presented in a scene giving his famous lone (which was actually delivered over the phone) as George Martin walks in (who worked for competing record company EMI).There are numerous of these historical inaccuracies. There is a scene where John Lennon chastises Brian Epstein for not getting a record contract that I have never heard of. And at that point Brian had raised their appearance fee from 16 pounds a performance to 100 pounds, making the confrontation unlikely and contrived.Also this film has the Beatles playing songs years before they were written or recorded by previous groups.The Decca recording session on January 1, 1962 presents them playing songs that are not in the actual set.Has the Beatles in the wrong costumes and playing the wrong song for their opening appearance for Ed Sullivan.Almost worthless as history, but it does have some of the music.

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.

"Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world. As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best. The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney. The film was produced by a legend of the Rock and Roll era,Mr Dick Clark. Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS". That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing". The same can be said for the director of the "Birth of the Beatles", Mr Richard Marquand. He went on to direct other theatrical blockbusters such as "Star Wars Return of the Jedi","Eye of the Needle",and "Jagged Edge" among many. The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994. However, the critics did not care for it,nor did the public, for it did not have a long life span in the theater. Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. I highly recommend this film.