JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last night I watched a video compilation (A boot
> DVD I have) with some Jagger solo things on it.
> Just Another Night is a good song, but it sure as
> hell lacks Keith's guitar, Ronnie's lead, and
> Charlie's drums. And I REALLY hate when Jagger
> suddenly puts make-up on and gays it up with that
> awful coat. Shiver.


Kent - I think you'll find Jagger is once again taking the piss out of himself....he does it all the time.
If you guys take this movie seriously then you are missing the point.

IMO Jagger's songs here are better than the ones the Stones are coming up with nowadays...

Luke33 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kent - I think you'll find Jagger is once again
> taking the piss out of himself....he does it all
> the time.
> If you guys take this movie seriously then you are
> missing the point.
>
> IMO Jagger's songs here are better than the ones
> the Stones are coming up with nowadays...


I know that's what he TRIES to do. But the whole thing just screams "BURNED OUT". I'm not taking the movie seriously (Who could ever?), because it's obviously piss taking. But why did he let in on such a bad movie. It might be the worst I've ever seen. He's only good in he scene where he's @#$%&, because that's something he knows how to do.
Jagger's songs aren't better than the Stones' are today. Don't think that. It's simply not true. Hard Woman opposed to Flip The Switch? Let's Work compared to Back Of My Hand? She's The Boss compared with Love Is Strong? There's simply no contest at all.

JumpingKentFlash

I actually have this on laser Disc. I watched it about a year ago, and I enjoyed it. I hated it when it first came out, because I thought what a fricking waste of time -- compared to what he could be doing with the Stones. In retrospect, it's cute in a campy kind of way.

ALL Stones fans have to view it at least once, it's really not bad at all! It's just very campy but if you can watch BENT and enjoy it, you'll like this!After seeing Mick with Rae D. Chung, I've hated her ever since! No, not really, ponly very jealous! What a time she must have had filming that scene in bed with Mick! YIKES! If I'd been HER, I would have flubbed my lines, over and over, so it would take forever to complete. Oh, I forgot, not many LINES to flubb!

Rockman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yeah...yeah rooster....got ya Tom Waits...thanks
> mannnnn


Hmmm...could that possibly be more Tom'n'Keef interplay? (or just pix of Keef using Ol' Tom as a table for his drinks ...as TW once put it himself...)

Hmmm...wanna get me a Kathleen meself ;-)

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> F.U.C. the Captain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > You mean Herzog's Fitzcarraldo? I saw one of
> > > Jagger's clips from it and he was very good
> in
> > it.
> > > No, really. Never finished the film because
> > he
> > > had to go on tour, so Klaus Kinski took over.
> >
> > There is footage of Jagger playing for Herzogs
> > "Fitzcarraldo", yes, he's banging a bell to
> scream
> > out for the opera!
> >
> > But Jagger wouldn't have played the character
> of
> > Fitzcarraldo himself (which would have been
> played
> > by Jason Robards). Since the filmmaking took so
> > long both Robards and Jagger left the scene and
> > Herzog brought Kinski in. Jagger's role (he
> would
> > have played a friedn of Fitzcarraldo) was
> > completely dumped.
>
>
> My bad. Yes, it was the very great late Jason
> Robards originally in the title role. The cut
> scenes must exist on the DVD somewhere, no?



Jagger played the part of Wilbur, Fitzcarraldo's slightly 'slow' brother.

When the film overran due to various delays and cock ups, Jagger quit the project as he had to finish Tattoo You and prepare for the '81 tour. His part was written out and he wasnt replaced

Some footage of Mick's deleted scenes appear in the documentary of the film, called "Burden of Dreams". The documentary is actually more interesting than the movie.

Running out of luck... my favourite scene is where Mick is running through the desert (I think the title track is on) and he keeps flashing Softdrinks but only finds one of those old Mac Donald's plastic boxes with an old Cheesburger in it (WTF ???)...

everytime me or one of my friends go through difficult times in our lives, 'running out of luck' you could say, we put on the dvd (ripped it 'cause me old tape copy worn out over the years) and feel completely fine and confident afterwards - cause at least WE never ever danced with silly long underpants strumming away on an acoustic guitar (and chewing imaginary gum like mad for that matter!) in what appears to be a south american jailhouse or whatever...

I didn't get the story although I watched it too many times now, always get distracted from the tiny "story" 'cause I'm too busy watching Mick taking the piss (and most of the time failing badly even at that). I was still a small kid when this came out, and by then I thought it was just funny in an embarassing way (also see: "Let's work" Clip where all the rest of Mick's dignity goes down in an oversized blue box).. but it wasn't until years later that I thought about what the Stones could've achieved to follow up the partially-fantastic "Undercover" album if Mick didn't fool around in South America with Julien Temple, or slaughtering "Dancing in the street" with equally coked-up David Bowie. Or taking Stones Songs (minus the Stones) to Japan or down under, while Keith was trying to put "Dirty work" together which in result became a joke of a record. They even could've rocked Live Aid together, the world would've been on their side. I won't mention the Woods/Richards/Dylan performance here - or anywhere.

So, you wouldn't get into too many fights when officially claiming that Julian Temple is a lousy director, who was saved only by the silly music video age. Just try to imagine what a decent director could've done with the talents of Rae Chong and Dennis Hopper (and the great screen looks of Jerry Hall). But Temple just blows it, or overblows it with all the money involved. I bet he also did the interludes in the "Rewind" Compilation. I didn't check it but you can tell his directing style. Mick is even more embarassing in that one, while Bill Wyman comes across really cool, if only in comparison.

Temple did just the same to David Bowie the year before ("Jazzin with Blue Jean", please try and watch the whole 30 minutes of it - if it wasn't already the case you'll be glad the 80s are far far away afterwards). Any director these days would be glad to have the budget Temple had in those days (which he turned into crap instantly). I met him recently at the Germany premiere of his Joe Strummer documentary. Even with all the years of experience under his belt, Temple managed to bury Strummer and the Clash another time without blinking. Joe surely must have turned a few degrees in his grave. Although on the surface everything improved technically, he actually didn't move a yota from his first filming experiences in the late 70ies with the Sex Pistols "swindle" borefest. It's always too much, too long, too unfocussed. Too Eighties, one could say.

I'm glad that I can enjoy all of these because I have all my childhood memories connected with it, it's all like a comic to me. I think the scene where he destroys the old Stones Classics is hilarious. I always refer to it as the "Julio Iglesias Scene" -->




" ...can I use telephono s'il vous plait ? i am Mickie Jaggiero !!! "

But then, any serious Stones fan of their so called "golden years" must truly feel "being cheated", like Rotten infamously claimed. And the Stones, as far as I'm concerned, aren't the Sex Pistols, and if I was Keith I would've never even farted in Mick's general direction again after 1985.
Have to admit though, "Lucky in love" is a decent tune. Jerry Hall is gorgeous as now and ever. As are Rae Chong's boobs (I wouldn't be so sure about them now).

You just gotta love that ole dusty videotape called "Running out of luck".

* ztoned



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 14:48 by Ztoned.

I always liked the movie. Sure it's cheezy and only proves (again) that Jagger's ain't an actor, but it's fun to watch anyway.

This scene is hilarious!
By far the best part of the film. Almost Monty Python like.
I remember watching in around 1989 thinking "Brown Sugar isn't on Though the Past Darkly"!

[thepowergoats.com]

The part where he grabs Through the Past, Darkly and shows it to the shop girl and points to himself is hilarious!

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Quote
jamesfdouglas
This scene is hilarious!
By far the best part of the film. Almost Monty Python like.
I remember watching in around 1989 thinking "Brown Sugar isn't on Though the Past Darkly"!

Look James, seemingly in this photo Mick is doing his Monty Python mimic to Bianca:



"I'm a Lumber Jack, and I'm okay..."

- Doxa

ztoned, what more specifically do you think is bad about Julien Temple's direction? and why did mick and Bowie favor him so strongly if his work was so poor? (serious questions, not rhetorical(

Great track (off a decent album), but please spare me anything that has Julian Temple's name attached to it.

You didnt like the Undercover video, Logie?

Quote
cc
ztoned, what more specifically do you think is bad about Julien Temple's direction? and why did mick and Bowie favor him so strongly if his work was so poor? (serious questions, not rhetorical(

I think the reason to this question lies in the MTV-era eighties, the only decade in where anything which was overblown scored, like these "big stories" around small songs, or biiig extended mixes for songs whose simple structures can hardly fill the normal 3-minute-mark.

More specific: the skills of (I don't know exactly what it's called in english) "actor-leading". I see that the problem lies partly in the fact that neither Bowie nor Jagger are great actors, but Temple seems to rely too much on the postproduction work (we'll fix it there!) , during which the product really gets f...ed up. Like I said, everything is a bit too long, to unfocussed. So maybe the problem isn't always the direction itself. After all, for every stinker (like Depeche Mode's "See you" or Bowie's near unwatchable 'Day in Day out') Temple managed to make a few okay-ish clips too (Culture Club's "Do you really want to hurt me", Enigma's "Return to innocence" and maybe even Tom Petty's "Great wide open') . I also liked "Undercover" or "Too much blood", cause it's entertaining and funny. But as with a lot of entertaining stuff, this doesn't mean it's done properly (and often it's debatable).

Why did they favour Temple ? Maybe their sense of taste (and style) went it bit apeshit in the eighties (they're definetily not alone there). Bigger was better, even their @#$%& hair. Today Bowie denies everything connected to that era, claiming that maybe there was all too much free coke around.

After all, I can't really declare "good" from "bad" here, I just wished that Temple went on to better (not necessarily BIGGER) things after his MTV-Period and Absolute Beginners. But like I said, "The future is unwritten" about Strummer and the Pistol's "Filth and the Fury" saw him fall back into all too familiar grounds again.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-21 18:22 by Ztoned.

thanks Z... I would certainly agree that the 80s had a lot of terrible aspects, though I'm not sure how much Temple is to blame. I guess there's a confusion on his side between going big and working with people like the Stones and Bowie but at the same time insisting that they could "act" and allowing them to perform so poorly and lazily on film. But I thought at the same time he did keep a somewhat organic approach to making this stuff... and I do like Filth and the Fury. Haven't seen the Strummer film.

Maybe you should watch it, maybe it's just me. But I thought it was at least 20 Minutes too long, and everyone and his dog (and Bono) was interviewed for that one.

*Z*

Quote
Gazza
You didnt like the Undercover video, Logie?

Not particularly, though I appreciate that they (the Stones) were keen to get the message of the song across and needed someone capable of telling a story.

The problem I find with Julian Temple is that he has an annoying technique of never concentrating on his subject for more than about two seconds at a time. It's a distraction technique that works well for crappy pop bands with little to offer, but totally out of place for bands with a little more substance.

Quote
LOGIE

The problem I find with Julian Temple is that he has an annoying technique of never concentrating on his subject for more than about two seconds at a time.

On the spot.

*Z*

Quote
Nikolai
JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did this ever surface on official DVD by the way?

Never appeared on DVD. Never will, I bet.

"released" 2005 on a 2dvd-bootleg called "don't look back - the jagger chronicles"
dvd 1 contains: - being mick - electronical press kit
of being mick - virigin release party 2001 - bigraphy

dvd 2 contains: - running out of luck (complete) -
memo from turner (song only) - wild colonial boy -
out of berlin - invocation of my demon brother

This movie isn't all that bad, I'd rather watch it than "Freejack" any day!!!

Lose your dreams and you will lose your mind...

Quote
kait

Quote
Nikolai
JumpingKentFlash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did this ever surface on official DVD by the way?

Never appeared on DVD. Never will, I bet.

"released" 2005 on a 2dvd-bootleg called "don't look back - the jagger chronicles"
dvd 1 contains: - being mick - electronical press kit
of being mick - virigin release party 2001 - bigraphy

dvd 2 contains: - running out of luck (complete) -
memo from turner (song only) - wild colonial boy -
out of berlin - invocation of my demon brother

This looks awesome.
That movie is probably really bad, but I enjoyed very much.
Just an innocent bit of fun.
And great music!

I had a real pleasure watching it...good songs after all...Don't take it too
seriously....it's for fun.!!!....

Quote
jp.M
good songs after all

which ones?!

I think the best one of that LP, Hard woman (Single Mix) isn't even featured, or is it ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-23 01:36 by Ztoned.

>If you guys take this movie seriously then you are missing the point.


Amen. I'm disappointed how dully serious Stones fans can be at times -- the film is more entertaining than this discussion.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
From Nico's Bible:

841100G late November - 27th December: MICK JAGGER. Rio De Janeiro, Brazil & Parati, Brazil. Shootings for the movie ‘Running Out Of Luck’. Director: Julien Temple.
Starring: MJ, Rae Dawn Chong, Dennis Hopper, Jerry Hall.
Screenplay: MJ and Julien Temple. Executive producer: MJ. Incl.
- Half A Loaf (MJ)
- Running Out Of Luck (MJ)
- She’s The Boss (MJ/Carlos Alomar)
- Hard Woman (MJ)
- Jumping Jack Flash/Brown Sugar (both: MJ/KR)
-MJ sings a capella to 'Love You Live’-tracks -parts only
- Turn The Girl Loose (MJ) -part only
- Lucky In Love (MJ/Carlos Alomar)
- Secrets (MJ)
- Just Another Night (MJ)
-filmed at El Lide Che Club, Rio De Janeiro
- Lonely At The Top (MJ/KR)

Secrets & Lonely At The Top are different & longer versions than on the album.

Quote
Glam Descendant
>If you guys take this movie seriously then you are missing the point.


Amen. I'm disappointed how dully serious Stones fans can be at times -- the film is more entertaining than this discussion.

Yep, Mick is briliantly funny when he is taking the micky out of himself.

I cannot think that anybody tries to take RUNNING OUT OF LUCK seriously - I don't know what it even could mean? It is supposed to be ironical and funny - Mick making funny of himself and of his image (to a degree but still promoting a real solo career)- but an hour and half hours of is a bloody hell long time for telling that point. I remember the movie was once described as the longest and the most boring 'three-minute song video ever done. And nothing is sadder than a funny movie that is not funny. To actually call it 'movie' is making fun of the term. And I think that Jagger's 'ironical' take of himself is nothing but unreflected egoism: "look how smart I am: I act 90 minutes of making fun of myself" (a test: try to show the movie to any non-Jagger fan and ask for impression.)

Seriously, I think the movie is a symptom of Jagger really losing his touch - and that what it was established in reality: the movie was total fiasco in every sense at the time it was released - and it is total historical revisionism to claim otherwise. Jagger tried project his old image in a new context, in a a homeground of people like Michael Jackson and Prince, and failed big time. He did not get a new audience - and lost a lot of respect from his old one.

Taking together, Jagger's solo career from SHE'S THE BOSS to PRIMITIVE COOL is the biggest image bankrupt ever happened in rock business - how the biggest rock star of the world turned to be uncool wanna-be superstar without real fan support. Magical, iconical rock god turned out to be ordinary mortal. Looking RUNNING OUT OF LUCK one can really see very good reasons why. I think the 80's gave Jagger a lesson none of us can really imagine - but thanks to that we got The Rolling Stones back in 1989, and 'humble' Jagger...

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-23 19:08 by Doxa.

We loved it! Some funny scenes in it and we like watching Mick! Whatever he is doing!
We got it on VHS thru ebay years ago.
Fred Hardin
Pleased to meet you........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-11-24 06:30 by Fredluvzstones.