I got tired of the 'Beatles' bio-movies (and books) somewhere around the mid-80's, when everyone went over the top trying to convey John's desparation/troubled-youth in contrast w/ the clean cut, mop-topped, jovial early Beatles.
I never bother with those books because they end up being less about the subject and more about the author's own prejudices and biases, whether said topic was a saint or a bastard.
Of course unlike people then (and apparently now) I never understood this compulsion to pick between John and Paul. Both were great composers, both made some wonderful music on their own ("Maybe I'm Amazed", "Imagine"), both also made crap (SOMETIME IN NEW YORK, too many Wings songs), and both probably were at their best when together which neither would ever admit to.
As for Beatles biopics, I seem to remember rather (surprisingly) enjoying "Two of Us" in spite of its TV movie limitations if because I thought the performances seemed rather spot on. Of course that same director also shot LET IT BE, and God knows he would know those two from that miserable experience.
This got pretty good reviews overall, though I have little interest in seeing it.
Pity, I wanted to hear your (scathing) opinion on it.
There wasn't a scandal re the director and star - why would there be? Sam-Taylor Woomedia d's a highly respected artist; this is her first feature film.
But that bit kept coming up in every British report/review I read on the movie, like every GHOST WRITER review had to tackle the Polanski shit.
