Midas Man Brian Epstein Biopic - Is it ANY Good?

[@inverross9019]

Birth of the Beatles was an early biopic film which deserves an honourable mention. All Beatles related biopic films are spoiled by physical miscasting of the band members, screwing up the music, or making alterations to history. Sometimes music licensing problems have been the issue. The point of John and Paul, being mirror images of each other at the mic would obviously not be helped by having a shorter John. Given the reviews I will give this one a wider berth.

[@BurgundySkies]

Yeah most films were either poorly cast or with low production value, or were suffering from quick cash grab syndrome. Birth of the Beatles was the Pete Best leaning one, no? PS: "wider berth" - nice, I'm gonna use that.

[@Robutube1]

A very thoughtful review of this film. I agree with the vast majority of points you make regarding casting, pacing and, most importantly, the superficiality of the story telling; Brian Epstein is a very important part of The Beatles' remarkable story but they did not capture his complexity and he deserves better. Oh, and yes, the Tex character was awful in both concept and delivery.

[@BurgundySkies]

Thank you. It does seem like at the origins there was an intent to make justice to the character, but there is also an apparent difference between intent and result.

[@Robutube1]

@BurgundySkies I agree. The film really speeds up the pace (to it's detriment) in the second half and makes use of much more exposition, presumably because of budgetary constraints.

[@invisibleray6987]

😂😂😂😂 tiny Lennon (the budget was so small they got a 30% discount on the actor 😂😂😂)

[@BurgundySkies]

lol, he seems like a good actor though, just a bit out of place given the very engrained image of the band

[@fernandoaldekoa2436]

A pair of lifts would've helped.

[@jimmullins9396]

It’s pronounced Epstine

[@BurgundySkies]

You are absolutely right. I fell in the trap of the americanization of the name I think. The whole movie did as well.

[@markgrant1302]

Not a great movie. The cast wasn't completely terrible, even the actor playing Lennon wasn't entirely bad, though this missed his external edge and dominance, I loved the guy that played George, the Paul actor was alright, the Ringo actor didn't look so much like hime but did a Fair job at playing him. Jay Leno as Sullivan was horrible. The guy playing George Martin wasn't bad. Some of the set recreations were really good... The all you need is love staging looked amazing.... But you can't do a Beatles movie without a single Beatles song. It's not really that compelling of a story without the Ed Sullivan performance or really any post Sullivan performances... You didn't get the sense that Brian was a strong business man in the movie. A story focused on Brian's closeted homosexuality doesn't really go anywhere because it was always in the closet... Which is how it was but there's nowhere for that story line to go because culture didn't change, acceptance didn't change, the overdose wasn't sinister, a lot of people topped themselves off to a similar fate in the late 60s... Easily my least favorite Beatles biopic.... But Leo Harvey-Elledge as George Harrison was good

[@BurgundySkies]

I agree with all your points. I think the Lennon actor (despite being good and clearly trying to give a good performance) was just not equipped to relay the dimension of John's personality. My view is that it's similar to the situation of Ramy Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody. Awesome actor, totally involved and strong performance, but not able to relay the force and larger than life dimension of the character.