Movie Review: The Beatles: Eight Days a Week–The Touring Years, or A Beatles Documentary For Millenials

Apple Corps via The Daily Mail

Sleepovers were probably awesome. 

Some of you may be wondering, "Do we really need a new Beatles documentary?" The answer is, well, it depends. If you're a millenial who only discovered the Beatles on Spotify, then yes, we do. If you're an old fan who was already alive when all four Beatles were, then yes, we do. Okay, so it doesn't really depend. The world does need a new Beatles documentary.

Eight Days a Week: The Touring Years is as the title suggests–a documentary about the touring years of the Beatles, from their early road struggles in Liverpool, England and Hamburg, Germany in 1960 up to their last live concert in Candlestick Park, San Francisco in 1966. As a treat, however, director Ron Howard threw in their gig at the rooftop of the Apple Corps. office in 1969 which, although not part of the touring years, was the Fab Four's final live performance.

also.kottke.org

Before they had moptops. Circa 1957.

For the new fans, they'll get to see footage of the Beatles in their prime, showing how John, Paul, George, and Ringo became the biggest band in the UK and how they seamlessly transitioned across the pond to become the biggest band in the English-speaking world. For old fans, especially the die-hard ones who've seen hours of Beatles videos before this, they'll get to see all-new never-before-seen footage of the Beatles, gathered from fans' home movies which were filmed during the actual tour dates.

The film features archive interviews from the late Messrs. Lennon and Harrison, as well as new interviews from Sir Paul McCartney (who doesn't seem to have aged well), and the great Ringo Starr (who seems to have looked cooler with age). Then there are also celebrity memoirs, recounting their fond and nostalgic memories of Beatlemania, including Elvis Costello, Eddie Izzard, Whoopi Goldberg, and Sigourney Weaver.

agileticketing.net

Back in their Cavern days.

Pretty noticeable was how cool the Beatles were. Aside from being very cheeky, especially in interviews, they seem to exude that happy-go-lucky attitude, making their performances seem like playtime, when in reality, that's one of the most gruelling tasks a human being can endure. They never do seem to take themselves seriously except when making music and writing songs. That's their craft, that's what they do best, and that's something they really take seriously.

The Beatles weren't really after the fame nor the prestige; these were just a by-product of their excellent music. Well, yes they did want to reach the "toppermost of the poppermost", but what they really wanted was to be the best in songwriting and music-making. They put premium on the music and the performances, and when all the screaming fans couldn't give them the best of what a live musical experience should be, they ditched that and concentrated on giving their best in the studio. After their retirement from live performances, the world didn't really mourn the loss of Beatles music, because their remaining years in Abbey Road gave us some of the best recorded albums in history, forever cementing their legacy in music history.

thebeatleseightdaysaweek.com

One of their last live gigs at Shea Stadium.

The Beatles: Eight Days a Week–The Touring Years. USA/UK. 2016.



Original rating: 8/10
The Cavern footage: +0.2
Not enough Cavern footage: -0.1
Not enough Hamburg footage: -0.1
Manila footage: +0.2
Not enough Manila footage: -0.1
The Beatles against segregation: +0.1
Final rating: 8.2/10

Review: Possible Academy Award Nominations for Rush

YouTube

As a relatively new Formula 1 fan (thanks to the documentary Senna, and of course to Sue Denim), 2013 is my first real season. My only regret is that I didn't become a petrolhead earlier.

YouTube

When crashes and deaths were part of an ordinary day in the office.

Rush may not score big in box office returns, but will very likely be nominated for more than one Academy Award. And these nominations are:

Best Actor in a Leading Role

Daniel Brühl as Niki Lauda

YouTube

"Yes, I look a bit like a young Christopher Reeve. So what?"

Angels and Demons

Angels and Demons (for those who read the book)

Watching a movie based on a book is always tricky. Going in, you already seem to think that the movie will probably be not up to par with the book. A lot also depends on whether you read the book or not beforehand and try as you might, you cannot change the fact that you did read the book and know the story already.

So I will not pretend as if I did not know the story or that even though I did read the book, I can totally disregard it. I can't. So I won't.

Angels and Demons was one of the most highly anticipated movies for me this summer. Everybody thought that The DaVinci Code didn't turn out as good as they expected and thought that this one could be an improvement. Is it?

In a way, yes. Angels and Demons is the book prequel to TDVC. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) runs around the Vatican trying to catch the elusive group Illuminati who is out to destroy the Catholic Church. It is a much more exciting story, pace-wise, than TDVC and it is a little less preachy than its predecessor, which sometimes felt like an indoctrination to a cult.

Acting remains excellent, especially by Ewan McGregor who played the Camerlengo. (By the way, Ewan McGregor and Paul Bettany could have exchanged roles in the two movies and it still would've worked). Stellan Skarsgård on the other hand acts as if he is a Tony award-winning actor stuck in a children's school play. I'm sure that's exactly how he felt.

Ayelet Zurer nails the part of a hottie smart girl which is really quite difficult if you look at all the failed examples in Hollywood (Denise Richards in that James Bond flick, Elisabeth Shue in The Saint). Hanks is always believable because he plays within range every time and never fails in a performance.

So was it good? Yes.

Did I like it? As a guy who read the book and was blown away by the key plot near the end?

No.

Like I said, translating a book into a movie is tricky. Understandably, there will be some elements that will be lost as things just may not fit the time constraints of a movie. For example, Tom Bombadil (if I'm right) completely got written off in Lord of the Rings. Was it okay? Yes, because he did not figure in prominently in the story. Characters can be lost if they are minor ones. Plots however should not be. Especially if it's the key plot of the entire story and it is what elevates the story beyond a regular suspense thriller.

That plot left out in the movie blew me away in the book. It was great, it was painful, it was jarring. I loved it. It was the part that I loved the most in the story and since they left it out of the movie, I now hate the latter.

Is it still a good movie? Yes. Just don't read the book before. Or after.

Six out of ten stars.