Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

rooprect To save you time, I'll make some broad generalizations up front. Further down I'll get more into the guts of this film, but if you're just trying to decide if this movie is worth 2hrs of your life, here's what you need to know:If you're a hardcore Stones fan, then this film will possibly irritate you, maybe even to the point of rioting as Stones fans reportedly did at the premiere of this film in '68. This is not a documentary about the Stones nor is it a documentary at all. It's a film that Godard had been intending to make about counter-culture revolution, and it just happened to coincide with Godard filming the Stones recording "Sympathy for the Devil", so he mashed them together and this is the result.If you're a Godard fan, you might appreciate what he tried to accomplish here, but all the same, I've never met a Godard fan who considers this among his better efforts.With a visionary filmmaker like Godard and a very poetic & provocative song like "Sympathy for the Devil", you'd think the marriage of the two would spawn a work of art the likes of which hadn't been seen since Pink Floyd's "The Wall". (Yeah I know The Wall came out in 1982 but bear with me, I'm onna roll).Instead I feel like the two themes didn't exactly gel. Godard took a markedly different approach which, on its own, could have been a worthy film. Rather than follow the Stones' lead with an intriguing historical narrative that leads us from Biblical times to the assassination of JFK, Godard just throws a bunch of unrelated vignettes full of superfluous political blather (intended to be tiresome) interspersed with Stones recording the song, and we are to accept that they are somehow related?While both the song & the film make heavy use of irony & sarcasm, and while both the song & the film are about the decline of human society due to human nature ("the devil"), the Stones & Godard are on different ends of the spectrum. What makes the Stones song so memorable is its suave, seductive flair told in 1st person narrative. In the very first line, Mick introduces the devil (the speaker) as "a man of wealth and taste". Essentially, this presents a very revolutionary concept of the devil: not an, ugly, smelly, cartoonish creature with a pitchfork but a charming, hypnotizing, classy character.It would have been great if the film had followed along this absolutely central theme, but instead it took a very base, unattractive approach that was not enticing at all. There are no classy gents playing the devil here, instead we get the Black Panthers in a squalid junkyard spouting NOT hypnotic words but pulpy rhetoric which we immediately dismiss as pointless ravings as they casually commit base murder before our eyes.In another example, Godard sets up a comical slapstick scene in a comic book store that also sells porn & Nazi propaganda, where the customers are allowed to take what they want in exchange for a "heil Hitler" and a slap across the face of two kidnapped hippies. I thought that was a hilarious scene, but really it was jarringly incongruous with the Stones song.Between the half dozen vignettes like the Black Panther scene & the comic book scene & scenes of someone spray painting graffiti slogans across London, we get abruptly shifted back to the studio sessions where the Stones are working out the details of their song. In contrast with the vignettes, the studio scenes are very somber, very respectful and very endearing to watch. I found myself wishing that someone actually *would* make a documentary about the "Sympathy" sessions because so much could have been expounded on. We see the slow evolution of the initial song (a gospel type ballad) to what it ultimately became, an ironically uptempo samba that draws its power from a seductive Afro-Brazilian candomblé beat. Again I'm harping on the seductiveness of the song, both lyrically and instrumentally, because it's a real shame that Godard either didn't pick up on that, or chose to go in the opposite direction with a (deliberately) unappealing visual show.Like I said, Godard's film would have been worthy on its own. The Stones song is, of course, a great piece of literature in its own right. But sticking them both together like this just didn't stick. I'm glad I saw this film, and I'll probably watch it again. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they're ready for a very strange and jarring experience.For a great marriage of movie & music, I would recommend the aforementioned "Pink Floyd The Wall" as well as "Tommy", a sarcastic, carnival-esque satire much like Godard's approach here but with the perfect music in the same vein, and maybe the Monkees movie "Head" which is a nearly-incomprehensible acid trip but with similarly nearly-incomprehensible lyrics that gel perfectly.

Jaimey Perham I wasn't going to write a review, but when I I saw the low rating for the film I thought I should give it some much needed justice.First off the I won't summarize the film, but it covers the Rolling Stones performing their classic song until they get it right in the studio, "Sympathy For The Devil" with a Black Panther montage to keep the plot moving forward.The film was written and directed by legendary New Wave French film director Jean-Luc Godard most known for the 1960 film "Breathless." Godard with his artistic style helped pave the way for some of the great directors of today.The reason this film deserves a second look is not because of Godard or the musical progression of the song, but in light of the recent memoir Life by Keith Richards the classic character gestures of Keith Richards, and the subtle interactions of the band members at the pinnacle height of their success.You won't come away from this film with a new profound understanding of The Rolling Stones, but if you recently read Life by Keith Richards you might just understand after watching "Symphony For The Devil" why this band are true rock and roll musical legends...

Roy Axford I approach the film as a musician and Stones fan. My main interest is that it documents the creation of the version of SFTD that was released on Beggars Banquet. (The other scenes, in my opinion, are too dated to be worthy of further comment. You had to live through them to understand those times - there's really no explaining that wide and silly infatuation with Marxism today. But I do greatly enjoy the period book and magazine covers.) The song starts as a shadow of its subsequent self and at times it seems like the grind of the recording session will snuff it out altogether. The incorporation of the "samba" beat brings it to life and propels the session to a successful conclusion. I wish the final edit (of the film) more precisely captured this transition in the song's development. You can't really tell who's inspiration it was. Mick mentions that "other beat" at one point, but it's not clear (to me) if he's talking to Charlie or someone else. The segment documenting the recording of the "woo woo" backing vocals is a kick. It's great to see the studio, the vintage equipment including Vox amps, the clothes, and the interaction (or lack of it) between the band members. Bill Wyman often appears to be just along for the ride and at one point seems to resign himself to just using Keith's bass part recorded on the first day. Mick, Keith, and Charlie are clearly the most engaged in the session. The sad decline of Brian Jones, losing his health, creativity, and any position of influence in the band is painfully evident. In the beginning of the film, Mick is teaching the song to Brian as if he's teaching it to a child. Keith joins them and plays along, but doesn't even look at Brian. Subsequently, Brian sits by himself in a "recording cubicle" and is largely ignored except when Keith throws him a cigarette. The film is a gem of a time capsule for Stones fans, but I used fast forward to get through roughly half of it.

dueyfinster As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.