Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

dbdumonteil "Details the lives of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, from before their first meeting to their rise to stardom." :This depiction is inaccurate :Lennon was already a superstar when he met Yoko Ono and later shed light on her unknown work .This MTV work is faithful like a dog to the "official " biography ,and can ,front that point of view ,be considered a successful biopic;in almost every scene ,the viewer -Beatles fan ,of course- already knows which famous line will be said ; the screenwriters ,in 2 hours thirty minutes, put almost "all you (want to) know about the famous love story.Marc McGann and mainly Kim Miyori resemble (physically ) their models . Ditto for Richard Morant's distinguished Brian Epstein;the same can't be said of Harrison and poor Ringo who is not even funny !As for Kenneth Price's Paul McCartney,it's a disaster:the actor has no screen presence ,does not look like Paul (they were not able to cast William Campbell ,were they?).Why did they dub Paul for the rehearsals (in which they butcher "Sgt pepper's " "let it be" and "you never give me your money"? Fortunately,we hear Lennon's (and hem...Yoko's) true voice,even if the chosen tracks are sometimes anachronistic :"I want You (She's so heavy)" is heard when the Beatles study in India.And if my memory serves me well,the couple dances the waltz to "I me mine" ,not to "let it be" in the 1970 film .The second part is Beatlesless,which is a blessing ;Lennon's solo career is treated in a linear way ,without those "meaningful" childhood flashbacks which mar so many contemporary rock star biopics ;it's a good thing to have shown Yoko's fight to be given the custody of her daughter,for this side of the story is often passed over in silence.The assassination is treated concisely.Yoko appears as a victim of the nasty English people,of men ,and of their justice.She performs a brief excerpt of her avant-garde "Cambridge 1969" (released on "life with the lions" ,an album where you can also hear the baby's heartbeat Lennon records in the hospital),"Yang Yang" and, that fateful night,her best track "walking on thin ice" .This portrayal is obviously biased and she is certainly not the nice romantic sensible lady of the biopic,even if she is certainly not the shrew depicted by Goldmann in his notorious biography.Phil Spector ,who played a prominent part in Lennon solo's debut has an one-minute scene ;however he did produce THREE of his albums ,including his strongest "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band " ;incidentally ,Doctor Janov does not appear and is not even mentioned :considering he was the main influence on Lennon's first ,which spawned the whole school of the "confessional" artists in the seventies ,it's certainly the biggest gap in Lennon /Ono's story.Beatles' fans will not learn anything new in this biopic ,but it is pleasant to Watch ,and considering it was made thirty years ago ,it has worn pretty well.

Desertman84 John and Yoko: A Love Story is a TV movie that narrates the love story between John Lennon and Yoko Ono.It stars Mark McGann and Kim Miyori.The screenplay covers the period between 1966 when the Beatles at the conclusion of their world tour until 1980 when Lennon was shot to death by a deranged fan.It was directed by Sandor Stern.As stated in the earlier paragraph,the movie started in 1966 when the Beatles were in Memphis,Tenseness.The band got into a controversy after John made a statement saying that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ.This angered a lot of Americans particularly Christians that they made public display of burning Beatles posters and long playing albums.After this concert,the band returned to the UK and decided to have a long rest.This started stress among band members and the death of the band's manager,Brian Epstein made the tension they were feeling even worse.Meanwhile,John Lennon visited an art exhibit of Yoko Ono in England.They meet for the first time and it did not result into a good meeting between the two.But later,they get to meet again and fell in love with each other. This led to John divorcing his wife,Cynthia and Yoko as well from her husband,Anthony Cox.Since then,both John and Yoko have been inseparable.Her presence during the Beatles' recordings at Apple increased the tension in the band even further that ultimately led to the band's disbandment in 1970.After this,John and Yoko's relationship was narrated from the concerts they made;the tension they experienced during their relationship;the songs that they wrote and John wrote during his solo career;his 5- year absence when he decided to take care of their son Sean; and his untimely death when he was shot at the middle of the night by a deranged fan.The TV movie was definitely an underrated one.It isn't popular among Beatles fans especially those who credit Yoko Ono as the primary reason for the band's disbandment and their severe dislike for her.But as a movie,I felt that it provided a good narration of their love story.Casual Beatle fans will definitely provided a lot of information about the band from 1966 to 1970 as well as that of John's solo career from 1971 to 1980.The music should also be mentioned as it provided great Beatle songs such as In My Life,Strawberry Fields Forever and Help and a lot of great songs from Lennon during his solo career such as Imagine,God,Woman and Give Peace A Chance.Overall,it is a good TV movie that deserves more credit than it deserves.

fivefids I remember hearing about this movie when it was in the planning stages and one news agency was reporting that Mark Lindsay Chapman was turned down for the part of John Lennon, as was Julian Lennon. I saw the last half of this when it originally aired in December 1985 and have wanted to see it again ever since. I purchased a copy on ebay in 2005 and have viewed it several times since. For a TV movie, I'd say it was better than average as far as acting and technical aspects are concerned, with the exception of the actors who played the other 3 Beatles which I felt fell into caricatures of Paul, George and Ringo with obvious fake mustaches, but other than that, overall pretty good. Mark McGann looked a lot like John Lennon but Kim Miroyi really does not look at all like Yoko Ono. I think this was a pretty objective portrayal as far as specific events and characters but overall, I think it falls into the same trap many Lennon tributes do and that is they leave the viewer with the impression that he was more 'saintly' than he really was. John Lennon was not a martyred saint but rather the victim of a random and tragic act of violence. John's ex-wife Cynthia has often stated "He's no saint, never was" but the way this movie raps up you could be left with that impression. Perhaps because it was made in the mid-80s, this movie portrays John Lennon as having changed into "Mr. Conservative" toward the end of his life. While he had matured and embraced and espoused family values, the portrayal of him with short hair and conservative dress toward the end of the movie may be a bit inaccurate. Lennon's untimely death was/is indeed a tragedy and overall this movie is pretty fair in its portrayal but the transformation at the end seems out of place. I still feel that watching it is time well spent.

Voxel-Ux This tele-film is visually and, to a lesser degree, audibly charming in favour of suspending one's disbelief that we are actually a fly-on-the-wall witnessing John Lennon and Yoko Ono from their initial beginning together to their final and tragic end. The period covered, therefore, is from 1966 to 1980. The Beatles' score and solo work are used to help convey the story mirroring the feelings felt at the time even though chronologically it can be inaccurate at times. But no matter, as I said above, it adds to the study of emotion that this film is all about: A Love Story.Now this is where it falls apart for me. The film becomes a rather syrupy soap opera and is too light weight. The film uses the interesting lives of two famous people in order to relate a love story, but this is strictly my own disappointment for something more. Objectively the film delivers what the title promises but do not expect a Beatles Anthology-type retrospective. The viewpoint is very one sided but this, too, is in keeping with the filmmaker's concept.I mentioned earlier the film was too light weight. As a tele-film this is usually the case but I don't see it as an excuse for average production values. Technically, the film is rather amateurish. Standard camera work, poor lighting and poor film quality, but this may be due to funds. Also, the story hops along rather abruptly leaving the impression the film is more a story based on pages of a photo album with little cohesion to the lives of two people. But, to be fair, it may be asking too much to make the story segue successfully as film length is an important consideration.In conclusion, despite my criticism, the film is enjoyable in a casual way and not a complete waste of time to view providing one does not enter into it too seriously.