Andy (film-critic)
Riding a voracious roller-coaster and watching Ian Softley's "Backbeat" could be considered one in the same. From the excitement of the opening credits, to the lackluster conversations between infamous Beatle John Lennon and former-band member Stuart Sutcliffe in Liverpool, to the empowering nights of playing music in Hamburg, to the cliché drama over a girl named Astrid, to the emotional true formation of the Beatles, this film should have a subtext that it could, if viewed in one sitting, cause stomach butterflies or cramps. With Softley's eye, the audience is strapped in tightly as "Backbeat" goes up and down, left and right, in and out of darkness, and in the end all you are left with is a perturbed expression captured on an invisible camera. One must ask the question, is this film about the choices of Sutcliffe, or is it just another chapter about the Beatles and their rise to popularity?With equal screen time being shared between crucial friendship Lennon and Sutcliffe, the argument can be set that Softley struggles with who to allow the camera to capture, the charismatic Ian Hart (giving us a fresh face to Mr. Lennon), or the subdue and forced accent of Stephen Dorff playing Sutcliffe. For this critic, an entire film based off Hart's performance, or seen through Hart's Lennon's eyes would have been sheer icing on Softley's cake, but since we were forced to stifle through Dorff's performance – we are stuck with him, and where this film ultimately suffered. What makes this roller-coaster worth perhaps riding a second time is Softley's ability to cast stronger secondary characters that seem more viewable than our front and center players. Gary Bakewell's McCartney is perfection, while O'Neill, Williams, and whoever played Astrid's original lover were complete eye-candy. Each actor grew their characters further than the page, and used this film as a showcase for their talent. "Backbeat" is worth the rental for the sheer background characters alone, and for Hart's John Lennon, but our central characters, Sutcliffe and Astrid, seemed cliché-ly perfect, too instantaneous in love, and at times purely fake. What forces me to say this are the scenes that the two (Dorff and Lee) share together. While the art they create is full of passion, the chemistry that they share is not. Softley is too generous with these two – giving us no reality to base them in. While the 60s were carefree in nature, where does Astrid stumble upon the castle in which she lives? Money seems of no concern, and it is confusing (with no pre-story) how easily Sutcliffe can give up his best friend's band and the random disasters that can be caused at German limbo parties. If this were a true story of simply Sutcliffe, than we would have followed his eyes, intermixed with the Beatles as a cameo, and really seen his artwork. It isn't until the final act of this film that his artwork gets any recognition, which again makes it difficult to understand Sutcliffe's tangent rational.Enough with the negative; what was engrossing about this film? "Backbeat", while playing to typical biopic clichés, still maintained a level of entertainment. The songs would walk in and catch your toes tapping along. Softley used American songs to give the Beatles that sense of "cool" as well as to demonstrate how well they performed on stage. Their energy, both the actual Beatles, as well as Ian Hart and his group had enough energy for anyone watching this film. They were charismatic, exciting, and destined to be stars. This was obvious from the beginning, the Beatles did it all themselves by performing eight days a week, with little to no food or sleep. They captured the essence of "grunge". For me, that was enough to continue with this film from beginning to end. Sutcliffe's artwork, because it was so thinly used in the film, was exciting to see as well. The same can be said for Astrid's photography. The Beatles' art (both music and printed) was brilliant, these characters were brilliant in their lives, but I just felt like Softley dumb-ed them down for audiences. The final act was pure rubbish, again with the opportunity to see Sutcliffe do his work – yet limbo miserably, that it nearly sours the remaining moments of this film. Outside of the story, flawed as it was, Softley and his cinematographer should be fully credited for the roller-coaster sensation felt throughout the film. There would be this great scene of Astrid looking at the band that would steal your breath, and then we would jump to the band – in what felt like a different filming ratio, and then back to Astrid. It felt like the audience was saying, "Ohhh … urgggg …. Ohhhh".Overall, "Backbeat" was an entertaining film, in fact, it stands above the mediocre level of entertainment to say that I could view this movie a second time – but it would be with much argument and comments through the peanut gallery throughout. The music stands out, Softley defines the time perfectly (almost as if anyone who could carry a tune could swoon those German women), but he cannot define his characters. This is a biopic, in the short sense of the word, about Stuart Sutcliffe, yet the audience watches nearly equal screen time between he and John Lennon. While I agree Lennon's influence on Sutcliffe and their friendship is worth the film reel it is printed on, I do not believe it fully grasps the art and lifestyle that Sutcliffe embodied. With a hodgepodge of beautiful scenes, why couldn't Softley use that tricky camera work to define Sutcliffe's art – to make his art the second main character? "Backbeat" was an entertaining two hours, but not worth a second repeat.Grade: *** out of *****
bkoganbing
Back in the Sixties when I was a mere teenager I read some of the stories about the Beatles and the background they came from. I knew of Stuart Sutcliffe and his story only months before the Beatles came into the consciousness of America.But until I saw Backbeat I did not KNOW Stuart Sutcliffe and the curious triangular relationship with John Lennon and German photographer Astrid Kirschner. Seeing Backbeat I do feel I was transported back to Liverpool and Hamburg of the early sixties and the origins of what became the Beatles.Sutcliffe was a good friend of John Lennon who was part of the group he and Paul McCartney put together back in the days when they were searching for an image and a sound. Sutcliffe had his own ambitions however, he was a talented artist. He also had an irreversible brain tumor and a guaranteed limited time on earth.I think that Stephen Dorff's background from a musical family no doubt helped in portraying Stuart Sutcliffe. I had seen Dorff previously in The Power of One and was amazed at his uncanny ability to get an Afrikanse accent right in a South African story. He does similarly here with not a British accent, but a Liverpudlian one. He certainly got no complaints from white South Africans or Liverpudlians for either film. He's got the best ear for speech patterns this side of Robert Mitchum.Sheryl Lee is a fetching Astrid Kirschner, beloved of Sutcliffe and possibly of Lennon also. Ian Hart plays John Lennon, not the poet of Give Peace a Chance, but an angry working class kid from Liverpool who wants to succeed in the music business. It's like looking in young Lennon's soul.The other Beatles are there, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Peter Best and there's a brief appearance by Ringo Starr who was drumming for another band and would be the piece that completed the revolutionary quartet eventually. But that's after this story finished. And the story is really about John Lennon and his good friends Astrid and Stu. For as long as the Beatles performed and as long as he performed there was a bit of Stuart Sutcliffe in their music, Lennon saw to that.
