MovieChat Forums > Crossfire Hurricane (2012) Discussion > saw it,liked it but flawed.

saw it,liked it but flawed.

posted 12 years ago by ib011f9545i
8 replies | jump to latest

I saw this last week and liked it but it is a bit confused in its layout.

The film shows some great early footage of the band but the history is not told in a straight line from start to today.
The film assumes we know the story already (Keith and Mick meet in Kent as kids,Brian Jones forms the band but is troubled,Bill and Charlie don't say much.)
The best bit of the film is the part about the problems with drugs and the law,the eternal rebel Keith stops doing drugs after almost being jailed in Canada.

There are shots of drug taking and dressing rooms full of nude women,it gives an idea of what a wild trip a Stones tour used to be.

The film is a about a musical band,there are some great live performances but I saw this at a special premiere show and they showed live clips not seen in the film,perhaps they will be on the dvd.

The film can't decide it if it trying to tell a story or is just a collection of greats bits but if you are a Stones fan you won't mind the confused layout of the material,if you are not a fan you might find it unfocussed and too long.

[–] staygold24 11 years ago

Not sure what was so confusing.. It's just archival footage that goes along with the band interviews. In chronological order too.. Aside from the opening clip everything goes from 60s to late 70s

There is no way you can put the Rolling Stones into a 2 or even 3 hour documentary, there's so much good material from just the sixties that could fill up 2 hours and be entertaining.

People who want details about mick and kieth listening to blues records as kids or other background details should just read Keith Richards "life" if they want that stuff.

This was a documentary about the rise of the stones through visuals and sound, not just through narration and focusing on specific albums or dates

[–] oscarunger 11 years ago

yeah the stones have too much good stuff for two hours, shouldve been split into 2 two hour movies, it tried to capture the feel of them in concert (over the top editing there for me almost ruined some of that) but its nice to see a doc without random talking heads rambling on and let the music tell the story, (they skipped entire albums though which is kind of annoying) still it was a solid 8 out of 10

[–] Reallusion1 11 years ago

Yeah they needed at least one more hour for 70's - present, and many personal details were left out, but I loved the editing. It captured the chaos and frenzy of the lifestyle.

[–] chas437 11 years ago

I think the piece focuses on the "golden age" of the Stones (early 60s-late 70s). As for the 1980-present Rolling Stones, there's really not much of a story to be told. They got sober, toured until they were old men, and made a ton of $$$$. There new music during that period is pretty forgettable.

[–] Reallusion1 11 years ago

I wouldn't call voodoo lounge forgettable. Some very good songs. Also some good material in the 80's.

[–] ridge-m-1 7 years ago

This fan, who saw the Stones in '65 with Brian Jones, would call every track on "Voodoo Lounge" as lacking the magic of the Sixties era Stones. In other words, eminently forgettable and The Glimmers chuckle all the way to the bank because of late-to-the-bandwagon fans like you for your additional pounds sterling.

[–] Stirchley 11 years ago

It's just archival footage that goes along with the band interviews.

I don't think the director had much of a clue. I was astonished that he told us in the extras that he recorded over 80 hours of interviews with the band. Too bad more of that couldn't have been in the documentary.

Someone else mentioned in another thread that something like The Beatles Anthologies would make more sense to spend time on than something like this documentary.

[–] oobie-1 11 years ago

Watch "Stoned."