Its a good modern Stones movie.

I think the overlooked point is that the 72 Stones are dead and buried. They could not do that again if they brought MT back and rehearsed for 7 years.

The 78 Stones are dead.

The 81 Stones are dead.

This is the 2006 Stones.
Pretty good for a bunch of old guys.

I love to look back, but I don't ever think those days are coming back. Like it for what it is.

Quote
Munichhilton
Its a good modern Stones movie.

I think the overlooked point is that the 72 Stones are dead and buried. They could not do that again if they brought MT back and rehearsed for 7 years.

The 78 Stones are dead.

The 81 Stones are dead.

This is the 2006 Stones.
Pretty good for a bunch of old guys.

I love to look back, but I don't ever think those days are coming back. Like it for what it is.

has anybody here seen the 75 stones? can u tell me where they've gone?

The 75 Stones have gone the route of the overdub.

1975
ah.....what a year

and the 2006 stones have gone the tom jones route

Quote
skipstone
The 75 Stones have gone the route of the overdub.

i thought i saw them overdubbed, over the hill, with the 72, 78 & 81 stones.....

Quote
melillo
and the 2006 stones have gone the tom jones route

it's not unusual

I like that!!!!!

Quote
T&A

Quote
Munichhilton
Its a good modern Stones movie.

I think the overlooked point is that the 72 Stones are dead and buried. They could not do that again if they brought MT back and rehearsed for 7 years.

The 78 Stones are dead.

The 81 Stones are dead.

This is the 2006 Stones.
Pretty good for a bunch of old guys.

I love to look back, but I don't ever think those days are coming back. Like it for what it is.

has anybody here seen the 75 stones? can u tell me where they've gone?

They screwed a lot of people,
But it seems like Brian he died young.
You know, I just looked around and they're gone.

The film was fine - It was it is the latter day Rolling Stones. Are they as good as they were in 1972 No! The film is fantastically shot, the band plays well overall a good film!

they've been good times... they've been bad times....

Saw SAL in IMAX theater when it came out. Looking back, my impressions:

The Stones and martin scorsese go way back. I give credit to the idea of a filming a small club gig with innovative set list, but personally I just think that SAL was vicitim to two egos-Mick and Martin agreeing to do a film, and for logistic, scheduling issues or whatever, putting it off so they ended up doing it too late and too rushed.It's obvious Mick carries the band and the atmosphere was forced. Scorsese's quandry at the start- "what song are they going to open with" is forced and not that interesting. Same with Hal Asbury in 81- those shots of putting the stage together and focusing on the technical logistics of putting on a show arent what we want to see. We want to see a good show.Thankfully, 81 did have some great highlights.

If Scorsese had filmed the Toronto rehersals or the Amsterdam club show, that would have have been much more interesting, good set lists, spirited playing, intimate not forced. Stones played with passion, from what I've heard. I have SAL on DVD, but find myself watching parts of 4 flicks or BB more often. the real shame here is that the stones film releases except Gimmie SHelter, never really show how good the stones can be. We have to scrounge for copies of Ladies and Gents on DVD, while general public generally sees 2nd rate shows.

nonetheless, I enjoyed the upbeat Some Girls, and She was hot, even if they were a bit sloppy or overdubbed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-02-07 05:49 by voodoocat.

Quote
Munichhilton
Its a good modern Stones movie.

I think the overlooked point is that the 72 Stones are dead and buried. They could not do that again if they brought MT back and rehearsed for 7 years.

The 78 Stones are dead.

The 81 Stones are dead.

This is the 2006 Stones.
Pretty good for a bunch of old guys.

I love to look back, but I don't ever think those days are coming back. Like it for what it is.

what about the 73, 76, 82 Stones?
Or is this only US Tour-Stones you refer to ?

sure they will never do 1973 Euro shows these days with people in the band over 60 yrs old !!!! no kidding...we all get old.

Shine a Light was ordinary....was expecting more interviews, behind scenes etc...in the end it was a rock concert which we have all seen...yawn...with mistakes!

Quote
socialdistortion
I was there and when they marched in those bimbos my heade xploded. They had no idea about ANY song as they were too young -- and in focusing on them from time to time they were bored out of their skulls and did nothing half the time. I think they would have preferred being in Saks 5th Avenue with their rich moms.

Well, to be honest also the section of the "hardcore" fans looked quite lame. I truly expected to see a little Buenos Aires on the balconies ...

C

buenos Aires are unique...as is most of Sth America !

What´s so SPECIAL about Scorsese when it comes to this film? What did he add, that not any 20-year old film-student could have done? (THAT-would have been interesting!) The amount of cameras, angles...or what? He really re-invented the whole consept, didn´t he? The Four Flicks is sooo dull - isn´t it!

Quote
Hairball
I give the film an overall C- at best.

B for stage presence.
C for actual performance.
B for setlist
A for camera work (except extreme close-ups of Micks face - scary).
B for historical footage (should have incorporated more)
F for using phony extra's ( looks sterile and unreal)
A for Buddy Guy
B for Jack White
B - for Christina Aguilera
F for including Bill and Hillary Clinton
F for phony/contrived Marty stress over setlist

I completly agree. The camera is too much concentrated on Mick (as usual).
The firts rows are artificial and the entire movie is closer to a clip than a concert.
" Marty stress over setlist" looks artificial and completly fake. They try to fool us on that point. In addition, the use of phones has been already done in "gimmie shilter" movie.. and "gimmie shelter" is more a documentary (a wonderful one) on the 60's music than a movie on rolling stones.

in retrospect, the whole idea for this movie has to be questioned. was glad to get a chance to see them in another theater setting and had a great time in nyc that weekend, so i have no personal qualms. i remember at the time we were all speculating on what marty could do with the stones, reflecting on what he did with The Band....i think most of us now realize the idea was good in theory, but piss-poor in execution.

This movie is the biggest pile of shit the band has EVER released. Truly awful performances on nearly EVERY song. "I wa bown in a cwossfia huwwca" Great into to JJF Mick. Are you Elmer Fudd with a carrot stuck in his ass or the greatest frontman of all time? The singing playing are atrcoious. The movie is more about Scorcese trying to know the setlist than it is about the Stones. The on inspired performance, PIB isn't even in the movie! Pure SHITE this movie is!

thats because he can sing those ridiculous warhorses in his sleep thats the problem, dust off the damn songbook and lets get to those hidden gems which have NEVER been played before, and yes i know dont hold my breath , what else is new

Always so dull to hear from those who seem to have posted on this forum only to badrap the Stones, their records, DVDs etc.

I am a fan of all Stones live releases sans Live Licks, but SAL should have been canned!

"This movie is the biggest pile of shit the band has EVER released. Truly awful performances on nearly EVERY song. "I wa bown in a cwossfia huwwca" Great into to JJF Mick. Are you Elmer Fudd with a carrot stuck in his ass or the greatest frontman of all time? The singing playing are atrcoious. The movie is more about Scorcese trying to know the setlist than it is about the Stones. The on inspired performance, PIB isn't even in the movie! Pure SHITE this movie is!"

Tad over the top review eh cocker???

You wanna lighten up. There's a big wide world out there. Plenty more to get hyped up about....

lol, he's got a point, though, mate.

Adrian!?

"This movie is the biggest pile of shit the band has EVER release"

You ever seen Freejack? There's far worst movies out there.

This always happens. The Stones are inactive so out come the moaners! Whats next, another review of ABB? Oh, we done that! Shine a Light has been slammed on this board, and lest we all forget a Stones board. Thats not saying I'm a yesman but please, move on!

Ps Adrian. I noticed you might like abit of Buddy Holly. I picked up a few duplicates of original singles. Wanna swap for owt interesting?

Just saw "Shine A Light" at USC last night and it was even better this time around. Didn't notice the girls, the only I noticed was Lisa F. If she's on stage why in the heck would be checking out models in the front. Wait a minute the Stones were onstage, why would even be looking at who is in the front row. SHEEEEES.

thats not the point, there should have been real stones fans in the front, THATS THE POINT

I didnt' pay to see it in the theatre, but I bought the DVD.
It's pretty much what I expected - Biggest Bang Dics 5.

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
melillo
thats not the point, there should have been real stones fans in the front, THATS THE POINT

The fans that piss and moan every chance they get? Really? "They play too many warhorses". OK, so here's the Beacon setlist for you. And then we get "They don't play the rarer tracks good". If it's not one thing, then it's the next thing. If it's not the show, then Keith is drunk. If he's sober, then people complain about Ronnie. If he's sober, then he's not playing as well as Mick Taylor. If he plays as well as Mick Taylor, Mick seems tired. If Mick is fresh and lively, then the sound of the show is bad. If the sound of the show is good, then it's annoying that it's in a stadium. If, for once, people can live with a show in a stadium, then they still dream about a theater, club or arena show (Because they think that it's a more concentrated Stones they get, that doesn't rely on bells and whistles, although I've never seen the show overtake The Stones performance. It's always the Stones that overtakes the bells and whistles). I think I'd take a hot babe in the front row rather than a moaner. Seems hard to dig out fans that isn't complaining, but rather enjoying.

JumpingKentFlash