Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Steineded How sad is this?

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

classicsoncall It occurs to me that if you followed a particular band from it's very beginning, a film documentary concerning their career will generally reveal very little you didn't already know. That was the case here, at least for this viewer, who's been a Rolling Stones fan right from the get-go. Released in 2012, I was surprised actually that this look at The Stones basically took you from the beginning of their career to just about the middle to late Seventies, so it's not the thorough piece I was expecting.There were however a few tidbits I hadn't been aware of. How is it that in a little over fifty years since the Stones began playing, this is the very first mention I ever heard that the crazed young teenage girls who first came out to see the band play actually wet themselves in their hysteria? It must be true, Mick said it himself. Actually, Jagger had another comment along those lines. He stated that it was primarily in England that girls reacted hysterically to the band, while in the rest of the world it was boys. I thought that was an interesting observation on his part.Among the topics covered in the film - manager Andrew Oldham's shaping of the band as the anti-Beatles with a significantly darker image, the early drug busts that threatened to break up the band, Brian Jones's death, the Altamont disaster, and Keith getting arrested and deciding that the band and the music were more important than his personal relationship with heroin.In all, one will catch snippets of about two dozen songs in the Stones repertoire, with some time spent on Mick and Keith's collaborative writing and how some of their songs came together. But again, most of the footage that goes with those songs emanate from the late Sixties and early Seventies, so it's somewhat shocking to make the forty year time jump when a clip of the band singing 'All Down the Line' is used to close out the picture. It's from the 2008 Scorsese film "Shine a Light", documenting the Stones two day performance at the Beacon Theater in 2006. You wonder how the lot of them are still standing much less performing.And yet they still perform. I've never seen them live myself, and the chances of ever doing so grows slimmer with each passing day since most of their concerts are sold out within minutes. But one can always hope.

Lee Eisenberg Half a century of the Rolling Stones gets the full treatment in Brett Morgan's "Crossfire Hurricane". The documentary actually focuses more on the group's first decade, as they developed a reputation as the anti-Beatles, went through some drug busts, and even fled England to avoid the taxes. There are number of scenes in which interviewers (obviously from the older generation) are asking the band members ridiculous questions, and one gets the feeling that Mick, Keith, Charlie and the rest don't like having to answer.But of course the best part is the music. We get to hear most of the famous songs, often getting footage of the recordings. It just goes to show that the '60s will never die. In other words, this documentary is pure satisfaction!

Tony Bush Brett Morgan, director of THE KID STAYS IN THE PICTURE, delivers this almost superb chronicle of the rise of The Rolling Stones. Interview sound-bites from unseen Jagger, Richards, Watts, Wood, Taylor and Wyman pass comment over a backdrop of newsreel, home movie and concert footage which continuously and unbrokenly spools across the decades.If you lived through most of it, it's a moderately emotional and involving experience, full of nostalgia and wistful insights. There is little bite or revelation going on, but the entertainment value is high – especially for fans. Casual onlookers might not be converted easily, but the scope of this at times faintly nightmarish modern "fairytale" of fame and success is likely to have at least some impact.Richard's autobiography LIFE and Stephen Davis's masterful band bio OLD GODS ALMOST DEAD have a certain meat protein on their bones and an incisive analysis in their bloodstream that CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fails to come close to replicating on screen. It nearly nails it with depictions of the bands early yob behaviour and riot incitement plus a truly chilling depiction of the Altamont concert which manages to successfully generate a tangible sense of the fear and danger permeating that particular event. The ramshackle death and disintegration of the peace and love movement of the sixties is directly and probably quite correctly connected to the Altamont disaster.There is much to see of the sixties and seventies, but not really enough added depth of inquiry to resonate passionately with the imagery and sound. The story is told, but told deadpan and without much genuine emotional punch or guts. The grit and gore, the down and dirty stuff never materialises. It's all rather civilised. Then it gets to the early eighties, jump-cuts to the Beacon Theatre concerts in 2006 (Scorsese's SHINE A LIGHT) then abruptly ends. What?I love the Stones and always will. Anyone with an interest in popular music who can't appreciate their immeasurable contribution and cultural influence in creative terms alone might as well be living in a sterile vacuum on some other planet. Where rock and roll is concerned, these are the real deal, they ARE the old gods, and almost dead or not, they still shine bright. If hearing Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash, Sympathy For The Devil, Gimme Shelter, Miss You, Sweet Virginia, don't move you in some way, then you just ain't got a taste for the stuff that don't taste of anything but sucrose, Tupperware and Styrofoam. They might have become a corporate cash cow touring machine, but when it came to delivering, they delivered.CROSSFIRE HURRICANE delivers also, but to a limited extent. It provides some truly great visuals and some truly great sounds. But the definitive Stones movie is out there somewhere still waiting to be made. This ain't it, but it will do to pass the time with until the glorious day arrives.

gregwetherall It is high time for a look back on an illustrious career that has famously had more than its fair share of sex, drugs and rock n' roll. However, those looking for a Beatles Anthology-esque examination will be disappointed. This is more ramshackle than that, much like the band themselves. This is a concise one-off film of only 118 minutes. Considering it took director, Brett Morgan, four months to wade through the archive footage (with assistance from co-producer, Mick Jagger), it is a shame that he hasn't been minded to create a more sprawling work, befitting of the Stones' lengthy career. In fact, the documentary ends abruptly at around 1977, and offers nothing after this date, save for closing credit live footage of Exile On Main Street track 'All Down The Line' lifted from the 2008 film, Shine A Light.Opening with colour backstage footage and a live rendition of 'Street Fighting Man', attention soon turns to the early days, and the maelstrom that consisted of live performance in the early and mid-60s for the Rolling Stones, with the incessant screaming and stage invasions. Emphasis is firmly placed on what it must have been like within this vortex, having to deal with a rapid ascent and devotional teenage girls (England) and boys (the rest of the world).Whilst discussing the early period, coverage is given in a frank manner as to the band's feeling about the demise of original band member, Brian Jones. Whilst acknowledging his talent, it turns out that the band felt a degree of inevitability over his eventual death. Even though an element of mystery hangs over the drowning, Jones' relationship with drugs is well-known (Godard's film, Sympathy for the Devil, shows an induced and distracted Jones in the studio). As matters arose, the death came only two days before a free Hyde Park gig in front of 500,000 people - a gig that would mark a baptism of fire for new guitarist, Mick Taylor, and also act as a remembrance for Jones. Drummer Charlie Watts recalls Mick crying in the corner of the dressing room on the day of the performance. By contrast, Keith states that his reason for not going to the funeral is because he didn't want to make it 'a circus', and that he didn't even go to the funeral of his own mother and father.Arriving at the late 60s, there are compelling scenes offered up by the Altamont stabbing of Meredith Hunter, but these are taken from the previously released feature, Gimme Shelter. This time around, however, it is enhanced by comments from the band looking back, which is illuminating seeing as it has since been perceived as the incident that killed the hippie dream and the anti-Woodstock.Although the archive footage is interesting, there is not necessarily a dearth of unseen live material. The narrative itself is loosely played with, especially at the start, diverging down different avenues whilst vaguely seeking a chronological path (of sorts).There are some interesting revelations contained within this documentary that will interest fans. For example, Mick Taylor finally provides the reason as to why he left the Stones. Jagger himself concedes that he did not know or understand why, and Taylor goes on to explain that during the early 70s, he was falling into heroin addiction.Bill Wyman also distills what he believes is the sound of the Rolling Stones. Bearing a theory to Richards oft-quoted opinion that many bands can rock but not many can roll, he points towards the sound as being a consequence of Charlie's decision to follow Keith's lead, which means that the drums come in slightly behind the guitar, which is unusual in itself, whilst Bill's bass would be slightly ahead. Wyman describes this as leading to 'a wobble' effect, where things could fall apart at any given moment.There is some interesting black and white footage of Mick and Keith writing material together in what is either backstage or in some sort of hotel room. Having an insight into how they worked together on the verge of what would be a particularly prolific part of their career is fascinating. Keith later voices opinion that of all the songs they wrote, 'Midnight Rambler' would be the essence of the Jagger/Richards writing partnership. He states a belief that anyone else could have written any of the other tunes, but only he and Mick would have thought about making an opera out of the blues.Coincidentally, much like that tune, this is certainly a film goes on a ramble of its own. Starting in slightly messy fashion, like a band tuning up after a short time apart, and taking a while to lock into the groove. As far as flaws go, no reference is made at all to Ian Stewart, which seems a glaring omission considering this is an overview of the Rolling Stones' career and all the significant players. His distinctive piano work enhanced songs such as 'Brown Sugar', amongst many others, and his lack of appearance in this documentary feels unfair and a missed opportunity. Also, there is no real detail on the relationship the Stones had with manager Andrew Loog Oldham.Introducing the film, Jagger congratulated Brett Morgan for managing to cover 50 years of the Stones in a couple of hours. Well, he hasn't managed that. He has covered 25 years pretty well, but with some gaping holes. Whether this is down to the Stones' reticence in opening up, or a lack of probing is anyones' guess.I know it's only a rock n roll film, and you might not necessarily love it, but you'll probably like it.for more film reviews: toomuchnoiseblog.com and www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-wetherall