Amanda Hamilton’s review published on Letterboxd:
Maybe I just happen to be thinking about James Bond in particular or maybe its just my experience being a female Beatles fan but its sort of weird how the movies play with this indulgence of giving the ideal audience (other female Beatle fans, if you're going to be honest) what it wants or what it thinks it wants. I'm not alone in thinking the Beatles' image was, at least in '65, sort of safe but fun and definitely not overly sexualized and anything that went too risque would bring controversy. (not that they needed it, given that the year after there would be the whole 'Bigger than Jesus' thing) I'm guessing that's the reason any romance between Paul and Ahme (or George and Ahme) is kind of vaguely defined by winking and her saving their butts on numerous occassions but its definitely no more than that. Probably if there was anything even close to an onscreen kiss, the female fans would have torn the movie theaters to shreds. Instead the movie has these moments of pandering and fanservice. Am I reading into the movie too much? Maybe. Some of definitely is in the mode of pratfalls/physical comedy but then there's the stuff like the bathroom scene wherein:
-Ringo's shirtsleeve gets torn off as well as Paul's (from across the room)
-Paul breaks the sinks and its starts spraying him with water
-George comes in and the hand-dryer rips the front of his shirt clean off
Plus there's Professor Foot's (the movie's Dr. Forrester) machine makes Ringo's pants fall down and the whole Paul's adventures on the floor with nothing between the elements and his tiny naked bod but a gum wrapper. Those are just the ones that jump out at me. I just can't really see those scenes and not think they were put there for a little titillation for the fans, made more sneaky but putting it in the middle of this fun but ridiculous spy spoof. Not that I hate it for doing it, I'm just saying.