I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I Wanna Hold Your Hand follows a group of fanboys and fanboyettes who put all modern day internet fan communities to shame on a journey to meet their idols. There's a lot of screaming, shouting and overall hyperactivity with its lightning fast, 1930's-like repertoire and I watched the entire film with the biggest smile on my face. Crazy over the top comedies like these are my forte and I Wanna Hold Your Hand is one of the most energetic I've ever seen. The film begins with Ed Sullivan (Played by Ed Sullivan look-a-like Will Jordan) on the set on his own show off air introducing the movie Patton style, setting the stage for just how big The Beatles had become by January 1964. This was only three months after the assassination of JFK but this is never mentioned in the film. The film shows how Beatlemania provided an escape from the real world.Wendie Jo Sperber and Eddie Deezen (a voice forever implanted into my head from years of childhood exposure on Dexter's Laboratory) as Rosie and Ringo (as he calls himself) are the two most hyperactive of the cast members. I find it adorable that these two, one a social outcast and the other puppy dog eyed time bomb being brought together through their insane Beatles' worship; especially when Rosie tells Ringo, "You're the only boy I feel I can really talk to". Likewise Pam Mitchell's (Nancy Allen) scene in which she invades The Beatles' hotel room as she strokes and licks Ringo Star's guitar neck is erotic cinema at its finest (she even takes off her engagement ring and puts t into her shoe beforehand, nice touch). The cinematography really puts a lot of emphases put on that guitar neck only for Ringo himself to later comment that it's covered in sticky stuff, sexy. I'd do the same thing as well, not with The Beatles but there are other celebrities of whom I was in their hotel room I would be rubbing my face against everything they've touched and don't lie, you would too. I Wanna Hold Your Hand also features Paul Newman's daughter Susan Kendall Newman in her second of three film appearances. Her character of Janis is introduced complaining to the manager of a record store that "all I see around the store is Beatle albums. What about Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, don't they get equal floor space?"; back to the USSR for you Ms. Frankfurt School. It seems every generation has their socially righteous trying to ruin everyone's fun although the movie does manage to make her into a sympathetic and more likable character as the film progresses. The film even gives significant attention to Beatles' haters. One of the film's greasers Tony (Bobby Di Cicco) hates The Beatles so much he abuses Beatles' fans and even attempts to sabotage their appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show; talk about haters gonna hate. The other stroke of genius is while we do see The Beatles they are never shown in their entirety. Rather the film takes the Ben-Hur Jesus approach in which only the bodies are seen but never the faces. If they actually did cast actors to play The Beatles in which we see their faces it would take you out of the film. There are even shades of American Graffiti present in I Wanna Hold Your Wand with its early 1960's setting, young people, rock music and cars.I Wanna Hold Your Hand marked the directorial debut of Robert Zemeckis. Like in Zemeckis' Forrest Gump years later, I Wanna Hold Your Hand combines fiction surrounding a historical event. Much of the film's cast being reunited the following year in the comically less successful 1941 (directed by Steven Spielberg) despite also being written by Zemeckis and Bob Gale. I've always considered Zemeckis to be a much better director than Spielberg. I Wanna Hold Your Hand captures that feeling of having such a strong devotion to something. As you become increasingly attached to these characters you feel that if they really did miss The Beatles performance on The Ed Sullivan Show then their lives really wouldn't be worth living.

I WANNA HOLD YOUR HAND was the first film directed by Robert Zemeckis (it was also produced by Steven Spielberg). It's a fictional comedy that plays on a winning idea of having a group of New Jersey teenagers traveling into New York City with the goal of meeting The Beatles on their historic first trip to the United States, one early February weekend in 1964. Their adventures will take them right up to the momentous Sunday Night TV appearance of The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show. The young actors here include: Nancy Allen (she plays an engaged girl who's too mature to get involved by something as trivial as The Beatles); Theresa Saldana (an aspiring reporter looking to snag exclusive photos of The Fab Four); Susan Kendall Newman (Paul Newman's daughter, playing a folk music lobbyist looking to expose the saccharine Beatles); Wendie Jo Sperber (a wildly obsessed Beatlemaniac who's in love with Paul); Eddie Deezen (bespectacled "geek actor for all seasons" with a serious Beatles addiction); and Bobby DiCicco and Marc McClure (two guys along for the ride who don't care much for the English quartet but tag along anyway to get the girls).The movie is quite a distant cousin away from the classic American GRAFFITI. It's a wild day out, and its comic style includes a good dose of slapstick pratfalls and the like. Nerdy Eddie Deezen is at the center of most of the silliness, but Wendie Jo Sperber is well suited to her role as the biggest female Beatles Nut of the group. Theresa Saldana's character is a tad more interesting and complex, and Nancy Allen gives one of the better performances I've seen from her as the conflicted bride-to-be who feels herself helplessly switching allegiance from her fiancé in favor of John, Paul, George and Ringo. (The Beatles themselves only appear in the movie via old film clips; stand-ins are used and photographed from behind in key moments). Murray the "K", the original DJ who documented the Beatles' every move in New York, comes back a dozen or so years after the fact to recreate his old persona. Impressive is that none of the film was actually shot in New York, but the sets and subbing locations fooled me for many viewings until I ultimately found out it's actually California. A favorite scene capturing the a sign of those times centers around a younger boy who sports a moppish Beatles-like haircut, admonished by his typically conservative dad.Finally, I wish to add that the most recent 2004 DVD release from Universal is not the best way to experience this movie. I had been pretty familiar with the film from seeing it several times on VHS, but that version was issued in the much preferred audio format of MONO. The 2004 DVD has since remixed the sound to an undesirable 5.1 arrangement which now almost completely drowns out the accompanying music soundtrack which consists of many vintage Beatles classic recordings, taken from the actual records. They were intended to be heard in the background more prominently right along with the spoken dialogue, but are now toned down whenever people are speaking to the point where you can barely decipher anything that's accompanying the talking. **1/2 out of ****

I don't love Robert Zemeckis; he always seemed a shadow of his sage and master, Steven Spielberg. Oscar wins or not, he's simply not as talented as his teacher. That being said, he's had some seriously, delirious high points (Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Contact, and Back to the Future), but the rest of his oeuvre is, well, cloying at best (Forrest Gump) and atrocious at worst (What Lies Beneath). He's a capable mid-level director who was rocketed to superstardom by his association with a true master of the cinematic artform (though, truth be told, Spielberg has missed the mark on numerous occasions).In any event, one could view I Wanna Hold Your Hand as a microcosm of Zemeckis's entire career--frequently excruciating with bouts of brilliance. Where are the lows? How about the saccharine reiterations of the three four central female characters. For the first 45 minutes, the women are defined by repeated phrases that beat into the audience's brain their too-flimsy characters. Rosie loves Paul, Janis loves folkies, Grace wants to take some photos, and Pam wants to get married.Ultimately, the arcs for the former three characters follow predictable patterns. With Pam's storyline, however, Zemeckis finds the heart of this film and creates a lasting tale that, more or less, makes this movie recommended (though not necessarily essential) viewing.Pam's conflict is fairly straightforward until she finds herself in the Beatles' suite. Then something interesting happens--she does something to a guitar that, well, I don't want to mention here for fear of having the post deleted. She cowers in front of that guitar and she shudders. Later, she clenches the hem of her dress in tightly wound fists between her thighs.What Zemeckis finds between Pam's legs is the nascent youth movement of the 1960s. Pam's running away from her betrothed at the end of the film to the Beatles and that funny feeling causing her to quiver, demonstrates the shift from the cleancut, conformist ideals of 1950s America to what would become a more liberating--sexually and emotionally--period in the late 1960s. The Beatles were at the forefront of that youth movement and, here, the rumblings of the movement are present.What Pam reveals in this movie is among the most emotionally and sexually truthful representations of that turbulent decade. I credit Zemeckis for his willingness to not ignore the sexuality inherent in Beatlemania, and I credit too Nancy Allen for an amazing performance. It's a real shame she's never received the recognition she deserves (for this movie, Blow Out, and Dressed to Kill).The rest of the movie, though, is hysterical, in the late-19th century definition of the word. Mostly, it's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Bobby Di Cicco turns in a performance that is worth seeing, as he's able to find, by movie's end some level of truth in Smerko's character. And then, of course, there's the overzealous Eddie Deezen's overacting, which is shrill beyond all reason. It's rare to find a performance that strident and, at the same time, ingratiating due to the actor's prowess for physical comedy (again, his physical shenanigans are, well, overblown, but I somehow found them riveting).All in all, this movie really isn't a seven--it's probably a six at best--but I cannot shake those scenes of Nancy Allen nor do I want to. They're probably the most wonderful moments Zemeckis ever contributed to celluloid. For that it gets an extra point.

This film is simply the best film to ever show how "Beatlemania" really was, it really gives you a feel of what it must have been like for the teens of 1964 anticipating the arrival of The Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Lots of familiar faces in the cast, especially the gorgeous Nancy Allen, and the dude who plays Jimmy Olsen in the original Superman films. Of course you have to suspend belief to a small degree, you have to ignore that the actors playing The Beatles live don't have the moves shown on the real Ed Sullivan show at the same time on TV monitors down totally even, but that can be easily forgiven because that's a tough job. Plus as all Beatlesheads know, the group didn't perform just one song on the show (anytime they were on Sullivan they always played more than one). But hey this is a movie so dramatic license is needed, and watching the crowd go completely nuts as The Beatles perform "She Loves You" brings everything to a satisfying climax, in more ways than one apparently for Nancy's character. And a great ending!Of course this can't begin to touch "A Hard Day's Night" but it is second only to that film in showing what Beatlemania was in 1964 as the band took over America. And two years before John's "we are bigger than Jesus" comment (taken out of context of course, but John WAS a wimp for apologizing) it is good to see that God wasn't going to allow anything to stop The Beatles broadcast!The one bad thing about this film is that it has Steven Spielberg's name on it, because he is an overrated hack, but thankfully he is just the "executive producer" and didn't actually direct the film, because then it'd be horrible.