Paul McCartney's self-indulgent exercise in tolerance isn't much better today than it was at the time of its release. I'm a big Beatles/Solo Beatles fan and even I have never been able to warm up to this. It's gloomy, depressing, pointless and grim. The only reason to watch is for the McCartney tunes - ranging from updated renditions of old Beatles classics ("Yesterday," "Here, There and Everywhere") to some newer songs that range from the rockin' ("Not Such a Bad Boy," "No Values") to the soft and sweet ("So Bad," "No More Lonely Nights"). Most embarrassing moment is a rendition of "Silly Love Songs" with the band in ridiculous makeup as an absurd break dancer performs in the foreground; most excruciating sequence involves a never-ending dream which concludes "Eleanor Rigby". McCartney should have learned long ago with MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR that he is not a screenplay writer. It's also terribly directed and acted.
48 Reviews
I give Paul some grace on this extended music video
robert-348-21555212 January 2022
I'm not going to review the film per se because so many have done that. I want to explore Sir Paul's motivations for making this film. He said on the Tonite Show that he had had his season of mania with the Fab Four and wanted to explore something different. At the time he's a father of four and lives a full but more sane lifestyle. I don't care if you're a nobody or a famous entertainer, everybody gets the jitters when putting themselves out there with something new. It's a frightening proposition. I acted in a movie that made the Tribeca Film Festival and went on to Netflix. Critics were not very kind to us and for my part there was only one critic that wrote _the movie would then cut to pointless scenes with the father of the protagonist_ At least it wasn't personal! The slings and arrows hurt Sir Paul as much as they hurt me.
People complain that it's not so much a movie as it is an extended music video, it has no arc and has disjointed scenes (possibly the same critics that gave _HELP_ rave reviews.) Approach it like that, as a fan of Sir Paul. The Eleanor Rigby scene in the theater was wonderful I thought. Expect it to be just an extended music video with Ringo and Paul dressed in period costume rowing down a river for no logical reason. And give him some grace and kudos for putting himself out there. I did, and as a Beatles fan growing up in the 60's I enjoyed it. I didn't love it, but I did enjoy it.
People complain that it's not so much a movie as it is an extended music video, it has no arc and has disjointed scenes (possibly the same critics that gave _HELP_ rave reviews.) Approach it like that, as a fan of Sir Paul. The Eleanor Rigby scene in the theater was wonderful I thought. Expect it to be just an extended music video with Ringo and Paul dressed in period costume rowing down a river for no logical reason. And give him some grace and kudos for putting himself out there. I did, and as a Beatles fan growing up in the 60's I enjoyed it. I didn't love it, but I did enjoy it.
Without John and George,Paul and Ringo don't quite cut the mustard
chinaskee15 February 2001
About the only thing this film has going for it is Paul McCartney singing some Beatles classics as well as some of the newer Wings titles.An attempt to capture the energy of "It's a Hard Days Night" fails dismally without John Lennon and George Harrison.Ringo's here,but barely utters a word.This is Paul's show all the way.This film desperately needed something it sorely lacks-ENERGY.What a shame.
Huh?
San Franciscan7 April 2002
Sure, I love the Beatles.
And sure, I respect Paul McCartney--especially when he has the courage to make mistakes. And he does admit himself that he messed this particular film up in the book "Paul McCartney: 20 Years On His Own".
I expected the film to be lousy and all, and hoped for at least a few nice musical performances. And, of course, I've heard all the critics' comments about its general lousiness as well as the users' remarks on here.
So what was my take on it?
Well, after seeing it and thinking about all who have said, "Yeech! It's a BOMB!" and everything...
I disagree--in a way. Despite the boring and goofy plot, uninteresting situations and thorough silliness, "Give My Regards To Broad Street" isn't terrible: it's just pretty bad. There are enjoyable music selections here, and even some which are genuinely touching.
The entire opening medley showing Sir Paul performing "Yesterday/Here, There and Everywhere/Wanderlust" is wonderful, as is the smoothly gliding loveliness of "So Bad". It is during these sections when you see that Paul's film, as he had explained in the above-mentioned book, was originally intended to be simply a series of music videos shown on television.
However, a terrific version of "Silly Loves Songs"--which is arguably superior to the original--is ruined by the visuals that accompany it. It's not the fact that everyone is done up in elaborate makeup; I don't mind that. It's just that all they do is simply stand in place like statues, barely moving at all while playing their instruments as an annoying breakdancer moves around on the floor in front of them. What on earth McCartney was trying to accomplish here I have no idea.
One sequence which produces unintentional giggles here is the "Eleanor's Dream" sequence. That acting. Those goofy FAKE SIDEBURNS!
Even sillier is the ending: it makes no sense whatsoever in a thread plot that already makes next to no sense to begin with (it makes the likes of "Purple Rain" look positively brilliant scriptwise), and features the biggest unintentional guffaw in the film: a scene in which Paul imagines himself as a street performer.
Interestingly enough, though, there is one strange feeling that this film gave me, and believe me, I never thought Paul McCartney would ever give me this kind of reaction with anything: a powerful wash of 80s nostalgia! Paul is dressed here precisely in the sort of outfit that so many wore during the "Miami Vice" craze, and sports one of those poofy 80s haircuts...the exact same sort of look I personally sported during the time!...that alone brought back weird reminders of my least favourite decade. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's something I just thought I'd mention in case anyone's into that sort of stuff.
All things considered, though, I've seen far worse films than this. It still entertains because it works better as a music video collection than as a movie, and you won't be as disappointed as you might be if you simply treat it as such. If you dig McCartney and The Beatles, there are bound to be at least one or two sections you like in here. Somewhere. Whether or not you have the patience to sit through the whole thing in order to see what they are is up to you.
What this movie really needs the most is a DVD re-release. That way everybody can simply skip over to whichever sections they like best rather than having to constantly rewind/fastforward just to find them.
And sure, I respect Paul McCartney--especially when he has the courage to make mistakes. And he does admit himself that he messed this particular film up in the book "Paul McCartney: 20 Years On His Own".
I expected the film to be lousy and all, and hoped for at least a few nice musical performances. And, of course, I've heard all the critics' comments about its general lousiness as well as the users' remarks on here.
So what was my take on it?
Well, after seeing it and thinking about all who have said, "Yeech! It's a BOMB!" and everything...
I disagree--in a way. Despite the boring and goofy plot, uninteresting situations and thorough silliness, "Give My Regards To Broad Street" isn't terrible: it's just pretty bad. There are enjoyable music selections here, and even some which are genuinely touching.
The entire opening medley showing Sir Paul performing "Yesterday/Here, There and Everywhere/Wanderlust" is wonderful, as is the smoothly gliding loveliness of "So Bad". It is during these sections when you see that Paul's film, as he had explained in the above-mentioned book, was originally intended to be simply a series of music videos shown on television.
However, a terrific version of "Silly Loves Songs"--which is arguably superior to the original--is ruined by the visuals that accompany it. It's not the fact that everyone is done up in elaborate makeup; I don't mind that. It's just that all they do is simply stand in place like statues, barely moving at all while playing their instruments as an annoying breakdancer moves around on the floor in front of them. What on earth McCartney was trying to accomplish here I have no idea.
One sequence which produces unintentional giggles here is the "Eleanor's Dream" sequence. That acting. Those goofy FAKE SIDEBURNS!
Even sillier is the ending: it makes no sense whatsoever in a thread plot that already makes next to no sense to begin with (it makes the likes of "Purple Rain" look positively brilliant scriptwise), and features the biggest unintentional guffaw in the film: a scene in which Paul imagines himself as a street performer.
Interestingly enough, though, there is one strange feeling that this film gave me, and believe me, I never thought Paul McCartney would ever give me this kind of reaction with anything: a powerful wash of 80s nostalgia! Paul is dressed here precisely in the sort of outfit that so many wore during the "Miami Vice" craze, and sports one of those poofy 80s haircuts...the exact same sort of look I personally sported during the time!...that alone brought back weird reminders of my least favourite decade. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's something I just thought I'd mention in case anyone's into that sort of stuff.
All things considered, though, I've seen far worse films than this. It still entertains because it works better as a music video collection than as a movie, and you won't be as disappointed as you might be if you simply treat it as such. If you dig McCartney and The Beatles, there are bound to be at least one or two sections you like in here. Somewhere. Whether or not you have the patience to sit through the whole thing in order to see what they are is up to you.
What this movie really needs the most is a DVD re-release. That way everybody can simply skip over to whichever sections they like best rather than having to constantly rewind/fastforward just to find them.
Steer clear.
sebastian_carr20 December 2002
I can still remember Paul McCartney being interviewed about this film shortly before its release. He sank a lot of his own money into the project and was bemoaning the fact that British investors didn't know a good thing when they saw one. Its runaway success would be his revenge on those who wouldn't fund the film. Anyway, it bombed and Macca waved goodbye to his money. I didn't see it in the cinema (nobody did), but saw it recently on TV. I watched because of the above tale. Was it a great work, as he had claimed? No. It is an excruciating piece of amateurish nonsense. Poorly acted and scripted, I can't think of a single redeeming feature.
Eh
SmoochyKat11 September 2005
I wouldn't go so far as to call this movie a 'crap-fest'. I have definitely sat through much worse. Given the time frame in which it was made, it could have been much, much worse than it actually was. I wouldn't call it a guilty pleasure, either. Though it wasn't a complete waste of time, it was awfully trite and clichéd. It plays like an extended music video, as well as seeming like a statement on the extreme boredom of Paul McCartney. (In Macca's defense, blogs didn't really exist then.) Although it's a didn't completely suck, Sir Paul really should stick to writing songs and leave screen writing to professionals. The music was good, of course- a nifty mix of classic Lennon/McCartney and originals. Some of the visuals were very interesting as well. Once again I must make the music video comparison here. But, overall, it must be said- though it's not a crap-fest, it's still extremely cheesy. A total cheese-fest. Yeah.
What was going on in his head?
rgsalin19 August 2005
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.
A long and tasteful music video
luapeltaeb25 August 2006
Paul and Co. do a wonderful job here. Not a bad film attempt for a man whose only previous movie work was hamming it up with the other Beatles. Set design, locations, song selection, performance all top notch. If you are looking for a "Popeye Doyle" put to music, keep looking. If you love the work of Paul, you have found a great movie! The acting is surprisingly good...Paul emotes, Ringo deadpans, Brian acts as a fine Englishman should. Bit parts by Linda McCartney, Barbara Bach, Tracey Ullman, Giant Haystacks and Sir Ralph Richardson all meld together beautifully. Do not believe the reviews that came out in 1984. They were probably written by left-over stones fans. Paul it's time you recorded "McCartney III" and did another film. Cheers!
My vote for worst movie of all time
bashour14 February 2006
This movie has my vote for worst movie of all time, it was simply unbearable and did not even have the redeeming feature of being so bad that it was funny, it was so bad it was sad... Saw it the year it was released in England with four very close friends. We were all expecting something to do with the Beatles, we were all huge fans. Disapointement does not even begin to encompass what this movie will bring you if you are a Beatles fan. Its worth seeing just to know how you can go about spoiling a movie. It should be analyzed in film school. Whenever I am asked for my worst movie of all time, this is the first to come to mind. At least the Blue Lagoon was bad in a way you could make fun of while watching. Not so here.
I worked on this movie.
mail-230117 January 2006
I guess I really have to give this more than 5,
yes it is really really-really cheesy ..but. I worked on this movie. as a humble video playback operator ! Some new and advanced equipment were used on this film, a steadicam was a fairly new thing, as was the luma crane, and the use of camera was not regular, more like you would expect to see in a TV studio.
I remember best the ballroom dancing scene, and silly love song's with the white stage, filmed at Elstree were those bits. I still have the callsheets, and the crew photo. but yes. a music video really, and thats' what the director had under his belt prior to this. and very cheesy.
yes it is really really-really cheesy ..but. I worked on this movie. as a humble video playback operator ! Some new and advanced equipment were used on this film, a steadicam was a fairly new thing, as was the luma crane, and the use of camera was not regular, more like you would expect to see in a TV studio.
I remember best the ballroom dancing scene, and silly love song's with the white stage, filmed at Elstree were those bits. I still have the callsheets, and the crew photo. but yes. a music video really, and thats' what the director had under his belt prior to this. and very cheesy.
A vanity film...and a not particularly good one.
planktonrules15 April 2008
In 1984, Paul McCartney made a feature-length film that was simply a gigantic music video--not a film, per se. Think about it--108 minutes of nothing but music videos with the barest of plots to connect them. Even for many die-hard Beatles or McCartney fans, this is quite the endurance contest to watch! In most ways, it seems like twenty years after A HARD DAYS NIGHT, McCartney is trying to recapture the magic--without John and George. Ringo and his lovely trophy wife make an appearance as do a few of McCartney's other friends, but the magic is sadly missing and it just looks like a very, very expensive home movie.
To put it bluntly, I found the whole experience tedious--and I couldn't wait to leave the theater. Now I must admit that I have never been a huge McCartney fan--I can take him or leave him. So, my reaction may not be yours. However, considering the movie is so unstructured and undisciplined, no one can SERIOUSLY call this a good film. Poor acting, dopey fantasy sequences and an overall aura of self-indulgence make this a vanity piece that seems twice as long as its actual running time. Had MOST musicians wanted to produce such a film, I doubt if any studio would have agreed. Given McCartney's pedigree, I guess it must have been pretty hard to say 'no'. Thank goodness this film didn't do well in the box office--otherwise, we might have been treated by follow-ups! In fact, it did so poorly that it might have been THE reason the Broadstreet station was closed and demolished just two years after this movie debuted.
PS--Some gave this film a 10.
To put it bluntly, I found the whole experience tedious--and I couldn't wait to leave the theater. Now I must admit that I have never been a huge McCartney fan--I can take him or leave him. So, my reaction may not be yours. However, considering the movie is so unstructured and undisciplined, no one can SERIOUSLY call this a good film. Poor acting, dopey fantasy sequences and an overall aura of self-indulgence make this a vanity piece that seems twice as long as its actual running time. Had MOST musicians wanted to produce such a film, I doubt if any studio would have agreed. Given McCartney's pedigree, I guess it must have been pretty hard to say 'no'. Thank goodness this film didn't do well in the box office--otherwise, we might have been treated by follow-ups! In fact, it did so poorly that it might have been THE reason the Broadstreet station was closed and demolished just two years after this movie debuted.
PS--Some gave this film a 10.
It's As Dumb Cheesy Entertaining As Possible And I Enjoy It And I Like It
HabibieHakim12322 April 2022
Give My Regards To Broad Street is a nice little experimental film from McCartney that the result for me was well done, the song performance was great, and the acting and the story is as dumb cheesy entertaining as possible, three new songs including "No More Lonely Nights" is a beautiful McCartney's original compositions for this particular film and it have a present place in it includings some bits of instrumental bits here and there basically the main theme of the film and it did makes the film for me a bit more special, "Not Such A Bad Boy" was a fun catchy song, "No Values" was quite rockin', and "No More Lonely Nights" the playout version was also very catchy, the rest of the song was a re-recorded version of songs from The Beatles, Wings, and some from McCartney's Tug Of War album, "Yesterday/Here There and Everywhere/Wanderlust" medley was just perfection, this version of "Ballroom Dancing" was for me even better than the Tug Of War version, and the whole dance sequence was pretty good, "Silly Love Song" with it silly sequence and quite silly new rendition definitely not better than the original but i'm still fine with it, "For No One" and "The Long And Winding Road" was good enough, and how can we not talk about the whole Eleanor Rigby's long dream sequence that are so dramatic even though it's the most random things ever it still fills with George Martin gorgeous orchestra in the background, and the rest of the film is basically Paul searching for his missing tape alongside the guy that he hired to keep it with him, and like i mention in the beginning, it's as dumb cheesy entertaining as possible and i enjoy it and i like it.
Method in the Music
blacknorth2 February 2009
Give My Regards To Broad Street is Paul McCartney's ultimate folly but, as folly goes, it's not quite up there with the sacking of Rome or the sinking of Atlantis. In fact, it's not half bad.
The music matters. McCartney's voice is on top form and he has picked and arranged a fine song-track to decorate a film which must have been scripted on the back of a plectrum. The plot is so inane and childish it doesn't warrant repeating here.
Paul's not an actor so don't expect the method but, strangely, do. The method is in the music, graceful and plaintive as ever, with a few new tracks to take the edge off the Beatles classics. No More Lonely Nights is one of his finest songs, arranged in sky-line melancholy, a London nod to Manhatten. The Silly Love Songs sequence is amusing and inventive if you get the gag - basically an opened out song playing like an opened out big-screen sit-com. And the extended Eleanor Rigby takes us briskly through a dream-sequence which formulates the 80's penchant for action aping introspection.
The supporting cast is odd - Ralph Richardson is wasted, Bryan Brown disinterested. Ringo sucks as ever. Only Linda seems to enter into the spirit of Paul's conceit, as though the script was pillow talk.
Slated at the time, the film is a must for Beatles, Wings and McCartney fans, and it's worth repeating that the man himself doesn't need to act the method, the method's in the music.
The music matters. McCartney's voice is on top form and he has picked and arranged a fine song-track to decorate a film which must have been scripted on the back of a plectrum. The plot is so inane and childish it doesn't warrant repeating here.
Paul's not an actor so don't expect the method but, strangely, do. The method is in the music, graceful and plaintive as ever, with a few new tracks to take the edge off the Beatles classics. No More Lonely Nights is one of his finest songs, arranged in sky-line melancholy, a London nod to Manhatten. The Silly Love Songs sequence is amusing and inventive if you get the gag - basically an opened out song playing like an opened out big-screen sit-com. And the extended Eleanor Rigby takes us briskly through a dream-sequence which formulates the 80's penchant for action aping introspection.
The supporting cast is odd - Ralph Richardson is wasted, Bryan Brown disinterested. Ringo sucks as ever. Only Linda seems to enter into the spirit of Paul's conceit, as though the script was pillow talk.
Slated at the time, the film is a must for Beatles, Wings and McCartney fans, and it's worth repeating that the man himself doesn't need to act the method, the method's in the music.
Not totally worthless, just pointless
trfesok7 October 2020
A few years later, I heard Paul interviewed on one of those call-in radio shows where he took a few questions. One guy called and asked him why he thought the movie wasn't a success. Paul actually answered, "Well, probably because it wasn't any good." Even though Paul himself disowned this box office bomb, my curiosity overcame my common sense, and I watched it.
I didn't find it as bad as much as it's pointless. It's really just a bunch of music video sequences connected by an almost non-existent plot featuring way underwritten characters, Paul in that ugly shirt on the album cover throughout, and a lot of padding - especially the pretentious "Eleanor's Dream" sequence. Paul obviously had a lot of ideas, but they were all too different to cohere into a consistent screenplay.
The low point is the "Silly Love Songs" part - what the hell was Paul thinking? Michael Jackson could have sued! On the other hand, I got a kick out of seeing George Martin in the studio and Dave Edmunds performing with Paul. I also found the performances of "Yesterday", "Here, There and Everywhere", "Wanderlust" and "For No One" quite moving. The brief scene with "Jim", is, I'm guessing, a touching tribute to Paul's father. Otherwise, it's another meaningless scene in a film full of them. The music ranges from pretty bad (the aforementioned "SLS" and the awful remake of "The Long and Winding Road", which accompanies a stupid driving montage) to quite good. But you can get the songs on the soundtrack album. Paul's talent is music making, not movie making, so buy the album and skip this, even of you're a big fan.
I didn't find it as bad as much as it's pointless. It's really just a bunch of music video sequences connected by an almost non-existent plot featuring way underwritten characters, Paul in that ugly shirt on the album cover throughout, and a lot of padding - especially the pretentious "Eleanor's Dream" sequence. Paul obviously had a lot of ideas, but they were all too different to cohere into a consistent screenplay.
The low point is the "Silly Love Songs" part - what the hell was Paul thinking? Michael Jackson could have sued! On the other hand, I got a kick out of seeing George Martin in the studio and Dave Edmunds performing with Paul. I also found the performances of "Yesterday", "Here, There and Everywhere", "Wanderlust" and "For No One" quite moving. The brief scene with "Jim", is, I'm guessing, a touching tribute to Paul's father. Otherwise, it's another meaningless scene in a film full of them. The music ranges from pretty bad (the aforementioned "SLS" and the awful remake of "The Long and Winding Road", which accompanies a stupid driving montage) to quite good. But you can get the songs on the soundtrack album. Paul's talent is music making, not movie making, so buy the album and skip this, even of you're a big fan.
Great music, fun movie, weak plot.
CalamarDH6 November 2002
If you're a big enough fan of Paul McCartney's to get past the fact that there's not too much to the plot, I would recommend for you to see it. The music is fantastic (he even kept the classics such as Eleanor Rigby, Here, There, And Everywhere, and The Long and Winding Road) and it's also just a fun little movie to watch if you're in a good mood. It's certainly not the greatest thing our Paul has ever done, but it not the worst either (Yeah, remember the Magical Mystery Tour same story: good music, bad plot). I give it a 7/10.
Give My Regrets To Broad Street
Lejink10 January 2020
I'm a lifelong Paul McCartney fan but it's taken me this long to steel myself to finally watch this justly maligned vanity project of a movie wot he wrote. To say it might have been written on the back of an envelope is to overstate proceedings, try the back of a stamp.
McCartney has to deliver his next album on time or else his parent record company will fall into the ownership of a big bad businessman who wanders about everywhere scowling in shades just so you know that this is somehow not a good thing. At the last minute, the master tape goes missing. Last person to hold it was newly employed gopher Harry, who big-hearted Paul has just lately employed despite having a history of petty crime. For some reason the tape has to be found before midnight so that Macca, in the middle of a busy day making a promo video, being interviewed at the BBC and recording songs, tries to locate the missing Harry and save the day.
Basically just a loosely connected travelogue in and around London with lots of McCartney music interspersed in between, it's one long yawn from start to finish. The musical numbers are mostly misconceived, as we see Paul trying to elevate some of his fair-to-middling recent material ("Ballroom Dancing", "So Bad" and especially "Wanderlust" which is inexplicably and unworthily tacked on to the end of a medley featuring "Yesterday" and "Here There And Everywhere") to the level of his illustrious Beatles past. It also just seems a sign of desperation that he felt the need to raid his Fab back catalogue for other songs too.
Worst moments, of many, for me were the Flock Of Seagulls mock-up for a robotic version of "Silly Love Songs" (don't ask), or an extended dream sequence which sees our hero got up in mutton chops and period costume (I said don't ask) to an instrumental version of "Eleanor Rigby". The little bit of new music we do get is actually okay, two knockabout rockers "No Values" and "Not Such A Bad Boy" and the strong power-ballad "No More Lonely Nights" which is promptly ruined by a voguish dance-mix over the end titles.
Elsewhere the cast includes such incongruities as Sir Ralph Richardson, Tracey Ullman and U.K. wrestler Giant Haystacks all with a few meagre lines which amply demonstrate in wide-apart descending order, the differences in their respective acting capabilities. McCartney himself tries to project his chipper, fab-wacky-Macca-thumbs-aloft demeanour and finds roles for wife Linda and old mate Ringo and his wife Barbara Bach but it's not just that you can see them all acting, you can actually see them all trying to act.
It's well seen that apart from a cameo in one of the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" movies, the only time you ever saw McCartney in front of a video camera after this was for one of his pop promos. This however was 100 minutes or so of absolute tedium which should have stayed as a home movie.
McCartney has to deliver his next album on time or else his parent record company will fall into the ownership of a big bad businessman who wanders about everywhere scowling in shades just so you know that this is somehow not a good thing. At the last minute, the master tape goes missing. Last person to hold it was newly employed gopher Harry, who big-hearted Paul has just lately employed despite having a history of petty crime. For some reason the tape has to be found before midnight so that Macca, in the middle of a busy day making a promo video, being interviewed at the BBC and recording songs, tries to locate the missing Harry and save the day.
Basically just a loosely connected travelogue in and around London with lots of McCartney music interspersed in between, it's one long yawn from start to finish. The musical numbers are mostly misconceived, as we see Paul trying to elevate some of his fair-to-middling recent material ("Ballroom Dancing", "So Bad" and especially "Wanderlust" which is inexplicably and unworthily tacked on to the end of a medley featuring "Yesterday" and "Here There And Everywhere") to the level of his illustrious Beatles past. It also just seems a sign of desperation that he felt the need to raid his Fab back catalogue for other songs too.
Worst moments, of many, for me were the Flock Of Seagulls mock-up for a robotic version of "Silly Love Songs" (don't ask), or an extended dream sequence which sees our hero got up in mutton chops and period costume (I said don't ask) to an instrumental version of "Eleanor Rigby". The little bit of new music we do get is actually okay, two knockabout rockers "No Values" and "Not Such A Bad Boy" and the strong power-ballad "No More Lonely Nights" which is promptly ruined by a voguish dance-mix over the end titles.
Elsewhere the cast includes such incongruities as Sir Ralph Richardson, Tracey Ullman and U.K. wrestler Giant Haystacks all with a few meagre lines which amply demonstrate in wide-apart descending order, the differences in their respective acting capabilities. McCartney himself tries to project his chipper, fab-wacky-Macca-thumbs-aloft demeanour and finds roles for wife Linda and old mate Ringo and his wife Barbara Bach but it's not just that you can see them all acting, you can actually see them all trying to act.
It's well seen that apart from a cameo in one of the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" movies, the only time you ever saw McCartney in front of a video camera after this was for one of his pop promos. This however was 100 minutes or so of absolute tedium which should have stayed as a home movie.
Painful with some redeeming moments
soulore-solaris16 October 2023
I get the feeling that Paul went into this really naive as to what film making is really about. Somewhere along the way McCartney got into his head the idea that musicians should make films, i guess the experience of A Hard Day's Night and Help! Set a certain rock and roll career trajectory and McCartney seemed to want to take the Betels into films all the time Mystery tour and Let it be also badly executed.
Perhaps with Broad Street he felt he could redeem the film making desire inside him? It is hard to fathom what he was thinking that this may have been a good idea.
Basically the film is really drab, colourless, dreary, the imagery, scenery, settings, dialogue and acting. It is all so flat and boring. Compared to hard days night or help that were full of action humour and excitement, this seems to be set in dreary settings with talk of banks and finances and creepy businessmen lurking around. So many awkward moments that aren't explained or resolved that don't add to the plot. The characters are dull and undeveloped. The whole thing just passes by without any memorable moments in the story. It is hard to not watch it and be aghast at how bland, corny and awkward this film is.
Then there is the MUSIC, some fantastic music on here beautiful versions of Beatles songs sung with gorgeous vocals and feeling. Slight variations on arrangements and a modern production on these classics is a great experiment by McCartney and definitely the highlights of the film here. "For No-one" with the strings is beautiful. Yesterday/here there and everywhere/wanderlust medley is simply gorgeous; I also like the extended orchestration of Eleanor Rigby even if the dream within a dream sequence in the film is another annoying / embarrassing moment here. The lead single No More Lonely Nights is a great track another McCartney classic. The other new songs are not so memorable but still fun with some nice melodies and good rock performance and arrangement. The quality of the music stands out here. The cringiest moment is the Silly Love Songs sequence, it just feels like at times McCartney is playing this "Look i can do it too" rendition of 80s film and pop culture cliches, but so what? It doesn't impress.
Some interesting storyline and settings would go a long way to redeem this film. I get the sense that McCartney just wanted to have some fun making a film and pulled in people who would just pander to that whim. Is it ego or naivety? Hard to tell probably a bit of both...
Paul McCartney just loves to make music and entertain. He suffers somewhat by being detached and out of touch. The whimsy and playfulness is there it just lacks any substance, nuance or depth which makes this disappointing to annoying mostly, for anyone with a mature artistic sensibility. Good for the die-hard fans and worth it for the wonderful music that does a lot better without the film footage.
Perhaps with Broad Street he felt he could redeem the film making desire inside him? It is hard to fathom what he was thinking that this may have been a good idea.
Basically the film is really drab, colourless, dreary, the imagery, scenery, settings, dialogue and acting. It is all so flat and boring. Compared to hard days night or help that were full of action humour and excitement, this seems to be set in dreary settings with talk of banks and finances and creepy businessmen lurking around. So many awkward moments that aren't explained or resolved that don't add to the plot. The characters are dull and undeveloped. The whole thing just passes by without any memorable moments in the story. It is hard to not watch it and be aghast at how bland, corny and awkward this film is.
Then there is the MUSIC, some fantastic music on here beautiful versions of Beatles songs sung with gorgeous vocals and feeling. Slight variations on arrangements and a modern production on these classics is a great experiment by McCartney and definitely the highlights of the film here. "For No-one" with the strings is beautiful. Yesterday/here there and everywhere/wanderlust medley is simply gorgeous; I also like the extended orchestration of Eleanor Rigby even if the dream within a dream sequence in the film is another annoying / embarrassing moment here. The lead single No More Lonely Nights is a great track another McCartney classic. The other new songs are not so memorable but still fun with some nice melodies and good rock performance and arrangement. The quality of the music stands out here. The cringiest moment is the Silly Love Songs sequence, it just feels like at times McCartney is playing this "Look i can do it too" rendition of 80s film and pop culture cliches, but so what? It doesn't impress.
Some interesting storyline and settings would go a long way to redeem this film. I get the sense that McCartney just wanted to have some fun making a film and pulled in people who would just pander to that whim. Is it ego or naivety? Hard to tell probably a bit of both...
Paul McCartney just loves to make music and entertain. He suffers somewhat by being detached and out of touch. The whimsy and playfulness is there it just lacks any substance, nuance or depth which makes this disappointing to annoying mostly, for anyone with a mature artistic sensibility. Good for the die-hard fans and worth it for the wonderful music that does a lot better without the film footage.
Stick to writing songs, Paul
neil-4764 October 2007
I too start from the position of being a Beatles and McCartney fan, one who clearly recalls when Beatlemania first took hold in the UK.
I remember eagerly looking forward to Magical Mystery Tour on Boxing Day 1967, and being increasingly embarrassed as it went on. Even to my 15-year old Beatle-besotted brain it was clear that, excepting only the musical sequences, it was very, very bad. The lesson which came across loud and clear was that, while the Beatles were undoubtedly in a class of their own as far as writing songs was concerned, they were very, very bad at writing films. And, let's be fair, the lion's share of the responsibility for the Magical Mystery Tour travesty rested with McCartney.
I guess in 17 years the memory must have faded a bit, and he forgot that lesson.
Broad Street taught it to him again, though.
You can't write films, Paul. Stick to music.
The music is mostly fine. The Yesterday/Here there and everywhere/Wanderlust medley is attractive but suffers, perhaps, from thematic disunity. Ballroom Dancing works as a sequence, although it leaves you wondering "Why?". Silly love songs - interesting variation on the original arrangement, a good look spoilt by the idiotic breakdancer. So bad - a straightforward, successful group performance. Most of the covers are fairly redundant, with little variation from their sources. Extending Eleanor Rigby into a dream fantasy sequence and creating an orchestral development for it is by far the most interesting and imaginative idea in the whole film - unfortunately, the sequence itself is so corny and takes itself so seriously that it doesn't work - marks for effort here, though.
The multitudes of old pals/guest stars who wander through the proceedings must have gone on to wonder if doing a favour for a friend was too high a price to pay for a blot of this magnitude on their CVs.
A word in favour of the US DVD - two sided, it has 4:3 and widescreen on the two sides, no extras, and WONDERFUL sound.
I remember eagerly looking forward to Magical Mystery Tour on Boxing Day 1967, and being increasingly embarrassed as it went on. Even to my 15-year old Beatle-besotted brain it was clear that, excepting only the musical sequences, it was very, very bad. The lesson which came across loud and clear was that, while the Beatles were undoubtedly in a class of their own as far as writing songs was concerned, they were very, very bad at writing films. And, let's be fair, the lion's share of the responsibility for the Magical Mystery Tour travesty rested with McCartney.
I guess in 17 years the memory must have faded a bit, and he forgot that lesson.
Broad Street taught it to him again, though.
You can't write films, Paul. Stick to music.
The music is mostly fine. The Yesterday/Here there and everywhere/Wanderlust medley is attractive but suffers, perhaps, from thematic disunity. Ballroom Dancing works as a sequence, although it leaves you wondering "Why?". Silly love songs - interesting variation on the original arrangement, a good look spoilt by the idiotic breakdancer. So bad - a straightforward, successful group performance. Most of the covers are fairly redundant, with little variation from their sources. Extending Eleanor Rigby into a dream fantasy sequence and creating an orchestral development for it is by far the most interesting and imaginative idea in the whole film - unfortunately, the sequence itself is so corny and takes itself so seriously that it doesn't work - marks for effort here, though.
The multitudes of old pals/guest stars who wander through the proceedings must have gone on to wonder if doing a favour for a friend was too high a price to pay for a blot of this magnitude on their CVs.
A word in favour of the US DVD - two sided, it has 4:3 and widescreen on the two sides, no extras, and WONDERFUL sound.
Sir Paul McCartneys No more lonely nights song is memorable
xbrad6813 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sir Paul McCartney has had several musical comebacks although most people are to polite to call them comebacks. The Video for the song No more lonely nights is okay and more enjoyable than the movie. Paul McCartneys master tapes for his new album go pretend missing in this film. My Daughter Julias artificial Intelligence Computer on the home world of the Care Rank Ki Aliens the Creators of Humans says: "I will hold the Care Rank Ki Home World of Coaltrain Daddy." Thats good Julia, even if the Care Rank Ki rule the universe, their home world is still worth guarding by Moonfleet 1 to 169 including my Moon 168 Rtexas. News from the Galactica (Rtexas 168) "All is well under military Alert BradMawe."
Here is an American Government code for something: "Theres quite a few gutteralive shout it out louds" In his Peace Speech of June 1963 President Jack Kennedy said that America will never start a (nuclear) war. That is still the policy of American Shadow President Jack F Kennedy and myself American Shadow Vice President Brad HD Morgan. I ask that my Daughter Julia and my Exwife Susan, her Fiancé David and Davids Mother Marg of 14 Allen Court Dutton Ontario and myself be taken to an American long term bunker as soon as possible due to the superflus of march 29 Solar Eclipse day that I did not sign for. I am a law abiding citizen. Some of Sir Paul McCartneys other films are also worth watching.
Here is an American Government code for something: "Theres quite a few gutteralive shout it out louds" In his Peace Speech of June 1963 President Jack Kennedy said that America will never start a (nuclear) war. That is still the policy of American Shadow President Jack F Kennedy and myself American Shadow Vice President Brad HD Morgan. I ask that my Daughter Julia and my Exwife Susan, her Fiancé David and Davids Mother Marg of 14 Allen Court Dutton Ontario and myself be taken to an American long term bunker as soon as possible due to the superflus of march 29 Solar Eclipse day that I did not sign for. I am a law abiding citizen. Some of Sir Paul McCartneys other films are also worth watching.
I was once a devoted Beatle fan
imbluzclooby14 January 2009
I vaguely remember seeing this film when it was released and barely remember much about it. That doesn't say much in favor of a film created by one of the world's most popular musicians of all time. Despite one good song, "No more lonely nights", this two-hour excursion of narcissism and nonsense will bore you to tears.
In retrospect I am reminded of Neil Diamond's valiant , but failed attempt at recreating The Jazz Singer, another bad film. But at least Diamond's film had a coherent plot with a beginning, middle and end, however completely implausible it was. Broad Street doesn't even qualify as a movie. It's more like a poorly designed compilation of video clips cut and thrown on the editing room floor. Paul and everything else ends up looking really silly in this turgid mess.
From 1985 to 1988 I went through this strange period of self awareness, I became a devout and unshakable Beatles fan. I was entrenched in their memorabilia, albums, songs, and the whole mystique of the 1960's era that they defined for pop-culture in many ways. 85% of the music I listened to was all Beatles. Sound crazy? It was. But after that 3 year stint of idolizing Paul, John, George and Ringo, I quit suddenly. The whole fun and excitement vanished. I honestly have not listened to the Beatles songs since then. Whenever a song comes on the radio I have to turn the station. It bores me now, because maybe I burned out from listening to all those silly familiar lyrics that were once embedded in my sub-conscience. Sorry Paul, but my fan-hood has waned but was well lived at one period of time. Isn't that weird. I now think their music is so banal and bland. It actually bores me.
In retrospect I am reminded of Neil Diamond's valiant , but failed attempt at recreating The Jazz Singer, another bad film. But at least Diamond's film had a coherent plot with a beginning, middle and end, however completely implausible it was. Broad Street doesn't even qualify as a movie. It's more like a poorly designed compilation of video clips cut and thrown on the editing room floor. Paul and everything else ends up looking really silly in this turgid mess.
From 1985 to 1988 I went through this strange period of self awareness, I became a devout and unshakable Beatles fan. I was entrenched in their memorabilia, albums, songs, and the whole mystique of the 1960's era that they defined for pop-culture in many ways. 85% of the music I listened to was all Beatles. Sound crazy? It was. But after that 3 year stint of idolizing Paul, John, George and Ringo, I quit suddenly. The whole fun and excitement vanished. I honestly have not listened to the Beatles songs since then. Whenever a song comes on the radio I have to turn the station. It bores me now, because maybe I burned out from listening to all those silly familiar lyrics that were once embedded in my sub-conscience. Sorry Paul, but my fan-hood has waned but was well lived at one period of time. Isn't that weird. I now think their music is so banal and bland. It actually bores me.
The album paid for the movie
robhingston23 November 2021
Q. What did He Do with the Money?
arfdawg-13 June 2020
ex-Beatle Paul rocks the casbah
helpless_dancer16 October 2001
Tissue paper thin story used completely as an excuse for Paul and friends to conjure up a series of music videos. And ruddy good tunes they were. Loved watching the band go through several fine songs, many of which I had never before heard. The story had Paul and cohorts searching for a set of missing tapes, leading the viewer through a series of flashbacks and dreamscapes which gave the film a magically mysterious sensation. The picture at times had that 1/2 baked feel I was used to from early Beatle flickers....only this was much, much better. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie: and I really went for the little doodle bug car.
It's OK
tommystans13 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a big fan of Paul McCartney and The Beatles and I do have a copy of this movie on my shelf and to be honest I think it's OK. It has a good plot and it follows it after the songs but despite the great songs that the man had made it tends to stretch in order to fill the time limit of the movie and sometimes you forget what the plot is even all about. First it's all about the tapes being 'stolen' and then next we see Paul McCartney day dreaming during 'Eleanor Rigby' with some parts of the main plot still used for a few seconds. It could've been called 'The Day in the Life of Paul McCartney' with the main plot as its main focus of course, after all some scenes do really show his daily life via dream.
The settings of the film is really nice and I do like the 'Eleanor's Dream' scene that was featured. Some of the instrumental music was fine as well. Shame there wasn't too much time with Ringo Starr in the film but it is all about McCartney. It's an OK film but the addition of songs, although nice to listen too, tend to drag away from the plot and makes you forget about it. But still I enjoy this film and its a recommendation to Paul McCartney fans or Beatles fans.
The settings of the film is really nice and I do like the 'Eleanor's Dream' scene that was featured. Some of the instrumental music was fine as well. Shame there wasn't too much time with Ringo Starr in the film but it is all about McCartney. It's an OK film but the addition of songs, although nice to listen too, tend to drag away from the plot and makes you forget about it. But still I enjoy this film and its a recommendation to Paul McCartney fans or Beatles fans.
Not so bad..
JefferI21 July 2004
If you're a McCartney fan, it's the equivalent of a hour and a half music video. No real plot. Silly dialogue.
It's essentially a self indulgent effort. Much in the same line as Magical Mystery Tour. Not as creepy, but not as inventive either.
But I saw it in HD at home last night and the soundtrack was certainly worth it.
EXCELLENT sound.
So if you would like to see what is essentially a McCartney / Beatles Video starring Paul and Ringo, this is right up you're alley.
Some minor parts as well may have some interest to fans.
Again, if you're not a McCartney fan, then you'd probably skip this one.
If you are, and can get it with full sound, then do it.
It's essentially a self indulgent effort. Much in the same line as Magical Mystery Tour. Not as creepy, but not as inventive either.
But I saw it in HD at home last night and the soundtrack was certainly worth it.
EXCELLENT sound.
So if you would like to see what is essentially a McCartney / Beatles Video starring Paul and Ringo, this is right up you're alley.
Some minor parts as well may have some interest to fans.
Again, if you're not a McCartney fan, then you'd probably skip this one.
If you are, and can get it with full sound, then do it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
