Shine A Light : The Rolling Stones Movie by Martin Scorsese

Please post all your "Shine A Light" movie reviews here.

Thank you!

Bjornulf

just come home from the premiere - woooow....what a great film!! What a show!

you make me goose bumps...

great cuttings - great camera angles....ist is really an experience!

i just got home from it too...very enjoyable.

great performances but i liked the "behind the scenes" stuff.

buddy guy was a high point of course...and some girls & she was hot were
personal favorites.

glad they added the ahmet ertegun thing at the end.

other than the fact that it's documenting a performance....can't
really say it was a true documentary of the stones....more of a
documentary about marty's making of a concert film (in the beginning)
with minimal very short clips that most of us have seen before.

the theater here in milwaukee was probably only 25% full...no giveaways.
older folks seemed more impresssed than college-age kids. 50 yr olds
said "great show"...college kids "glad i didn't pay for it" and "it was
ok, glad i saw it...no need to watch it again." were some of the comments
given to the guy taking notes at the door.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-02 05:59 by sweet neo con.

I was actually surprised how much I enjoyed it. Best filmed stones since probably Ladies and Gentlemen. No fancy stage, just great rock and roll. I dont really care about the hired hands down front. The stones rocked. I liked every song. It was well filmed, great sound, and the performances were so energetic.
When this comes out on dvd, I think it will be the performance to convert most non-fans more than the stadium dvds we've been bombarded with for years. Sure, they show their age, but that is actually the really cool thing about this flick.
Thumbs up.

Better than I expected. The sound was great and even more impressive than the . Great set list. Connection was too cut, as expected and another song was even interspersed at one point (can't remember which). But YGTS brought the camera in closer to Keith than I ever imagined they would.

I kept thinking with the surround sound that everyone behind me was clapping and i did too - had to stop myself. I don't know how everyone in the theater could be so still! One of my friends at least was into it and everyone thanked me for the good time.

The IMAX was a little overwhelming, especially during a couple of old mick and charlie interviews where their heads were gigantic. Everyone lapped up the humor and irony of the vintage interviews.

Buddy Guy got a few claps here in Chicago (as did the shot of that cold Chicago night in Chicago '06).

Jack White seems like a great guy - he's got a great smile but I don't think his voice is that good on Loving Cup. The hired fans were distracting/distinterested and very unnatural. They could've been a little more enthusiastic. Not much emphasis on the audience and my cameo ended up on the cutting room floor, though i could see myself a couple of times in the balcony.

I loved Shattered and Some Girls, the most.

I can't wait to see it again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-02 09:23 by little queenie.

Sadly, I don't think we can expect to be sitting in a full cinema to watch this movie.Get to early screening if this bothers you.
I remember once watching LSTNT at a local cinema...on my own ! At least I had the pick of the seats ;^)

I suppose, it isn't a mainstream film, is it? Can't see why non-fans would go to see it - which severely limits the audience. But nevermind, from all accounts it sounds great. I'm off to the Imax tonight to see it...very excited! What are these "free tour t-shirts" that are included in the £12.50 in England like - anyone know?

Quote
Ollie
I suppose, it isn't a mainstream film, is it? Can't see why non-fans would go to see it - which severely limits the audience. But nevermind, from all accounts it sounds great. I'm off to the Imax tonight to see it...very excited! What are these "free tour t-shirts" that are included in the £12.50 in England like - anyone know?

When I picked up my tickets from the IMAX the other day, I asked about the t-shirt and they said they would be handed out on the night......so should get them tonight!

no t-shirts for us in chicago but i got a couple of the little posters along with the passes.

daft question but how long is the film? trying to decide what time i wanna go

thanks

RUNNING TIME: 2 hours, 5 minutes
RATING: PG-13 for brief strong language, drug references and smoking

Bjornulf

Quote
little queenie
Buddy Guy got a few claps here in Chicago (as did the shot of that cold Chicago night in Chicago '06).

Why would one clap in a movie theater???

I went to see the movie last night at the IMAX theater at Navy Pier in Chicago. The joint was packed, maybe 400 seats. A quiet group. I liked the pre-concert footage of the band rehearsing and Scorsese and his people getting it organized with Mick and Charlie. Bill Clinton pre-show greet with the band was funny. Keith had some good lines.

Once the concert began I thought it went downhill fast visually for me. It quickly became apparent that this film was going to be like other concert films. Way too many close up shots of faces, especially Mick! So here was the great Marty Scorsese shooting the band he apparently loves and what do we get, huge moving closeups of Jagger, whirling camera angles that were dizzying and completely not necessary. Why do these directors insist on laying 70-80% of these films about Stones concerts on Mick? of course he can be a focal point as front man, but this was way over the top. This flash editing was sooo annoying. Just imagine blinking almost non stop for most of a concert.....I really thought we would get something better from Scorsese, but he didn't have the balls to just film the band. There were very few if any full shots of the band interacting together, very few shots of the stage with the band playing for more than 1-2 seconds. Why weren't there more shots of these guys playing that weren't from cameras 2-6 feet away?

Look, there were some good things about the movie like the sound, old video footage spliced into the film that were well chosen. It was of course just good to watch the band on and off stage. While I liked Keith singing You Got the Silver it was sad to see him abandon the guitar. Even more so watching him just hold onto a guitar and really not play during Connection. I hope we find Keith able to play and sing in the future. Ronnie was clearly the dominant player and showed some nice licks throughout the movie. Faraway Eyes was great, so was Some Girls. Jack White standing in for Loving Cup was excellent. Buddy Guy enhanced Champagne and Reefer big time.

I could add more, but I have to get off to work. This film is worth seeing, but get ready for too many closeups, over the top flash editing. Mick devotees will not be disappointed as he gets the vast majority of the camera time. I love Mick, but why can't we just watch him AND the band together in a movie? How hard is this to film?

(Review Part 2)

Refresh my memory.....did they use "Have you Seen Your Mother...." at two
different points in the movie (b&w archival footage)?

LQ made some good points.....Shattered was also a fave. Agree about Jack WHite.
My wife wanted to get up and dance and clap etc... no one else was.
Afterwards she said "it seemed weird to not dance and clap at a concert"..which
is when i reminded her that it was a movie. I clapped a few times after
favorite songs & funny interview segments.

We were unlucky enough to have a few drunk 40-something women in front of us
that apparently thought the Stones could hear everything they shouted.

I think the Stones, themselves, came off as lovable good-natured guys.

I expected Christina's performance to be better.
Ronnie was great..especially on Faraway Eyes.

Is this being billed as a true documentary...or a concert film?
with all of the contrived bits in the beginning and end....especially
the scorsese stuff and the full moon changing to the lips logo...there's
no way it's a true doc. The Beacon shows were performed specifically
for filming...that alone changes things (& don't forget...2 shows filmed to
produce 1). The Beacon was a movie set....no different than if it were filmed
in a hollywood studio.

In the end...i enjoyed it...no matter what you call it.
I would have loved to see what was included before Mick added his 2 cents.
Personally, I would have sacrificed 3 songs to have more offstage footage & old clips.
* and i was glad to see the 2 second clip of Chicago (Soldier Field) '06


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-04-02 15:29 by sweet neo con.

the movie is a lot of fun while it runs but left me feeling a bit empty and sad. Filming a show like this with such esteemed cinematographers & director is a great idea, but done IMO a few years too late. Even 6 years ago, keith was significantly closer to the top of his game than now, and then perhaps we wouldn't have gotten, somewhat as filstan notes, "Mick Jagger & His Rolling Stones."

I think you can't really be too surprised by that, since first Scorsese is obsessed with dominant male figures and puts one at the center of almost every film he makes, never more blatantly than when he seemed to fall in love with Robbie Robertson's talespinning performance in The Last Waltz. With that precedent, one wonders why Scorsese didn't fall for keith's persona, which at this point is somewhat similar... I think the reason is, second, it really is mick and his Stones at this point, particularly on the planning side of things, through which Scorsese had to go to get the film made. Getting jagger's approval for the film is made to seem like an adventure in itself, so why should we expect Scorsese to forget that when the show comes and for some reason shift his focus to ron wood struggling to play complete licks, or keith pulling the same clown moves over and over, or charlie behind a drum kit, when mick is frantically showing off his fitness? And that has the become the band's main storyline.

the contrived drama at the beginning annoyed me in concept, but was actually amusing to watch, but for me watching the 2006 show was pretty much like listening to one. The excitement drops after a few numbers and the band settles in, and the movie becomes a standard concert film. The archival footage was much more entertaining (although some of it appeared to have been grabbed from YouTube) ; I could understand a number of reasons why mick would want to limit it, but I wanted more. Not to mention that while bill may have appeared for a split second in 1 or 2 clips, brian is not mentioned at all. Considering how little most viewers of the film will know about the band--"it's mick jagger and 'I Can't Get No,' right?"--this is sad. I wonder if Scorsese even knows his name, as he was probably listening to Frankie Valli while mick, keith, brian, charlie, & bill were doing their first US tours.

"Shattered" and "She Was Hot" are highlights early in the set, and it struck me how much the narrative of the Stones since the late 80s as an age-defying big-time, steel-wheeling, mega-grossing touring juggernaut (only in terms of the size of the set and the audiences, they really don't play that many shows) with a superfit frontman has blocked a potential focus on how many great songs they have. A smaller scale would highlight this more, I think, but it seems as if they decided long ago that the way they've kept it going is the only way to keep going at all, that along with drugs, mick had to drop also his unpredictable, devil-may-care attitude--shown in the film even in amusing 80s clips--and become a fitness marvel and drag the rest of the group along. Ultimately, the fans share a lot of the fault IMO for patronizing this caricature, too. Each show, even each number, are celebrations of the fact that they're still going, rather than a musical presentation of a rich catalog from what mick recently called "an enduring friendship." If you're over 60 and people will pay $$$ to watch you stand onstage for 2 hours and mug, in between stays in posh hotels, would you want to change anything?

for example, "Champagne & Reefer" is an inspired choice, and Buddy Guy's appearance is exciting, but there's so much clowning during the number that he barely gets to play for more than a few bars consecutively. By stunning contrast, Christina shows up having done her homework--think she's ever read anything as witty as the lyrics to "Live With Me"?--and actually performs. I don't mean to sound like a taskmaster; I'm actually concerned for the guys' health, even mick who tests it, but as mick says in Rolling Stone, he knowingly sacrifices his vocal performance to his exercising onstage. I think we'd rather it were the other way around.

cc, thanks. One point though, on Buddy Guy, he has been known to clown around or talk rather than play, much more so than the boys on occasion when I've seen him in the last several years.

Thanks, everyone! Keep 'em coming. Some of us don't go until Friday!one

Brian is in the film, in the HYSYMB footage. not mentioned by name,
and obviously it's just a brief glimpse, but he's there.

thanks for the reviews, everybody

Quote
Koen

Quote
little queenie
Buddy Guy got a few claps here in Chicago (as did the shot of that cold Chicago night in Chicago '06).

Why would one clap in a movie theater???

because you feel like you're at the show and with the surround-sound, the clapping of the show audience sounded like it was coming from our theater and was infective.

re: clapping at movies....i agree w/LQ...it's not strange at all.
Not clapping when you feel inclined would be like....laughing
when you see a comedian live...but not laughing when you see
him perform it on screen.

re: cc saying "but done IMO a few years too late"

I have to agree....if had been done as recently as the 40 Licks Club tour
we would have seen a much more relevant KR.

re: cc's review.....thanks for taking the time. I agree with much of it
and...on a more cynical day, I might agree with all of it.

again.....i think had the movie been made by someone that wasn't
a big BIG music/Stones fan it may have been more engaging. You know...
someone slightly more objective...and someone that made a real documentary
without giving final approval to the lead singer. Even though (like i said)
I was entertained, what we witnessed was Martin Scorsese's personal wet dream...
..a chance to put his name on the marquee with his idols...a chance to get his
voice on their cd......and a chance to kiss some butt.

luckily...for most of us...it's our wet dream too.


IORR............but I like it!

My question again is with the way this film was shot. Why all of these endless in your face views of the band members, especially Mick in IMAX overkill? Why couldn't Scorsese just film Charlie playing the drums for more than 1-2 seconds at a time. Sure the closeups were great at times, but NOT for 1.5 hours. This was simply a tiring way to watch or experience a concert on the big screen. The editing was flat out overly busy/aggravating. I just wanted this method of presenting the concert footage to change direction, and it never did. I guess huge Mick fans will dig this, but those of us who appreciate the band for what it can do will be left wanting.
Funny, SIMPLE pro shot filming with minimal flash editing is for me the best way to watch a band on the big screen.

Still, it is worth going to see, since it a film about the Rolling Stones, and that's always a good thing in my book. Too bad Marty forgot he was filming a band and not just MJ.

I loved the film - especially the close up's hated by filstan and others. Let's face it that's what we don't see at live shows unless we are very well connected (I'm not!) I did think the film high lighted Jagger's vocal deficiencies. I'm not good at the technicalities but it seemed to me he is still great at performance, at 'acting' the lyrics or at the spikey, punchy numbers but he can't do melody any more. "As tears go by" for eg was very bizarrely delivered. On the other hand "Some girls" was a tour de force and I enjoyed "Far away eyes" having never seen it performed. Now if they could only persuade Buddy Guy to join them every night maybe Keith would give up the mugging and really play again!

Just got in from the Movie.
Brilliant movie
Brilliant music
Superb sound
Great T.shirt.
What more can I ask for?
Just another tour ASAP

yeah, I meant to agree with filstan about the many cuts. The funny thing is that at least one of the puff pieces/reviews I read said it _wasn't_ "one of those MTV-style frenetic cut jobs" [paraphrase]. How standards have changed!

there's also the sound editing, with the "follow-the-instrument-on-camera" mixing. It's a silly idea and has nothing to do with authenticity--at the gig, the amps are stationary after all, no matter how much the players move around--and I guess is one of many techniques meant to remind us we're watching a movie. It didn't really bother me, though, in practice.

let me also repeat that the movie is fun to watch, I really enjoyed it, and I was caught up for several numbers at a time. Also probably because I've only seen the band twice and don't collect recent shows, I still get a charge from the closing run of warhorses. "Sympathy" in particular has an element of drama that I won't detail in case it hasn't been mentioned yet.

angee re: Buddy Guy - you're right, he is something of a showman vs. a player. I remember seeing him maybe 20 years ago(!) and he ran around the audience, out in the hall, etc. But that was more of a "watch me shred" showmanship, whereas here I wanted to really tear off a longish solo that never came. Great tone, though. I also caught him at the Experience Hendrix show a few months back, where he was focused, perhaps wanting to come off well against all the players there, especially Hubert Sumlin who was on stage with him -- but he oddly didn't perform any Hendrix tunes! which is what everyone else was doing that night. So there's something strange about him... though to me he certainly has Chicago blues bona fides and he deserves all his success and more.

with sssoul re: brian - you're right, and we probably have Scorsese to thank for including that clip of genuine 60s subversion. I would have liked to see the whole promofilm, but hey. I think bill may have flashed by in one other clip.

I thought the film was ok, however...

Charlie Watts was hardly featured at all.
During the first couple of numbers you get few shots of him hitting a cymbal, but otherwise he was generally in the background of other peoples shots.
Isn't this a film about The Rolling Stones??? Charlie is a very important factor!

I also got annoyed with the volume jumping on an instrument when a camera shot was used. IE, when it cut to Keith hitting a chord, his guitar would jump out of the mix. I hope the stereo DVD mix is more balanced.

The clearly fake front row of foxy young ladys pretending to have a good time.
Completely unneccesary and looked totaly fake to me!!!

All this said, I still enjoyed being part of the occasion and I had a very enjoyable evening. There were some great moments, the highlight being "Champaign & Reefer" with Buddy Guy.

I look forward to the DVD release however I will probably watch it a lot less than the Rio, Buenos Aires, Saitama & Tokyo Dome DVDs from this tour.

Quote
filstan
My question again is with the way this film was shot. Why all of these endless in your face views of the band members, especially Mick in IMAX overkill? Why couldn't Scorsese just film Charlie playing the drums for more than 1-2 seconds at a time. Sure the closeups were great at times, but NOT for 1.5 hours. This was simply a tiring way to watch or experience a concert on the big screen. The editing was flat out overly busy/aggravating. I just wanted this method of presenting the concert footage to change direction, and it never did. I guess huge Mick fans will dig this, but those of us who appreciate the band for what it can do will be left wanting.
Funny, SIMPLE pro shot filming with minimal flash editing is for me the best way to watch a band on the big screen.

Still, it is worth going to see, since it a film about the Rolling Stones, and that's always a good thing in my book. Too bad Marty forgot he was filming a band and not just MJ.

Agreed.

Any personal Pictures from the premiere in London?

Comments from there?

Alright guys, thought I would drop a quick review. First off, I haven't been here in a while so let me say it is great to be here, etc. Alright on with the show.

I got 2 advance screening passes from a friend this week for an IMAX showing of SAL and jumped on it like a gold digger on a rich widower. My first impression - not perfect, but what's good is VERY good. Now, I have not had much experience w/IMAX as I always thought it seemed a bit too much, a little overwhelming for my taste. I hoped going in that past reaction towards the format would not taint my enjoyment. That said, let me tell you - from the opening chords of JJFlash (about 20 minutes or so into the film), it was like the wind was knocked out of me. Tremendous! It was all gravy from there, my friends. I won't go into a detailed review, but instead just ;ost a few of the film's notables:

- Jagger. Good lord, the man is amazing - a true champion in his game. While his vocal performance was fine (his singing was probably better overall on the 4Flicks and Biggest Bang dvds), his stage presence and physical energy were astounding. No one will ever top him as the World's Greatest Frontman.

-The sound mix was gorgeous. Loud, crunchy guitars and an absolutely brilliant mix. The channels were so elegantly tracked, my hats off to the sound people. Could have used more bass though. Whether it be Darryl, Wyman or your pot-smoking uncle in a Stones cover band, I would have liked some more bottom end. Could have used a little more Charlie at times too.

-I wondered before seeing it, what could Scorsese really bring to this project? True he is one of the world's great directors, but this is still just a concert film after all. How bad could somebody screw it up, and likewise, how great could someone possibly make it? Well let me tell you, he was The Man for the job. The camera work was terrific, the pacing tight and, maybe best of all, the FEELING was there. You could tell this was as much a tribute to the Stones from a longtime and loving fan as it was a "concert documentary".

-The song selection, one of my only gripes. Except it's not really a gripe. But I could have done without "Imagination" and "Tumbling Dice". I think there are a great many more interesting cuts that could have been used for this, both from what was actually played at the 2 shows and from what was considered (as you see early in the film while they're planning the concerts). Songs that I didn't expect to shine glowed (She Was Hot, Satisfaction) while others had me looking at my watch (namely "Sympathy for the Devil").

-The playing: The rolling Stones were in top form. That says it all. Charlie = solid as a mountain. Ronnie = the surprising underdog contributor, good all around. Keith = sloppy but serviceable leads, mean crunchy rhythm and total child-like charm. Mick = well, I have already commented on him. The backing bad was in fine form, with just enough Chuck but not too much

-Finally, highlight songs: "JJFlash": a good, strong, down-to-business version. "Loving Cup": a total high. I know some of you guys don't like Jack White. Personally I think he's great. In addition to a fine vocal performance, it wasa treat to see his usual sullen and frowning self smiling like a child on Christmas morning by getting to sing with Mick. "She Was Hot": Started off just okay, with Mick clearly not TOTALLY comfortable with the song. By the end though, man, it was cooking! Typical Stones: start sloppy, end beautifully - the mark of a true band. "Champagne and Reefer": possibly the best thing in the movie. The band gets into such a groove! And watching Buddy & Mick try to out do each other on guitar and harp respectively is a treat (the reaction of the winner of this show-down is priceless). "Far Away Eyes": what can I say? A good version (if a little much of a overdramatic Mick performance) that peaks with a Mick and Keith singalong. Staged or not, it was moving. "Satisfaction": Never thought I would say it, but of all the Hot Rocks in the movie (JJFLASH excluded), this was the sweetest. Top-notch vocal from Mick and a good, mean, dirty guitar from Keith.


Whoops, this went longer than I had intended. Let me just leave it at this: again, not everything's perfect here. Did you expect that? If so, maybe you should get out more often. But I will say this much, "Shine A Light" (at least one my first viewing) not only exceeded my expectations, but will probably stand as a big, bright jewel in the Stones' rock and roll crown.

GO SEE IT! (And preferrably in IMAX if you can).

Luv,
Me

Another cool part of the flick for me is when Keith ends YGTS, and kneels down. The lighting and the way he goes down is almost demonic. Loved it.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008
MOVIE REVIEW: The Rolling Stones in "Shine A Light"

By John W. Barry
Poughkeepsie Journal




Two things stand out in “Shine A Light,” a new IMAX film by Martin Scorsese that captures the Rolling Stones live in concert at the Beacon Theatre in Manhattan.

Those two things are the love that this band — this icon of the 1960s British invasion — has for American Country and Western music, and their love of American Rhythm and Blues.

Sure, the film exposes Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts and Ron Wood as the bombastic, showy and over-the-top hams that they are. But those sides of the Stones, along with their hit, “Satisfaction,” which is featured in the movie, are all cliches.

Even more than spotlighting those sides of the Stones most are familiar with — the classic tunes, Jagger’s stage presence, the growl that Richards gets from his guitar — “Shine A Light” showcases the reverence and holiness that the Rolling Stones place at the altar of American roots and soul music.

And it’s all packaged in Scorsese’s multi-camera shoot, which kept the visuals interesting with more than 18 cameras; and it is interspersed with classic, archival footage of the Stones when they couldn’t have been more than 20-years-old.

Adding to the film’s luster are the opening scenes, which offer a Woody Allen-esque, slapstick mini-plot following Scorsese’s quest for a set list of the songs the Stones will perform while being filmed. Truly bizarre are a conference call featuring Scorsese and Jagger; Jagger’s declaration that there is no “rhyme or reason” to the stage set design; and Scorsese bushy eyebrows.

But this Oscar-winning director, who maintains strong links to music in the Hudson Valley — he made “The Last Waltz” about The Band, longtime residents of Woodstock; and he was an assistant director and editor on “Woodstock,” about the 1969 festival in Sullivan County — manages to dazzle film-goers as much as the Stones dazzled the Beacon audience.

“Shine A Light” opens in theaters Friday, including the IMAX Theater at Palisades Center mall in Rockland County.

The two best tunes of “Shine A Light,” which features 18 songs, were “Faraway Eyes,” a lilting, country, western and rock ‘n’ roll waltz shimmering with pedal steel guitar; and “Just My Imagination,” an R&B anthem from 1971, made famous by The Temptations, who like the Stones, were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989.

Jagger during “Faraway Eyes” conjures Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash, Loretta Lynn and Willie Nelson. “Just My Imagination” explodes and sparks as much excitement in the audience and the band as “Jumping Jack Flash,” “Sympathy for the Devil” and “Brown Sugar,” which were all show stoppers.

And then there is Buddy Guy, who walks around on stage like the Pied Piper, Jagger, Wood and Richards hanging on his every move. Richards was obviously moved by Guy’s performance — he gave the bluesman his guitar at the conclusion of “Champagne and Reefer.”

Conversely, Christina Aguilera and Jack White were terrible. Aguilera brought absolutely nothing to the performance, other than irritating shrieking and a lack of class.

White, front man for The White Stripes and The Raconteurs, projected an attitude of, “the Rolling Stones are so lucky to be performing with me.”

Thankfully, Aguilera and White only stuck around for one song each.

Fueling the film’s fire, which was an inferno, was the undercurrent of Jagger’s manic, demonic dancing. He is limber like a marionette, and somehow manages to dance the Charlestown, an Irish jig, the Twist, Tango AND the Maccarena, in one swift step.

Backstage footage of the band walking from their dressing room to the stage captures a quite serious, almost transcendental Jagger, looking as though he is about to broker stalled peace negotiations, not run around a stage singing songs for a few hours.

Jagger easily commands the most screen time, and tight closeups capture the sheer joy that this man obviously gets from performing live music.

The dark side that the Stones have embraced throughout their career — song themes from “Sympathy for the Devil” and “Gimme Shelter,” as well as the disastrous Altamont music festival they played in California — seemed generations away from the performance that Scorsese captured at the Beacon.

Even Richards, who often looks like he died and came back to life several times over, glows with joy throughout the film. Although at times his ragged face makes him look like a haggard, bitter, old lady, he smiles throughout the film and seems to have never lost the thrill of playing music for others.

The look on his face, repeatedly, says, with gratitude, “you’re paying me to do this?”

Sadly, the movie wasn’t without its low points. The second song, “Shattered,” was a train wreck. And “Shine A Light” exposes Ron Wood as the Rolling Stone with the least amount of talent and the biggest ego.

Anybody who has ever enjoyed a concert at the Beacon Theatre, an old vaudeville house that opened in 1929 and is now operated by Madison Square Garden, will marvel at this concert venue through Scorsese’s eyes.

The renowned director — who was born in New York City’s Little Italy neighborhood in 1942 — also has the last word in the film. When the Stones stop performing, a camera takes the viewer out the stage door of the Beacon, onto Broadway.

Scorsese implores the camera operator — as well as the viewer — to look upward, at the Beacon marquee, where “Rolling Stones” is written in lights. The viewer is then treated to an ever expanding view of Manhattan, as the camera zooms out, lit up at night.
The camera stops and a full moon hangs in the sky, but only for a few moments, before it pops, in an instant, into the iconic Rolling Stones logo — big red lips surrounding an open mouth and extended tongue.

The animation prompted as many cheers as the music. “Shine A Light” shows that the logo, like the band, remain timeless.

[
The IMAX was a little overwhelming, especially during a couple of old mick and charlie interviews where their heads were gigantic.

queenie,,, ,,,,,,, jaggers head is gigantic........