I am a real McCartney lover. However, I don't dig this movie at all. What was he thinking about when he "wrote" the "script"? How could George Martin have been able to accept such poor new versions of gems like "For No One" or "Here, There And Everywhere"? No wonder Ringo Starr didn't want to get involved in The Beatles new covers. The music in the film is the less McCartney-like ever... The arrangements are sugary, the voice... oh! please... compare it to the voice in Rockshow or Wings Over America, or, why not?, the voice he exhibits in his most recent tours (2000 on). Fortunately, he didn't make a second part of the movie, as his wish had been for a while. There are, however, some good bits (or let's say not so mediocre bits). For example, when the band (Ringo Starr included, and other excellent musicians such as Dave Edmunds), performs the not very good compositions "No values", and some others. Didn't anybody had the guts to tell him that, with such an incredible band he was performing with, he should have chosen a better repertoire? All in all, a regrettable movie, full of possibilities (excellent musicians, for instance), with a horrible script (Paul will always be famous for showing off that he can do anything, even things he doesn't know how to... as writing scripts). Fortunately, we will always have his other records. Don't forget that Paul McCartney is a musician, not an actor. His workshop is the recording studio and the stage, doing the best thing he can do: performing music.
Review of Give My Regards to Broad Street
