ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

wadechurton The Rolling Stones, filmed by Martin Scorsese is a great idea; it's just a pity that it had to happen a good thirty years too late. Contrasted with the punk-inspired, on-form Stones caught on their 'Some Girls' 1978 tour, this DVD just looks a little sad. Respect is due to Mick Jagger, who is still a compelling frontman, A-class guitarist Ronnie Wood and the ultimate garage-band drummer that is Charlie Watts, but Keith... Keith Richards gets a lot further these days on his personality than his guitar playing, which has steadily ossified and actually decreased in abundance over the decades. Since the blazing lead-rhythm 'Chuck Berry meets the Blues giants at a garage-punk gig' style seen so delightfully extensively during the 'Some Girls: Live in Texas '78' DVD, Keith has devolved into someone who plays less and less and poses more and more. Here he seems to play around a quarter (if that) of what he used to play, leaving Ronnie and Mick to take up the slack, which in all fairness, they do admirably. In fact, one is tempted to say that Jagger is now a better (and certainly more prolific) guitarist than Keith, who seems content to noodle about with the odd occasional lick rather than the full-blooded rhythm-chording he used to do. It has been said that he hasn't been the same since he fell out of that tree a few years ago and given this evidence it is difficult to disagree . Elsewhere, in contrast with the stripped-down 1978 tour, there are more people on stage who aren't the Rolling Stones than who are, leaving the actual band-members almost as guest stars at their own concert. The less said about actual guests Christina Aguilera and the execrable performance by Jack White the better (Buddy Guy fits in well though), and despite Scorsese's attempts to create a sense of excitement with his myriad of camera- shots, this gig is a damp squib. On viewing 'Shine a Light', one unhesitatingly salutes the efforts of the increasingly musicianly Jagger (although one strongly suspects that this is a measure adopted perforce to cover Keith's disturbing infirmity), and concedes to Ronnie Wood's stalwart guitar show-carrying brilliance, but it is not enough to save the experience from the near-heartbreaking conclusion that the ageing 'band', with its supporting superstructure of extra musicians, really is milking the last dregs of a career which should have been ended a long time ago.

grimsbybkk I've been a stones fan for about 25-30 years now A Relative Newcomer and I've collected over 300 bootleg recordings of live stones concerts during the previous 3 decades. Gimme Shelter is one of the best music documentaries ever. Martin Scorsese is probably the best director America has given us in last 50 years. The Last Waltz was superb, the Scorsese Dylan documentary No Direction Home was a wonderful look at the roots of Americana and folk music and I'm NOT a Dylan fan. So why oh why was this so dull. Reason 1: Special guest audience only, ex-presidents, TV stars, Movie Stars in fact just about anybody who wasn't a true Stones fan was there resulting in a lack of atmosphere for a Rock 'n' Roll concert Reason 2: Mediocre performance by the guys themselves. Reason 3: Vintage footage of their days in the 60s and 70s which I've seen MANY times before. Reason 4: Not exactly "Martys" best work. This post is not a flame, I truly wanted to love this film but it just isn't very good

bloodymonday Many musicians are constantly trying to "reinvent" him/herself. They might try any new angle or new idea in their music career. Well, I don't see anything wrong about that at all. David Bowie changes his style more than chameleon changes color in its lifetime, and he's still a legend. But in the case of history of The Rolling Stone, it's the other way around. Because what we saw in 2008, every bit of energy in Mick, Keith, Ronny and Charlie are exactly the same as 1960's. And that's also made them a legend (To tell you the truth, I'm literally feared for his life when Mick Jagger began to dance like a complete madness on stage. I mean, he's 62 -friggin'-years old for crying out loud).Who are Rolling Stone? Well, if you really have to ask, then you've got yourself a long history lesson to do. And this concert/documentary might be a good start to experience their legacy. Shooting for two nights at concerts in New York's intimate Beacon Theatre, "Shine a Light" will make your typical night event look like concert in downtown pub. Martin Scorsese and his nine or so cinematographer (all of them are Oscar nominated) create such an energetic camera movement (in fact, dollies are so close to the audience that I thought it would hit them eventually). And between songs, Scorsese decided to put rare footages. Some of them link to the present time in a spooky kind of way (in 1960's one reporter asked Mick whether he can imagine himself doing what he does in the next 30 years, and then Mick said "definitely"). Some of them is just classic (When interviewer asked Keith that between him and Ronny, who's better guitarist? Keith reply "Neither one of us is any good, but together we're better than ten others.") Even all those Scorsese have done is already masterfully handled. But the real deal is the concert itself. They have mandatory stuffs like "Jumpin' Jack Flash" (what a way to start concert), "I'm Free ", "Start Me Up" (a must for live performance). Unexpectedly good stuffs like "As Tears Go By", "Brown Sugar" (this one got me cheer with joy). And collaboration from the best with Buddy Guy in "Champagne and Reefer", the decent with Christina Aguilera in "Live With Me" (even though it's a little bit creepy to see Mick gets behind her and doing what he does best) and the mediocre with White Stripe's Jack White in "Loving Cup" (They seem to be annoyed by each other). There a bunch of songs that I haven't mentioned, but let me tell you, there's not a single song that will fail by your expectation.I'm not sure that whether we (Thai people) will have an opportunity to experience in IMAX like we supposed to or not (you wish!). And I would love to see it again on that gigantic screen, because what I've experience so far in my lame ass bedroom television is already made my skin crawl.

frankenbenz The Rolling Stones are ubiquitous. Practically everyone loves them, likes them or at least wants to see them play live before they (or the Stones) die. Aside from producing a few decades worth of great music (most of it lifted from the Chicago blues scene), the Stones haven't had an album worth listening to since the early-mid eighties, so why is it they are still considered one of the biggest acts in the world? Is it their age-defying perseverance? Their on-stage energy? Their legend? All of the above? The painful truth is, there is only one correct answer: nostalgia.The Beatles broke up, John Lennon got shot, Morrison killed The Doors, booze killed John Bonham and the Stones stayed the same. The Stones stayed so much the same that, aside from their wrinkled and withering bodies, every rock 'n roll fan born in the last 60 years or so looks to them as a (fairly) well preserved specimen of their youth. They are a reminder of what it was like to be young, rebellious, idealistic and, ultimately, free. But guess what folks, the Stones may have stayed the same on the surface, but all that remains of the bad boys of rock is the surface. The Rolling Stones are packaging. The Stones of your youth - like your youth - are dead.It's fitting then that another iconic artist well past his prime should rise to the occasion to make a concert film about the Stones. Despite winning his long elusive Oscars for ably re- making a Hong Kong action flick, Martin Scorsese hasn't made a great movie since GoodFellas. Granted, Goodfellas may be the greatest film ever made, and Scorsese may be the most gifted and unique American filmmaker since Orson Welles, but Shine a Light is nothing more than an old man trying to sip from the fountain of youth. That's not to say SAL isn't well made, it is in fact, well crafted, polished and brimming with professionalism. But SAL, like the Stones, like your youth and like any chance of Scorsese ever making another great film, is dead. It may be bristling with glossy, glitzy and glamorous packaging, but like Bill Clinton and his pre-concert guests, this film is stiff and it reeks of establishment. In other words, this isn't what rock and roll is supposed to be about, it's about what happens to rock and roll after a very long time spent being incredibly rich and pampered. The same can be said of Scorsese, Coppola, DeNiro, Pacino and every other angry young artist who has since gone on to untold riches and fame. They lost their edge. They lost what made them seem revolutionary. They simply lost "it."As far as concert films goes, SAL does have something most don't: the dueling visions of two artistic giants. When the tone is set with documentary footage of the behind-the-scenes planning leading up to the concert itself, you get the feel you're in for a display of fireworks that isn't triggered by the Stones' pyrotechnics crew. In this segment, Scorsese is the star, a frazzled control freak (as all directors should be) who is powerless in the court of the whimsical (read: flaky) spirit of the Stones Commander in Chief Mick Jagger. When Scorsese's face time is displaced by his multitude of lenses focused on the concert, SAL loses its appeal and fails to deliver anything more compelling than the startling effect of far too many close-ups of Keith Richard's war ravaged face.After the tedium of hearing every Stones song you've heard before finally wears to an end, we're reminded that this was a Martin Scorsese affair with a signature tracking shot through the backstage crowd and onto Marty himself. The shot continues until we float out of the theater, into the night and high up above Manhattan, a shot aided by the savvy use of a computer. While this tracking shot is intended to remind us of Goodfellas, it does nothing to capture the energy the made Goodfellas great, in the end, all this shot does is remind us we're watching the shell of something that was once great and someone who never used to use a computer to help him walk through a crowd.http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/