In the 1980s, Paul McCartney made a film that was obviously inspired by "A Hard Day's Night". However similar in structure, "Give My Regards to Broad Street" was clearly NOT the same quality movie. So, if you saw this much later film and assumed "A Hard Day's Night" is also a boring, bloated and enormously long-winded music video, think twice! Despite having practically no plot and TONS of Beatles songs strung together instead of a story, there is something likable about "A Hard Day's Night" and it gives you the next best thing to a backstage pass to meet them--albeit heavily scripted and plasticized.
The plot, for what it is, is a visit to the hectic life of the Beatles--making it not much of a stretch for the boys. And they essentially play the public roles each played--Paul was the sweet and nice one, John the clever smart-aleck, George the quiet one and Ringo the goofy one. Whether this is exactly as they really were is pretty doubtful, but they did play the parts the public expected and loved. The film includes them being chased by fans (A LOT), riding trains, making eyes at girls, cracking jokes and singing. Along for the ride is the somewhat irrelevant 'grandfather' of Paul--who was actually actor Wilfrid Brambell from "Steptoe and Son" (a precursor to "Sanford and Son" in America). He mostly just sits there and looks serious or chases young women. In the MANY times when the film breaks into seemingly spontaneous music videos, he mostly sits there and looks bewildered. I am sure back in 1964, anyone in the theater older than, say, 35, looked pretty much the same way!! As I said, the plot is VERY thin and mostly it's just a chance to pretend to see the Beatles as they are in real life (sure) and hear a lot of their songs...LOTS. In fact, it seems like the songs often take the place of plot. Now this would suck if it was, say, the Bay City Rollers,The Ohio Express or The Starland Vocal Band. But, considering almost every song is among the group's best, it's hard to hate the lack of plot--unless you are a crazy young whippersnapper who hates the Fab Four! As for me, I found the film very forgettable but fun...with nice tunes. I did NOT see it as brilliant cinema and cannot understand all the votes of 10--which, to me, seem more like votes on how much they like the Beatles instead of the overall merits of a film. That's because it just didn't seem like a movie--more like an extended advertisement for the group in order to satisfy their insanely devoted fans and convert others to the cult! And, in that sense, it is a successful film---but oddness in style and the group not taking themselves too seriously don't, to me, make it a great film. Many of their jokes fall flat, the songs seem about as spontaneous as a moon landing and the lack of structure make it a niche film. A must-see? Well, if you love the Beatles, yes. Otherwise, just a strange and occasionally humorous 'anti-film' that tries hard NOT to be a movie.
By the way, not matter how kooky the Beatles may or may not have been, who wears a hat and underwear in the bathtub, shaves a mirror or draws on TV monitors?! Also, watch Ringo when he plays the drums. Often his motions aren't even close to him really playing the drums and the sticks often don't come close to touching the drums!
The plot, for what it is, is a visit to the hectic life of the Beatles--making it not much of a stretch for the boys. And they essentially play the public roles each played--Paul was the sweet and nice one, John the clever smart-aleck, George the quiet one and Ringo the goofy one. Whether this is exactly as they really were is pretty doubtful, but they did play the parts the public expected and loved. The film includes them being chased by fans (A LOT), riding trains, making eyes at girls, cracking jokes and singing. Along for the ride is the somewhat irrelevant 'grandfather' of Paul--who was actually actor Wilfrid Brambell from "Steptoe and Son" (a precursor to "Sanford and Son" in America). He mostly just sits there and looks serious or chases young women. In the MANY times when the film breaks into seemingly spontaneous music videos, he mostly sits there and looks bewildered. I am sure back in 1964, anyone in the theater older than, say, 35, looked pretty much the same way!! As I said, the plot is VERY thin and mostly it's just a chance to pretend to see the Beatles as they are in real life (sure) and hear a lot of their songs...LOTS. In fact, it seems like the songs often take the place of plot. Now this would suck if it was, say, the Bay City Rollers,The Ohio Express or The Starland Vocal Band. But, considering almost every song is among the group's best, it's hard to hate the lack of plot--unless you are a crazy young whippersnapper who hates the Fab Four! As for me, I found the film very forgettable but fun...with nice tunes. I did NOT see it as brilliant cinema and cannot understand all the votes of 10--which, to me, seem more like votes on how much they like the Beatles instead of the overall merits of a film. That's because it just didn't seem like a movie--more like an extended advertisement for the group in order to satisfy their insanely devoted fans and convert others to the cult! And, in that sense, it is a successful film---but oddness in style and the group not taking themselves too seriously don't, to me, make it a great film. Many of their jokes fall flat, the songs seem about as spontaneous as a moon landing and the lack of structure make it a niche film. A must-see? Well, if you love the Beatles, yes. Otherwise, just a strange and occasionally humorous 'anti-film' that tries hard NOT to be a movie.
By the way, not matter how kooky the Beatles may or may not have been, who wears a hat and underwear in the bathtub, shaves a mirror or draws on TV monitors?! Also, watch Ringo when he plays the drums. Often his motions aren't even close to him really playing the drums and the sticks often don't come close to touching the drums!