Amazon.com

This extraordinary 1970 British film marked the directorial debut of cinematographer Nicolas Roeg (working with Donald Cammell). James Fox portrays a London gangster who has to hide away for awhile and ends up staying with a fading rock star (Mick Jagger). The latter recognizes something of his old, daring self in the violent criminal, and after pushing open the boundaries of the hood's experience with psychedelics, the two men begin to intertwine as one. The film is an exciting pool of ideas about real and presumed power, about the mysteries of "performance" as a pressing outward toward an abandonment of identity and embrace of revelation. Beneath it all, however, is Roeg and Cammell's suspicion that the worlds of these two men--pop shaman and underworld soldier--are not dissimilar in their self-serving goals. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Jagger's timecapsal--a Stones fan's must see...
In one pivotal, surreal, and disturbing scene in this film Mick Jagger regales some inhabitants of his household with some creepy, old Robert Johnson blues just accompaning himself on an acoustic. I watched this scene at first, knowing full well of The Stones' and Jagger's blues worship, and even I thought 'this is ridiculous--is this white boy kidding?'. BUt as Jagger sings "I said 'hello satan----I believe it's time to go", this white boy thrilled some hoodoo through me. By many accounts that I've read, this is what meeting Jagger might be like, and may be the essence of the man.

Having said all that, I find this to be a compelling film. It graphically depicts hard sex, violence, drug use (several years before 'Clockwork Orange' was brought to life), as well as strange obsession with androgeny (several years before the boom of Bowie & Bolan). Mick Jagger's reclusive, devil-worshipping Turner was no stretch of the imagination, especially at this time (1968), but one must hand it to Jagger--despite a few awkward scenes, he smolders, & few real rockers of the time could fill such cinematic hooves. He was even diplomatically second-billed to British actor James Fox, who is the main focus of the film, playing a gangster on the lam. His dillemna gives the film a true sense of tension and depth.

Surreal psychadelic nightmare
One of the most astonishing movies of all time. In a nutshell, 'Performance' tells the story of London gangster Chas Delvin (James Fox), on the run from his old associates for an unauthorised murder. He hides out in the house of reclusive rock star Turner (Mick Jagger), who introduces Delvin to his bizarre world of sex, drugs, black magic and rock n' roll. The movie is packed with amazing performances all round, particularly from James Fox. The script by Donald Cammell is great and the direction by Cammell & Nicolas Roeg is superb. While obviously a product of the sixties the film has aged fairly well. It raises interesting and timeless questions about identity and duality. This film is very strange and very graphic. It does not make much sense at first, in fact it is a movie which demands to be seen more than once. Certainly once you see this movie it will stay with you.

Performance Cinema Re-release seen in Notting Hill London
Donald Cammell

"If Performance does not upset audiences," he explained, "then it is nothing."

My friend Neil and I have been waiting for some time to see this film at the cinema. It hasn't been widely available on video for some time and has not yet been released on DVD.
So we were overjoyed to see it was being shown at the Electric Cinema a wonderful recently revamped cinema in Notting Hill Gate, not a hundred yards from Powis Square, one of the main locations in the film.

Performance was financed by Warner Brothers in the late 60's, though it was not released for two years after its completion due to WB demanding recuts and probably hoping the whole sordid little film would be forgotten about.
Thankfully it wasn't, and has over the years become something important and special to many people.
Performance starts as a seemingly straightforward East end gangster film, typical of the period. However when Chas, played to perfection by James Fox, takes refuge in the bohemian lair that is Turners (Jagger) Powis Square townhouse, the pace and the feel of the film change dramatically.
Turner is a retired rock icon who is wallowing in in a filthy corner of his psyche while he decides whether to try and recapture his mojo or continue his hermit like existence. However the hermit tag only applies to Turners lack of contact with fresh air, not many hermits have two pretty free spirits in the form of Pherber (Anita Pallenberg ) and Lucy (Michele Breton) roaming naked around their self imposed prisons.
Pallenberg is the wild blonde who was probably didn't find it too hard to get into character, at the time of filming she was actually Keith Richards's girlfriend, and tales of a jealous Richards watching over the set are abound.
For me the most interesting character and also seemingly someone who probably wasn't acting is Breton. A very pretty boyish French Girl who was said to be a runaway. I have read that she died shortly after the film which seems like a sad but not surprising end for such a free spirited child of the sixties. I would love to have been able to tell you more about Breton, but a search on the internet will turn up very little. She would seem to me like a leaf that breezed into swinging London and was swept away like so many others.
Jagger is convincing as Turner and this is undoubtedly his best, if not his only good, film.
As Turner takes over control of the film from Chas we are treated to a feast of decadence and weirdness that never strays too far from reality for its own good. The film is tied down to a solid base by the continuing gangster film thread humming silently in the background.
Since 1970 many an apocryphal tale has surfaced surrounding the making of Performance, ranging from nervous breakdowns to suicide and drug overdoses. I am always skeptical about such tales, but, unfortunately most of these tales would actually seem to be true. Certainly writer and co director Donald Cammel shot himself and James Fox was disturbed enough not to make another film for many years afterwards.

As I waited for my friends to come out of the Electric Cinema, I overheard many a reaction to the film from other patrons. On the whole it would seem that people seemed disappointed or confused or even annoyed. Thanks god for that. Thank god it has not been tamed by age and become a safe little piece of 60's nostalgia.
Performance does upset audiences. It IS something.

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted"
"Performance"(1970) directed by both Nicolas Roeg and Donald Camell and starring Mick Jagger and James Fox, is a film that is directed to a certain group of people and taste and treated as a cult classic. Chances are you've discovered this film because you are one of those people and you'll probably dig it. I saw this film because I am a big Rolling Stones fan and of the 60's and wanted to see Mick Jagger and to tell you the truth, I was not expecting much. "Performance" is a great film for what it is, an experimental film dealing with the clash of two worlds in a nonlinear format. In the beginning of the film, I thought it was just being weird for the sake of being weird but once I started to accept it and let it unravel, I thought it was a great film. James Fox does a great performance and Mick Jagger too but his just playing himself. The film has a lot of interesting shots and scenes which really stick with you. At the end of the film, my psyche had changed and I felt like I was in a different state of consciousness. I would really like to see "Performance" restored on to DVD because the sound quality on video is awful and makes it even harder to understand the thick Cockney accents. All and all, "Performance" has its errors but is a great snapshot into the culture and general feeling of the 60's.

Must everything be explained?
I found this movie after watching some special films like "Picnic at Hanging Rock" and "Mulholland Drive" that made me hungry for something different in a movie. In fact, I rented "Performance" after following Amazon's chain of "people who bought this movie also bought this movie", and it is now on my best of the best list. What a stunning film it is. Sometimes, we struggle too hard to explain things. "Performance" should be experienced, not explained. Watching this film is like having a dream, and, like a dream, it won't make much sense when you awaken from it. But the images from it and the feelings they inspire will haunt you. I was about to write here about some examples, but I'll just give one - a Jim Morrison poster on the wall entitled "It's Over". Perhaps the movie is about the death throes of 60's idealism? I'm sure that in part it is, and that different people will have different interpretations. Did you have a dream last week? What did it mean? ... Read more

Reviews (22)

AWESOME MOVIE ABOUT ONE OF THE BEST GUITARIST EVER!!!!!!!!!!
If you have any love for the guitar and Jimi Hendrix this is a must buy. Has awesome live shots of Jimi whaling, and very interesting interviews from some great musicians, along with some of his friends and his father (the Clapton and Townsend interviews were my personal favorates). It is the type of movie that you will watch many times over, so personally there is no way not to recommend this. The only thing that I could tell you is that if you are looking for just Jimi performances (although this one has a great many) without any interviews (because after a few time interviews do get annoying), then look at some of the recommendations on this page for other DVDs. But if your looking for a DVD with a pretty in dept view of Jimi, check this out.

Great Documentary
Originally released just two years after Jimi's death you get passionate interviews from the people who knew him. Featuring a young Pete Townshend, Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger, and also people who knew him well, we learn a lot about Jimi. Also the concert footage is spectacular. I hope Experience Hendrix releases a DVD of the Monterey Festival (part of which is included on this DVD). What a great concert. This is a must.

A true EXPERIENCE
Even if you dont like him,
his GREATNESS will allways out last,
your thoughts about him.

that in it self is werth the EXPEIRENCE!
I was about 13 when i first saw this film,
my best freind did not know it but by making,
me go see this film,he was going to change,
for good or bad my LIFE forever.
I did not really like jimi at the TIME,
but he had a great presants that could not be over looked.
For the first time in my life i saw my inner soul,
a TRUE SOUL BROTHER,his black african and native american,
Irish roots, i sher with him.
his left handedness and shuffled child hood.
and his 4REAL HONESTY and shyness i found reflected in me.
this is not the best documentery in the world,
but if you dont know anything about THE MAN,
then you must check this flik out.
it might just make you SEE DEEPER than the surfes,
of all things will allow.
SEE as many HENDRIX DVD`S AS YOU CAN,
There all diferant,
and werth the (EXPEIENCE).

don't throw away your lp!
In all fairness, this is a documentary of the musician's career, not a purely musical cd, therefore its producers are entitled to a presentation they deem relevant. However, what is a documentary about Jimi Hendrix if not his music? Some judicious cuts are made in the sometimes rambling monologues of the interviewees, notably Hendrix's father, and that's fine. Furthermore, the interviewees are smart and interesting, and between them manage to give us a straighforward, not fawning, portrait of a shy, complex genius. But several cuts have been made to music as well, and that's not fine at all. In fact, few tracks are complete (for instance, Johnny B. Goode lacks its terrific intro, and both Machine Gun versions are substantially chopped down) and a lot of Jimi's banter is gone as well; it may not have been crucial, but I, for one, enjoyed it. So, I'd say, for the visual effect, this dvd is priceless - and, inevitably, much sharper than the vhs version - but if you also want the complete music, every note of it, and if you're lucky enough to have the original double-lp, keep it! The album was never issued as a cd, although parts of it are doubtless strewn across the various sludge Jimi's estate keeps dredging out of somewhere to make a buck.

Exceptional collection
This is how a bio should be done! It's a nice treat to have a lineup including Little Richard, Eric Clapton, Pete Townsend, Mitch Mitchell, Billy Cox, and Mick Jagger provide first-hand recollections of times spent with Jimi. It's supplemented with generous screen time for his dad and 3 or 4 former girlfriends, which is entertaining. To top it off, there is incredible, well-produced footage of Jimi in concert and in the studio, and the live appearances span his career. You can actually see him morph from a wide-eyed young prodigy into an exhausted curiosity. You can even hear it in the short interview segments that feature Jimi himself.
This ran as a Friday night midnight movie for about 50 weeks in a popular New Orleans theatre in the early 1970's and became one of the hottest tickets in New Orleans (where brilliant musicians are truly appreciated)during its run. I saw it at least a half dozen times then, and it is still as riveting today. If you get it, you won't be disappointed, and it is the perfect introduction to anyone who is not familiar with the story of Jimi Hendrix. ... Read more

Reviews (24)

Writer's Blockhead
Well, let's see. When his first novel (entitled "Hitler's Child") fails to generate sales and his publisher refuses to print his second book, what is a starving writer to do?

Work for a male escort service, of course!

As goofy as this premise is, THE MAN FROM ELYSIAN FIELDS actually delivers a compelling story that is both fun and painful to watch. Unable to get his old job back and desperately strapped for cash, hard luck novelist Byron Tiller (Andy Garcia) is lured by the seductive enticement of "easy money" as an escort for Elysian Fields, a playground for rich, neglected housewives. Problem is, there's nothing "easy" about Byron's new career, and this character learns lesson after lesson--about himself, about the importance of his marriage--via a very unforgiving school of hard knocks.

The tragic irony of this film manifests itself over and over. By trying to provide for and protect his family, Byron's poor decision to join Elysian only serves to destroy it. And naturally--irony of ironies--Byron's best client is the exotic, beautiful Andrea Alcott (Olivia Williams), who just happens to be married to Pulitzer-prize winning novelist Tobias Alcott (played wonderfully by James Coburn). The ailing Tobias seeks Byron's aid to rewrite his last novel; the young writer eagerly agrees; the stage is set for dismal, heartbreaking disappointment (should have insisted on a written contract, dude).

Garcia is so soft-spoken and restrained in this role, even after getting knocked down again and again, that I--unlike some of the reviewers here--actually was relieved when he finally unleashed some anger and frustration by trashing the wardrobe room at Elysian Fields. I'll bet the character felt better; I know I did.

Mick Jagger as the articulate, whiskey-sipping proprietor of Elysian Fields was an unexpected and delightful surprise. The ending was a bit uneven and sappy, but entirely predictable. For all you struggling writers out there, I would recommend you forego becoming an escort and pick something safer. Sword swallowing comes to mind.
--D. Mikels

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
In the film, "The Man from Elysian Fields," Andy Garcia plays the morose married writer, Byron Tiller. Tiller's one book "Hitler's Child, " isn't exactly a best-seller, and now he's almost finished book number two. Tiller's publisher won't even publish this second book. Tiller's wife, Dena (Julianna Margulies) is so unshakeable in her belief that both the book and her husband will be whoopingly successful, that Byron can't break the news that there will be no second book--no advance--no great writing career.

Desperation leads Byron to Elysian Fields--an elite male escort agency that just happens to be conveniently located next to his drab little office. The owner of the agency, the fascinating Luther Fox (Mick Jagger) offers to provide Byron with work, and so Byron accepts. His first assignment, as luck and Hollywood would have it, is to accompany porcelain beauty, Andrea Alcott, for a night on the town. Now Andrea is married to Byron's idol--popular author Tobias Alcott. Byron finds the situation intriguing and delectable enough to leave moral scruples behind as he fills in for Tobias in the bedroom too, but things are not quite as they seem, and Byron has a nasty illogical lesson waiting for him.

The film possessed many allegorical elements--Elysian Fields is, of course, in mythology, the place where souls go after death. Luther Fox is certainly a believable satiny evil Satan--by offering Byron an evening with the wife of a literary giant, he tempts him into selling his soul. Supernatural elements are weaved into the story and the set designs, but the film doesn't seem to know quite what to do with the layers of meaning created in the plot. So instead, the film disintergrates nonsensically into codswallop--sarcastic, world-weary, elegant Luther Fox turns into a pathetic love-lorn reject, and Byron's hell is laced with the promise of Hollywood happy endings. A sad disappointment indeed--why bother to lace the story with allegory and then suddenly switch gears half way through? Splendid performance from Mick Jagger--he redeemed this film for me--displacedhuman--Amazon Reviewer.

Very Poorly Written
It is ironic that this movie should pertain to the subject of writing, as it is very poorly written.
A MICROCOSM of this can be seen at the end, where the author reads his supposedly "breakthrough" novel: anybody over an amateur level readily recognizes what he is reading as extremely poor, extremely amateurish writing. It is also interesting that John Grisham is referred to once in the movie as a paragon of good writing--as though "fast food" writing ever qualified as very good intellectual reading meat.
The stupidity of the protagonist in not procuring a contract for his services strains credulity.
The likelihood that a well-known author would acquiesce to co-author his last book strains credulity.
The very stilted dialogue of this movie strains credulity.
Mick Jagger did a great job acting, but it's not enough to save this stinker.
The guy who wrote this movie neither understands good writing nor was capable of it.

The Man From Elysian Fields
My husband and I enjoyed this movie very much. Even though the story line was a bit of a downer at times, it was still very entertaining and kept our interest throughout the entire movie. Andy Garcia and Mick Jagger did an excellent job in conveying the desperation they each felt during critical moments in their lives. James Corburn and the actress who played his wife were good in their roles, as well.

a 10 star movie-must see!!!
Husband and I loved everything about this movie. Don't need to elaborate-read the previous reviews. Please rent, won't be disappointed ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

To cite Gimme Shelter as the greatest rock documentary ever filmed is to damn it with faint praise. This 1970 release benefits from a horrifying serendipity in the timing of the shoot, which brought filmmakers Albert and David Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin aboard as the Rolling Stones' tumultuous 1969 American tour neared its end. By following the band to the Altamont Speedway near San Francisco for a fatally mismanaged free concert, the Maysles and Zwerin wound up shooting what's been accurately dubbed rock's equivalent to the Zapruder film. The cameras caught the ominous undercurrents of violence palpable even before the first chords were strummed, and were still rolling when a concertgoer was stabbed to death by the Hell's Angels that served as the festival's pool cue-wielding security force.

By the time Gimme Shelter reached theater screens, Altamont was a fixed symbol for the death of the 1960s' spirit of optimism. The Maysles and Zwerin used that knowledge to shape their film: their chronicle begins in the editing room as they cut footage of the Stones' Madison Square Garden performance of "Jumpin' Jack Flash," and from there moves toward Altamont with a kind of dreadful grace. The songs become prophecies and laments for broken faith ("Wild Horses"), misplaced devotion ("Love in Vain"), and social collapse ("Street Fighting Man" and, of course, "Sympathy for the Devil"). Along the way, we glimpse the folly of the machinations behind the festival, the insularity of life on the concert trail, and the superstars' own shell-shocked loss of innocence.

Gimme Shelter looks into an abyss, partly self-created, from which the Rolling Stones would retreat--but unlike its subject, the filmmakers don't blink. --Sam Sutherland ... Read more

Reviews (86)

Brilliant companion piece (and antidote) to "Woodstock" doc
I don't have much new to add here, but I will say this documentary is a very important historical document of its time and scene. I would suggest watching the "Woodstock" documentary first. After that makes you feel high, lovable, and loved, put this one in; it will bring you back down to earth. "Gimme Shelter" left me thinking that the hippie bliss realization of Woodstock was confined to just that one single weekend. Although the music and performances at Woodstock were some of the absolute best ever captured on film, the hippie ideals that filled that festival were nothing but ideals. And what we saw in Altamont, however, left me thinking that the disaster of Woodstock '99 didn't seem so bad compared to Altamont '69.

"Gimme Shelter" is not at all a concert film, which is okay because that's not even its purpose. The Stones sounded pretty bad live throughout the film. They were experimenting with drugs and new equipment (not a good combination). I wouldn't have minded, however, if the filmmakers had included more footage of a knockout Tina Turner. And couldn't they have put the camera on Gram Parsons (with The Flying Burrito Brothers) for at least a few seconds!!. Little did they know how valuable that footage would have been! But those are just questions, not quibbles.

So as a concert film don't expect much. But as a document of the end of an era (and its ideals), I can't imagine a better one. This is a must-see documentary. Easily one of the best ever.

Angels Not to Blame/The Truth is Shown !!
Everyone shold not be on the Angels ass. They did what they were hired to do - protect the stage from idiots " who shoudn't have been there, zapped out on the drugs some of them could not handle".There were a few great musical moments at Woodstock, but it was the "peace and love crowd" and the promoters were just money hungry freaks.

The Rolling Stones have always had a dark side, and just because a few hippie types couldn't handle the scene, it has gone down as the "end of the Sixties". Well, my dear friends, the sixties were a time of change, but the rot had set in way before Altamont. I know, as I was there. Where are all the "share the world, wealth, and love" folks now? Sitting in places they protested, greedy and nothing like they were in the Sixties, towing the line like their parents and others they wanted to overthrow then. Greed, greed, greed. That's where the "peace and love" generation is now, not caring about their "bros and sisters". Power to the people my ass.

a strong film with many bonus features
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

Gimme Shelter is regarded by many as the most important rock film of all time. It follows the Rolling Stones on their infamous 1969 US tour. It covers the Madison Square Garden concert and the near-disastrous Altamont Speedway concert, along with actuality footage of the band in meetings with their lawyer, Melvin Belli (also known for defending Jack Ruby and for a guest appearance in a Star Trek episode) It remains one of the most popular rock films ever made and is as thought-provoking today as it was 35 years ago. An actual now-famous homicide was caught on tape and is featured in this film (as well as nudity), making it inappropriate for children.

The Criterion DVD includes many special features also.

There is a theatrical trailer and a re-release trailer for the film as well as the films, "Salesmen" and "Grey Gardens" also directed by the Maysles brothers.

There is film restoration deomonstration, several deleted scenes and outtakes, audio commentary by the directors and collaborator, Stanley Goldstein. There are also 80 minutes of excerpts from the 4 hour call-in radio show done after the Altamont concert and a photo gallery of the Altamont concert.

As an added bonus the accompanying booklet is many times larger than normal (this one is 44 pages) and contains several essays by many different people.

This DVD is a MUST for Rolling Stones fans as well as Criterion Collection DVD fans alike.

Superb look at The Rolling Stones' ill-fated 1969 tour
Gimmie Shelter is The Rolling Stones' documentary on the band's ill-fated 1969 North American tour in support of the album Let it Bleed. We see the band performing at Madison Square Garden playing songs like Jumping Jack Flash and Love in Vain among others, which was also released on the classic 1970 live album Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out. We also get to see the band record Brown Sugar and Wild Horses from their 1971 album Sticky Fingers at the legendary Muscle Shoals Studios in Alabama. However, the most famous bit from this classic movie was the ill-fated performance in Altamont in December of 1969 which was toted as a West Coast Woodstock but turned out to be anything but when a fan was killed by The Hell's Angels and rioting by the crowd caused the band to stop performing a few times. Musically, this film has great versions of Sympathy For the Devil, Under My Thumb, Jumping Jack Flash, Love in Vain and many other great Stones classics. I first saw this movie when I was 9 in 1985 and enjoy this film seeing as my mom is a huge Stones fan. Highly recommended!

the late 1960s, without the rosy spectacles
Despite the bad sound and grainy film quality, this is a riveting, brutal documentary that focuses on the 1969 free concert at Altamont Speedway that was envisioned by the Rolling Stones as a fun time for everyone to "get it on", and ended with chaos and someone being killed, which is shown in the film. With the Hell's Angels in charge of security, and a vast crowd in a senseless and often aggressive drug induced stupor, watching this evolve is like looking into the abyss of the damned. The mid and late '60s were not the flower-power love generation years some remember through rose-tinted lenses, they were very often violent and hateful, as anyone who saw the rabble "express themselves" at the 1968 Democratic Convention can attest. There are people who blame the outcome of this concert on the Hell's Angels, but this film proves that they were only a part of the problem.

There is also much pretension: Guys in suits trying to be hip and cool, and Melvin Belli, the celebrity attorney of his day, making sure he gets his 15 minutes of camera time. The Rolling Stones (at this point Mick Taylor had replaced Brian Jones, who had died in July of that year) seem to be out of place in dealing with their fame, and trying to "act the part", as well as being in a fog of substance abuse. Mick Jagger is the one that appears to be the most "in control", and he tries his best to bring calm and order to the concert crowd, to no avail.
There are short sequences of other groups, like the Jefferson Airplane, and musically, perhaps the best part in the entire film is Tina Turner, as she sings "I've Been Loving You Too Long" all the while using the microphone as a substitute love interest.
Total running time is 91 minutes.

All or in part, the songs performed by the Stones are:
"Honky Tonk Man"
"Brown Sugar"
"Gimme Shelter"
"Jumpin' Jack Flash"
"Love in Vain"
"Satisfaction"
"Street Fighting Man"
"Sympathy for the Devil"
"Under My Thumb"
"Wild Horses"
"You Gotta Move" ... Read more

Amazon.com

Bent debuted onstage in 1979 with Ian McKellen starring in the London production and Richard Gere in its later Broadway version. The filmversion is adapted by the playwright, Martin Sherman, and closely follows hisplay's story of two gay concentration camp victims who are sent to Dachau andwho fall in love, using their relationship as an emotional crutch in theirefforts to rebuff the horror of the Holocaust. Max (Clive Owen), would ratherwear a yellow star and proclaim himself a Jew than be lanced with the pinktriangle that designates homosexuality. Horst, (Lothaire Bluteau) chastises himfor his homophobia. Later the tables turn on Max, who finds--through Horst--thestrength both to keep alive indefinitely and to ultimately embrace his sexualidentity.

Initially set in a war-ravaged Berlin, Bent is directed by Sean Mathias, who first directed Jude Law in Indiscretions, and he has crafteda film that reminds one of Ian McKellen's Richard III with its spare,stylized, and stark world bombed into rubble and chic theatrical disarray. Thereare many poignant as well as harrowing scenes, and the result is a somber workthat stands as a reminder that intolerance cannot overtake individualism andlove. While Bent received an NC-17 rating for depicting Berlin'sdecadent, anything-goes-for-a-price nightlife, MGM opted not to edit out thetone-setting prelude and pushed to preserve the film's integritydespite a rating that is itself a kind of death for any film that bears it. --Paula Nechak ... Read more

Reviews (44)

A Strange Sort of Peace
In today's world of multi-million-dollar-budget films it's easy to develop high expectations. We're accustomed now to realities whose sights and sounds have been tweaked by talent and technology to perfection--we now see exactly what the director hoped we would, rather than settling for less-impressive, but more-thoughtful, innuendos and visual metaphors.

So in some ways it's refreshing to partake of a lower-budget production like Bent. The world of staged theatre is a simpler, more intellectual one than that of cinema, and too often an exquisitely crafted stage play is "technologized" beyond recognition when it is shot for the screen. But, no doubt because playwright Martin Sherman himself adapted the screenplay, Bent still feels as nakedly thoughtful as the best small-cast stage dramas.

The story centers on the relationship between Max, a gay jew in Hitler's Germany, and Horst, whose character is introduced in such a way that we're half-surprised to realize later in the film that he's the same person we met on the train. But that is the beauty of the playwright's craft: in art, as in life, people we meet as "passing strangers" can come to touch us profoundly.

The sets Mathias chooses as backdrops for the story are far from accurate historically, but they are perfectly chosen to support the mood of the film--Max and Horst, like the star-crossed lovers in a Shakespeare tragedy, are lonely pawns to forces much larger than they. Indeed, Bent offers the most tragically romantic scenes of any film I've seen. Two lovers, brought together by the same forces that keep them forever apart, survive on fantasy and suggestion in a world where life, in so many ways, has no meaning.

Bent is not a "feel-good" movie. But again, the art of Bent allows us to find peace in the lives and love of two strangers who met on a train.

Evocative of a stage play, important material
The movie has been set to feel a bit more like a stage play than a film, but it works nonetheless. It covers the story of two gay men who meet in a Nazi death camp and a very inspiring if ultimately tragic love story. Gays and lesbians are the often-forgotten victims of the Holocaust, and this movie and the play it is based on are important, also, because of its contribution to Holocaust studies in general. Mick Jager's unusual appearance as a drag queen is also interesting. As a source of education, there is some sexual content that makes the film inappropriate for use in high school classrooms without a bit of editing, but I think unedited material is very well suited to a college classroom--and is essential viewing for anyone interested in the Holocaust. An important piece of GLBT heritage.

For dedicated homophiles with strong stomachs only
This is the story of the concentration camp inmates forced to wear the pink triangle, symbol of their homosexuality.

This film was formerly a successful play and perhaps it succeeded because of its shocking topic, but this director is no Steven Spielberg. Never did I feel one bit of realism or sympathy for the characters although the brutality was unceasing and the story intense. For example, a boxcar scene which might have worked in a play was just too stagy, and the camera lingered much too lovingly over attractive semi-nude male bodies. We've found out by then, of course, that the title, Bent, refers to the shape of the lead character's male organ although there were no camera shots of this. The dialog seemed contrived, the prisoners all looked too healthy and fit, and, while this film might be applauded for handling, at last, a forbidden topic, it just didn't work as a film. Even Mick Jagger, miscast in the role of a drag queen who runs a nightclub in Berlin, just couldn't save it.

I love this movie
I was really happy with the positive reviews that Bent has been getting here, I love the film and am always disapointed when a reviewer blows it off. This movie literally made me sob (my emotions are easily manipulated)both times I watched it. I've heard a lot of pissing and moaning about the "sex" scene but I thought it was really beautiful, wonderfully acted and very moving. I completely love this movie and can honestly say I wouldn't change one thing about it. Oh, and the reviewer who reviewed right before me is a very scary neo nazi. Someone should let him know that homophobia is never attractive and I would not be shocked to learn that he was a slightly impared and amply pimpled teenager. With no friends.

The most impacting GLBT film I have ever seen...
I have seldom seen a film which stuck me on such an emotional level. It is rare for a film to have a lasting impact on me, but I left the theatre changed after watching "Bent". It is right up there with "Requiem for a Dream" as movies that can be labled psychological brutality, albiet very worthwhile psychological brutality. A truely superb film. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Just Slightly Less Entertaining Than "Bridges"
Even though I feel the Rolling Stones are not quite as sharp on this concert DVD as on the "Live at the Max" or the "Bridges to Babylon" concert DVDs, it is still well worth owning.

For some peculiar reason, the Stones on this DVD look more haggard (exception drummer Charlie Watts) than they did three years later on the "Babylon" concert. Perhaps they were tired and that might be why their energy level wasn't as high here. However, there are still many highlights including "Angie," "Sweet Virginia," (both performed on the small stage) "It's All Over Now," and the guest appearance of Bo Diddley for the number "Who Do You Love." Furthermore, the mixing of this concert is vastly superior to the DVD of "Babylon" which was an atrocity. You can actually clearly hear the band without the distortion which marred the latter DVD.

There is only one lowlight on this DVD, and that is the baffling decision by the producers of this concert to employ so-called comic Whoopi Goldberg to act as emcee. She is an embarrassment in her brief appearances, including actually "singing" with the Stones' professional backup singers near the end of the concert. She can keep her day job, thank you. Fortunately, her antics aren't bad enough to ruin this otherwise excellent concert. Every fan should own this DVD.

Like the concert ...but!
I attended the Vodoo Lounge tour at the Oakland Colliseum and it was one of the best I've ever seen. The DVD captures the same excitement. How can you not enjoy the stage...amazing. Except for the fact that the DVD does not show the large puppets of Janis Joplin, Elvis Presley and others that bobbed up and down as the stage rocked. I don't own any other Stone's DVD's and I don't think I need too, this one makes you want to drink beers and party. Buy it.

Not bad at all!
This being the first tour the Rolling Stones did without the irreplaceable Bill Wyman, I, as a bass player myself, was SERIOUSLY interested (and somewhat jealous, in truth) to see how Darryl Jones would do. Well, he did excellantly, just fine. And as to the video itself, Whoopie Goldberg is always a treat - just dig her in the "singalong chorus" of "Sweet Virginia"! The Stones themselves don't sound at ALL bad for 50+ year old men, either. The cameos are a hoot, too: Bo Diddly absolutely STEALS THE SHOW when he & the Stones Jam on "Who Do You Love." Robert Cray, though, proves he is a gentleman, when, just listen, HE'S the only one who prevents "Stop Breakin' Down" from doing exactly THAT. The band doesn't "get it together" until about halfway through the first chorus. And I have two major gripes about the show: first, "Miss You" (I song I could go for the rest of eternity without having to endure) lasts about 10 minutes - 7.5 minutes TOO LONG, to be exact. And on "Honky Tonk Women," the Stones give the the late, great Ian Stewart the ultimate insult by allowing "auxillary keyboardist" Chuck Leavell to take a piano solo. Keef's song is kind of....eh, but the animated introduction to "Sympathy For The Devil" makes up for a lot of...things. ("Voodoo Lounge"....yeah)
Yup, this shows that you don't have to be a 22 year old kid playing a guitar that looks (and sounds) like a Thalidomide baby to do "Rock and Roll" anymore. Long live the Stones!

Stones Bumble Along
In comparison to the Bridges To Babylon pay per view and DVD, for which they left several songs off of as well as this one, the Voodoo Lounge Miami ppv and DVD is horrible. The show captured the excitement of the opening numbers but missed with some of the key tracks being left off. With DVD having much more room than VHS, one would think they'd put the tracks that were taken off back in. This one is good to own for one reason - Keith's mind blowing screw up for his solo in "Sympathy For The Devil". Not only did he not realise what he was doing and how awful he was doing it, not one person in the band noticed his wrong notes! It's displays such as this and the entire Let's Spend The Night Together film that make the Rolling Stones beautiful when it comes to screwing up! Highly entertaining.

Stones bring Voodoo magic back to touring
Those of you who were at the Thanksgiving concert will know that this concert went for a LOT longer than 95 minutes, and what a killer set list it was !!

Where as the Bridges to Babylon concert was left uncut, this Voodoo Lounge performance is pretty much butchered. Great songs like "Monkey Man","Beast Of Burden","Before they Make Me Run","Live With Me" (guest vocals: Sheryl Crow !) and quite a few others deserved to be kept for this release.

Hopefully the awesome HBO Madison Suare Gardens concert in January 2003(40 Licks tour) will be released uncut like the Babylon DVD.

Still, what remains is a good looking concert, and shows the Stones proving they can keep up the pace post-Steel Wheels. This DVD would've gotten a higher rating if the full concert had been included with 5.1 surround sound though. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

a huge dissapointment
i bought this tape and i'm sorry that i did. my favorite video is emotional rescue and they ruined it by changing scenes and cutting it down to nothing. i am still looking for the uncut version that i saw on solid gold years ago. i'm going into video stores almost everyday looking for it. that video emotional rescue is the reason why i bought video rewind and they cut it down to nothing.

Coulda been a whole lot better
This overly ambitious video is centered around an ongoing storyline where Bill Wyman poses as a museum security guard to gain access to the closed-off rock n' roll memorabilia section. There he discovers Mick Jagger encased in glass and "awakens" him so they can reminisce over some video clips of their "old" band. Clever and well done, but the focus seems to be more on the storyline than the videos, most of which are mediocre at best. There are also many things about the collection that really tick you off. The sound mastering is horrendous. The clip for "Miss You" (which admittedly isn't that great to begin with - Charlie Watts does his best to look like Abe Vigoda) is constantly interrupted by meaningless footage of Wyman and Jagger in the museum. The video for "Brown Sugar" is nothing more than a hodgepodge of concert performances of the song poorly edited together, purely for the purpose of this collection it seems. The "Start Me Up" clip is NOT the so-bad-it's-good early-MTV clip of Jagger in his form-fitting purple-striped muscle shirt cockstrutting around the other band members on a poorly-lit soundstage, it's a pointless live performance from the 1981 tour which only serves to show the end credits to this collection. Some clips are god-awful boring ("Angie"), while others are shamelessly edited down to nothing ("Waiting On A Friend", "Emotional Rescue"). Only "Neighbors", "She's So Cold", and the trio of well-crafted videos from "Undercover" ("Undercover of the Night", "She Was Hot", and "Too Much Blood") save this from being a total waste of time.

Part Of Stones History
To say I was impressed with this the first time I saw it is a stretch but it is not terribly bad as some people may have you believe. It is a collection of the Rolling Stones music videos from 1980 - 1983. It also features TV shows, Interviews, concert footage, etc..... The only thing that makes this worse than it should of been is the plot..........

It starts off with Bill Wyman (the Stones bass player from 1964 -1993) walking through a museum and somehow he ends up into a stones section. When he gets there, there is a TV he sits at and watches the Stones on it. Then Mick Jagger is on display in the museum and Bill lets him out of the glass he is behind. Then they just go on through this museum thing and they are acting...it's not like this really hapenned. And the acting is Bad!

But put that behind you. You can sit through it. It's not all that bad. It even has the now banned from TV music video for the song "Neighbours" off of 1981's Tattoo You......

Could've been a whole lot better
This overly ambitious video is centered around an ongoing storyline where Bill Wyman poses as a museum security guard to gain access to the closed-off rock n' roll memorabilia section. There he discovers Mick Jagger encased in glass and "awakens" him so they can reminisce over some video clips of their "old" band. Clever and well done, but the focus seems to be more on the storyline than the videos, most of which are mediocre at best. There are also many things about the collection that really tick you off. The sound mastering is horrendous. The clip for "Miss You" (which admittedly isn't that great to begin with - Charlie Watts does his best to look like Abe Vigoda) is constantly interrupted by meaningless footage of Wyman and Jagger in the museum. The video for "Brown Sugar" is nothing more than a hodgepodge of concert performances of the song poorly edited together, purely for the purpose of this collection it seems. The "Start Me Up" clip is NOT the so-bad-its-good early-MTV clip of Jagger in his form-fitting purple-striped muscle shirt cockstrutting around the other band members on a poorly-lit soundstage, it's a pointless live performance from the 1981 tour which only serves to show the end credits to this collection. Some clips are god-awful boring ("Angie"), while others are shamelessly edited down to nothing ("Waiting On A Friend", "Emotional Rescue"). Only "Neighbors", "She's So Cold", and the trio of well-crafted videos from "Undercover" ("Undercover of the Night", "She Was Hot", and "Too Much Blood") save this from being a total waste of time. ... Read more

Reviews (86)

Brilliant companion piece (and antidote) to "Woodstock" doc
I don't have much new to add here, but I will say this documentary is a very important historical document of its time and scene. I would suggest watching the "Woodstock" documentary first. After that makes you feel high, lovable, and loved, put this one in; it will bring you back down to earth. "Gimme Shelter" left me thinking that the hippie bliss realization of Woodstock was confined to just that one single weekend. Although the music and performances at Woodstock were some of the absolute best ever captured on film, the hippie ideals that filled that festival were nothing but ideals. And what we saw in Altamont, however, left me thinking that the disaster of Woodstock '99 didn't seem so bad compared to Altamont '69.

"Gimme Shelter" is not at all a concert film, which is okay because that's not even its purpose. The Stones sounded pretty bad live throughout the film. They were experimenting with drugs and new equipment (not a good combination). I wouldn't have minded, however, if the filmmakers had included more footage of a knockout Tina Turner. And couldn't they have put the camera on Gram Parsons (with The Flying Burrito Brothers) for at least a few seconds!!. Little did they know how valuable that footage would have been! But those are just questions, not quibbles.

So as a concert film don't expect much. But as a document of the end of an era (and its ideals), I can't imagine a better one. This is a must-see documentary. Easily one of the best ever.

Angels Not to Blame/The Truth is Shown !!
Everyone shold not be on the Angels ass. They did what they were hired to do - protect the stage from idiots " who shoudn't have been there, zapped out on the drugs some of them could not handle".There were a few great musical moments at Woodstock, but it was the "peace and love crowd" and the promoters were just money hungry freaks.

The Rolling Stones have always had a dark side, and just because a few hippie types couldn't handle the scene, it has gone down as the "end of the Sixties". Well, my dear friends, the sixties were a time of change, but the rot had set in way before Altamont. I know, as I was there. Where are all the "share the world, wealth, and love" folks now? Sitting in places they protested, greedy and nothing like they were in the Sixties, towing the line like their parents and others they wanted to overthrow then. Greed, greed, greed. That's where the "peace and love" generation is now, not caring about their "bros and sisters". Power to the people my ass.

a strong film with many bonus features
This review is for the Criterion Collection DVD edition of the film.

Gimme Shelter is regarded by many as the most important rock film of all time. It follows the Rolling Stones on their infamous 1969 US tour. It covers the Madison Square Garden concert and the near-disastrous Altamont Speedway concert, along with actuality footage of the band in meetings with their lawyer, Melvin Belli (also known for defending Jack Ruby and for a guest appearance in a Star Trek episode) It remains one of the most popular rock films ever made and is as thought-provoking today as it was 35 years ago. An actual now-famous homicide was caught on tape and is featured in this film (as well as nudity), making it inappropriate for children.

The Criterion DVD includes many special features also.

There is a theatrical trailer and a re-release trailer for the film as well as the films, "Salesmen" and "Grey Gardens" also directed by the Maysles brothers.

There is film restoration deomonstration, several deleted scenes and outtakes, audio commentary by the directors and collaborator, Stanley Goldstein. There are also 80 minutes of excerpts from the 4 hour call-in radio show done after the Altamont concert and a photo gallery of the Altamont concert.

As an added bonus the accompanying booklet is many times larger than normal (this one is 44 pages) and contains several essays by many different people.

This DVD is a MUST for Rolling Stones fans as well as Criterion Collection DVD fans alike.

Superb look at The Rolling Stones' ill-fated 1969 tour
Gimmie Shelter is The Rolling Stones' documentary on the band's ill-fated 1969 North American tour in support of the album Let it Bleed. We see the band performing at Madison Square Garden playing songs like Jumping Jack Flash and Love in Vain among others, which was also released on the classic 1970 live album Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out. We also get to see the band record Brown Sugar and Wild Horses from their 1971 album Sticky Fingers at the legendary Muscle Shoals Studios in Alabama. However, the most famous bit from this classic movie was the ill-fated performance in Altamont in December of 1969 which was toted as a West Coast Woodstock but turned out to be anything but when a fan was killed by The Hell's Angels and rioting by the crowd caused the band to stop performing a few times. Musically, this film has great versions of Sympathy For the Devil, Under My Thumb, Jumping Jack Flash, Love in Vain and many other great Stones classics. I first saw this movie when I was 9 in 1985 and enjoy this film seeing as my mom is a huge Stones fan. Highly recommended!

the late 1960s, without the rosy spectacles
Despite the bad sound and grainy film quality, this is a riveting, brutal documentary that focuses on the 1969 free concert at Altamont Speedway that was envisioned by the Rolling Stones as a fun time for everyone to "get it on", and ended with chaos and someone being killed, which is shown in the film. With the Hell's Angels in charge of security, and a vast crowd in a senseless and often aggressive drug induced stupor, watching this evolve is like looking into the abyss of the damned. The mid and late '60s were not the flower-power love generation years some remember through rose-tinted lenses, they were very often violent and hateful, as anyone who saw the rabble "express themselves" at the 1968 Democratic Convention can attest. There are people who blame the outcome of this concert on the Hell's Angels, but this film proves that they were only a part of the problem.

There is also much pretension: Guys in suits trying to be hip and cool, and Melvin Belli, the celebrity attorney of his day, making sure he gets his 15 minutes of camera time. The Rolling Stones (at this point Mick Taylor had replaced Brian Jones, who had died in July of that year) seem to be out of place in dealing with their fame, and trying to "act the part", as well as being in a fog of substance abuse. Mick Jagger is the one that appears to be the most "in control", and he tries his best to bring calm and order to the concert crowd, to no avail.
There are short sequences of other groups, like the Jefferson Airplane, and musically, perhaps the best part in the entire film is Tina Turner, as she sings "I've Been Loving You Too Long" all the while using the microphone as a substitute love interest.
Total running time is 91 minutes.

All or in part, the songs performed by the Stones are:
"Honky Tonk Man"
"Brown Sugar"
"Gimme Shelter"
"Jumpin' Jack Flash"
"Love in Vain"
"Satisfaction"
"Street Fighting Man"
"Sympathy for the Devil"
"Under My Thumb"
"Wild Horses"
"You Gotta Move" ... Read more

Album Description

Nice price NTSC DVD featuring 18 tracks (including end credits) shot on the 'IMAX system in London, Berlin and Turin this is a classic recording of the Rolling Stones, 1990 'Steel Wheels' tour set. Tracks include 'Start Me Up', 'Tumbling Dice', 'Paint It ... Read more

Reviews (16)

bad sound
What happened to the sound quality? I originally saw the Stones' Live at the Max at an IMAX theater in Vancouver, Canada, and it sounded incredible. The sound literally blew my away. But the sound quality in this DVD is simply mute in comparison. I consider the Stones' Gimme Shelter DVD the greatest rock film ever made (followed closely by Pink Floyd's Live at Pompei and The Wall). Unfortunately, Floyd's Live at Pompei isn't on DVD, and the Stones' Live at the Imax is (it should have been left on VHS, or at least digitally remastered for DVD).

I have the THX version and it still sucks!
Like everyone else with any musical taste I love the Stones, and have been following them since I was fifteen and was hooked by "Satisfaction". That said, there seems to always be a propensity by whoever does the mixing for Stones' movies/DVDs to screw up the sound (maybe the Glimmer Twins themselves?). For instance, I have a number of bootlegs from the 1972 tour (Mick Taylor, decadence, hooray!), most of which are brilliant, full-bodied and powerful, then you get "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Rolling Stones", and it is comparatively anemic (actually awful) - guitars too tinny, the bottom rumble eliminated, Jagger too loud, and instead of sounding powerful, it sounds fragmented not like a real band at all. "At the Max" continues this tradition (?). I have videotape of that tour and, again, it is great, but I can't even watch this DVD, they manage to make the Stones sound boring!! The good news is that on Four Flicks, at last, a really decent job of mixing has been done that actually does sound like a Stones' concert - major regret that they didn't learn to do this before Bill Wyman left the band. At least we have "Gimme Shelter", which in its newest incarnation comes pretty close (ever hear it in a theatre with a good sound system turned up loud? Magic!) But unless you must have everything, I would avoid this one.

horrible sound -
what's with the sound on this dvd. The audience noise is louder than the Stones. The musical quality is compared to an old record which has been ran over by a truck. The crowd's screaming and yelling drowns out 85% of the music.

This concert video is the best argument why stadium concerts are not made for music.

The Rolling Stones-Live at the Max
Very good but audio does not even come close to DTS Quality

Too many overdubs...
I saw this in an IMax theater last year and was horrified to see that almost all of the guitar work is overdubbed. Keith's fingerwork doesn't match what is coming out of the speakers at all. You'd think they could actually play the tunes live by now. Quite the embarrassment. I'd rather hear a few bum notes than this dishonest mess. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

the music is the thing
Okay so Mic Jagger was an odd choice to play Ned Kelly but so what? Before this movie came out most of the world didn't know who the Kellys were. Perhaps the movie made people decide to learn more which is why we now have at least two very good books on Ned Kelly's life. But this is supposed to be about the sound track and I'll get to that. Waylon Jennings was brilliant on this album. Every song moves the movie along and actually comments on the action on the screen. Once you hear it you'll never forget Blame it On the Kellys or Daddy Does His Ranching (Dad's a cattle thief) in the Evening.

Kelly YES..Jagger NO
as a straight forward attempt to tell Kelly's story it succeeds. but Jagger, sadly, is Mick Jagger, not Edward Kelly. Unartistic as a film, it nevertheless tells a great story quite well, and i must confess, whenit first came out (1970) it started me on a Kelly quest that has lasted ever since. So BRAVO for Tony Richardson's attmept....and I like Mick and found SOME of his work here "ok"...but if you watch a movie on Kelly and can only see Mick Jagger, then the casting director should be fired!!

youth is born again
in the seventies I saw the movie in London at the odeon, naturally I went to see it, because Mick Jagger was the star. Nowadays I recognize, the movie is very thin, but the music is still great, and I love to remember those crazy days. ( 47 years)

Grossly inaccurate
I'm an Australian and have been researching Ned Kelly for 25 years. I watched this film at the movies when it came out. It was terrible then, and is even more terrible to watch now. If you are interested in the Kelly Gang, there are some very good books: recommended "A Short Life" by Ian Jones. See if Amazon has it! It is a very accurate account of the life of Edward Kelly, which is more than I can say for this movie.

A Big casting mistake
Ok, the only reason I watched this was because I'm a big Stones fan but I didn't really expect it to be too good or even memerable and its not. One thing is that I read somewhere that Ned Kelly was a big guy, about 200 pounds, and so I don't think Mick Jagger was a very good pick for him since Mick is so skinny. Another thing is the beard. It just looks hideous. The accent Mick puts on is also hideous, anyway, he mumbles the whole way through and his acting is VERY flat. The other actors weren't too good or memoralbe either. The script must not have been too hot because the only scenes that I really remember are the wrestling match and the end when he gets captured. If you want to watch a good movie with Mick Jagger in it watch Performance instead. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Pretty Empty
This felt like a particularly vacuous segment of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." I guess I was looking for an insightful glimpse into the world of Mick Jagger. Instead, I got a poorly edited glorification of Mick as loving father, musical prodigy and jetsetting man of the world. There was no critical analysis of his life, his music, his failed relationships, his relationship with offspring not appearing in the film, etc. This felt like a self-promotional image piece that was carefully designed to present Jagger as a man of sterling character. My suspicion was confirmed, in fact, when I read the closing credits: Mick was the Executive Producer. I have a feeling that the purpose of this so-called documentary was to inspire greater interest in Jagger among the public, and particularly among his fans, in order to increase sales of his newly released solo album. There's nothing wrong with such aggressive marketing, but let's not call the film a "documentary" - a "public relations" piece would have been a more fitting description. I have far greater respect for the documentary form than this hollow work conveyed.

The Other Half
I bought this DVD 1) because I heard Pete Townshend was in it and 2) because Mick is a very bright and interesting guy and I love the Rolling Stones. Very fun viewing; nice to see Mick enjoying his family and great to see fragments of him in the creative process. "Goddess" has some very strong work on it and the live tracks here are great. The highlight for me was Mick and Pete recording and chatting in the studio. Pick it up.

Being Mick-something I always wanted to see!
For any Rolling Stones or Mick Jagger fan, this is a must! It is always enjoyable to see how the "other half" lives including Rock Royalty such a Sir Mick. He is a musical genius and the glimpse into his life is quite interesting as we see Mick as the family man and the musician. Being from Florida, I especially enjoyed the scene from Miami where Mick goes on an airboat looking for gators, I assume in his offtime from working with Lenny Kravitz. Overall very interesting and something I thought I would never get to see....a candid glimpse of a musical icon! I've watched it so many times and it is a necessary collector's item for the Stones fan!

Good
I enjoyed this. The tag line, "You would if you could" is a little condescending, and you might think "I'll never live like that, what a jerk." But Mick seems like a nice guy, and it's fun to watch. I can't give it 5 stars, because Mick isn't worth 5 stars without the other Stones.

Something stupid
A horribly made documentary on the life of Mick Jagger. That's all. Forget it. ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Worth seeing just for The Who
This tape is worth buying just for The Who's performance of "A Quick One While He's Away", which has got to be one of the greatest live performances of a single rock song ever. Unfortunately, it's followed by Yoko Ono's impersonation of a rusty fence as well as a poor performance by the Stones. "Jumpin' Jack Flash" sounds like it's being played in slow motion, and on "Sympathy for the Devil", an obviously full-of-himself Mick Jagger seems to be more interested in mugging for the cameras then he does in actually performing the song. I've always thought the Stones were one of the most overrated live acts in rock; and after watching them follow the Who here, it's easy to see why Jagger did not want to release the tapes.

Anyway, besides The Who, there also some good performances by Jethro Tull(although I've read that their performance of "A Song for Jeffrey" is not entirely live?) and The Dirty Mac(John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards & Mitch Mitchell deliver a fine performance of "Yer Blues" before being joined by Yoko Ono and violin player Ivry Gitlis; it's amusing to watch Gitlis smirk as Yoko screeches over the top of their jamming). Marianne Faithful and Taj Mahal also perform, but frankly I found them both to be forgettable.

Aside from the performances, I think this tape is interesting as a snapshot of the time(December, 1968). You get to see a number of rock legends in their prime, and even though not all of them deliver great performances, it's still fascinating to watch.

Not Much Of A Circus For The Stones
What suprises the most is the lackluster performance of the Stones in "Rock and Roll Circus." Far more interesting is Jethro Tull's performance with Ian Anderson prefiguring the grunge look by 25 years in his long overcoat, wild hair and beard. Tull's unique jazz/blue/celtic/rock fusion has held up quite well over the years. Taj Mahal's earthy performance with his electric blues band is riveting, but future heroin causality Jesse "Ed" Davis looks pallid despite his sizzling slide and lead guitar. The Who rule the "Rock and Roll Circus" with an inspired rendition of "A Quick One" complete with a turbo charged performance by Keith Moon where he mugs it up and breaks (by my count) five or six sets of drumsticks. The Stones hit the stage to close the show and it's jarring to see a lackluster perfomance from the world's greatest rock and roll band. They all look fatigued and Brian Jones looks like he's just waiting for someone to write his obituary. This was a very bad time in Rolling Stones land. It turned out to be Brian's last performance in public with the Stones.

For over twenty years the Stones kept "Rock and Roll Circus" from being seen, apparently Mick Jagger was incensed that the Who's inspired anarchy eclipsed the Stones performance....the Who and nearly everyone else managed to outshine the phoned in performance by the Stones, except for Keith, who's rowdy guitar antics can't breathe life into the band. The following year I saw the revitalized Stones touring with Mick Taylor replacing the deceased Brian Jones on guitar. The Stones made it through the dark days of "Rock and Roll Circus" and managed to outlast the Who as the most enduring sixties band, but this performance was a pretty somber affair for the boys. My final reaction to the film was how many of the talented musicians in "Rock and Roll Circus" would be claimed tragically over the next few years. It is still hard for me to watch John Lennon's dazzling energy and often absurd brillance in the film and not shed a tear for his senseless death.

Rock and Roll Circus
As somone who wasn't born when this was filmed it was interesting seeing them and the other 60s artists as they were at that time.

Enjoyed Dirty Mac the most (would have preferred it if they left Yoko's wailing out of the second track). The Who were good. The Stones were ok.

One for the collector.

Good music, but you'll wear out the FF skipping the "circus"
Like so many legendary rock rumors, this show has a hard time living up to the expectations that have built up in its absence. You can now view it to see our Sixties heroes, young and smooth and clear-eyed, in this souvenir of Swinging London in 1968. For that alone this show is worth the purchase price.

The best bits of this are also the funniest. Tony Iommi, the future Black Sabbath guitar god, appears in the Jethro Tull lineup, in a floppy white hippie hat, miming on his Strat to Mick Abraham's dobro part in "Song for Jeffrey". He looks like he's gonna die of mortification. Ian Anderson looks spotty, woolly and ramshackle, and sings in a slurry delta blues accent. His vocal and flute are allegedly the only "live" part on this performance of that song.

The next best thing is The Who, powering through the long story-song A Quick One. I was disappointed that the video had no extra tracks from them, as I have seen photos of them in different costume from the Circus, playing what must have been a different song. Maybe for the DVD...

The Stones are okay, not thrilling, but not so poor that it warranted shelving the projected for nearly thirty years. Brian Jones looks dead on his feet, but everyone else seems fine. Keef, ironically enough, is the liveliest one of the lot, by the time the marathon show ended taping.

The circus bits are piffle, and the other performers are filler, though The Dirty Mac is worth watching at least once. Yoko Ono is...oh, I should just leave the fish in the barrel alone, I guess. Avant garde didn't get much more avant than it was in the Sixties. Short verdict: buy it, and enjoy the way they were, if not always they way they did it.

Truly amazing film for fans of Who, John Lennon, Jethro Tull
This film is more for fans of the Who, Lennon, Tull or for lovers of the swinging sixties than it is for the Stones. The Stones performance was somewhat lackluster, they seem tired and stoned!

BUT this film really caught me by surprise and is one of my favorite in my entire collection... I bought it to see the Stones only to find out that it contained a performance of "Yer Blues" by John Lennon, Eric Clapton, Keith Richards and Mitch Mitchell (Jimi Hendrix Experience)!!! The interview of John Lennon by Mick Jagger is very interesting -- John is sarcastic as ever.

Also, the song by the Who (A Quick One) is fantastic and captures the truly live feel and charisma of the Who complete with a typically clumsy and aggressive Townsend slamming his arm into a boom mike while doing a windmill on the guitar!!!

Jethro Tull hams it up as a psycho hillbilly freak... fans of his will love "Song for Jeffery".

Taj Mahal turns in a great, soulful performance of "Ain't That a lot of Love".

One thing that was kind of sad is that so many of the talented people on this film are now dead. Just about every band represented here had one or two members who died from heroin or some other drug. But that does make the tape that much more poignant.

The tape does have a few dull moments, the most painful being Yoko Onos "performance" with the supergroup I mentioned above in a separate jam called "Whole Lotta Yoko". You can't fast forward because the underlying jam is so compelling, so you just sit there and suffer.

If you like any of the bands mentioned herein, this film is a must see!!! ... Read more

Amazon.com

This version of Jean-Luc Godard's 1968 One Plus One caused a legendary confrontation at a film festival when the director became infuriated at his producer's decision to attach the Rolling Stones' completed song "Sympathy for the Devil" at the film's end. Godard's own original plan had been to make a film of the Stones' construction of the tune in rehearsal, and intercut that with a story line about a white revolutionary who becomes suicidal when her lover embraces black separatism. Production problems caused Godard to give up that idea and just allow scenes to fall where they would, allowing viewers to construct the film in their own minds. Be that as it may, this slightly shorter and more commercial producer's cut does not lack in satisfaction by closing things out with the song as Stones fans know it. Overall, the film is a bewildering affair, and that's not at all a bad thing: one's orientation is whatever one makes of Godard's enthralling mess here. Even if a viewer is just interested in seeing the Stones at their peak and at work on their brilliant 1968 album BeggarsBanquet, this is a highly rewarding experience. Astute watchers and listeners will note that in an early take of the song, Mick Jagger sings the lyric, "I shouted out, 'Who killed Kennedy?'/When after all, it was you and me." Later, with no mention of a particularly tragic 1968 event in American politics, Jagger has revised the line to "I shouted out, 'Who killed the Kennedys?'" Talk about a startling moment. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (15)

The Creative Process (sort of) and Rock Icons In Their Youth
In many ways, this film is as valuable an account of the Stones and their world and music as Stanley Booth's amazing memoir/biography "The True Adventures of the Rolling Stones." And Booth's book, despite the cheesy, alternate title (it was originally called "Dance With The Devil") is, in itself, a shrewd and articulate literary counterpart to "Gimme Shelter."

But "Sympathy" is a more concentrated glimpse and its focus is on the progression and recording of the title song is, to a fan anyway, fascinating.

One thing I find interesting is the many directions this song could've taken. One version is a chilled out, slowed down samba. Another has an ethereal Nicky Hopkins organ melody. And apparently, the line that originally went, "I shouted out 'who killed Kennedy'" had to be changed to "who killed the Kennedys" because Robert Kennedy was assassinated as they were working out the song.

Other interesting aspects are the questions this film raises. How long a period does this session cover? A month? A week? Two days? Are we seeing the sessions in chronological order. Who are all the other people we see milling around while the Stones try to get something done. We're never told.

Plus, it's just cool to see these guys when they were young, looking great and being as close to themselves as they can be with a camera in their face: Mick, waddling around and flubbing lines; Bill, looking like the boredest man in the world; Charlie focused and steady; Brian struggling to arrange a cigarette to smoke; and Keith, like a slim pirate, doing a jaunty step as he fiddles with what will eventually become "Sympathy's" razor-sharp solo.

Many viewers take this film to task for the non-music related scenes that are interspersed with the studio sessions: short, verite riffs on celebrity, race, sex, literature, techonology. I actually liked these sections, though every single one of them goes on about twice as long as it should. However, these little glimpses outside the studio plant the movie in a particular zone (the end of swinging London as seen through Godard's lens) that give the entire piece a distinct, if consistently unreal, identity.

Godard in the revolutionary, anti-narrative phase...
I give this only 4 out of 5 stars only because this is not Godard's final cut of the film. I hate it when producers and studios feel they have the right to undermine what the director intended a film to be...so because of that, I can't give it a perfect rating.

Anyhow, after Jean-Luc Godard made 'Weekend', he didn't really return to narrative until 1979. This is one of his early experimental works, and easily the most famous due to The Rolling Stones participation. But don't be fooled: this isn't a film about The Rolling Stones; not at all. This is a film for fans of the director, and perhaps Marxist left-wing politics. The typical Stones fan probably won't be too impressed by this film. I would recommend they pick up a different video on the band. The Rolling Stones place in this film serve mainly as metaphor, while Godard intercuts their recording session for the song 'Sympathy For the Devil' with several dramatic sequences involving a young revolutionary girl and a group of Black Panthers. The highlight of this picture for me is not the recording session with The Stones, but rather an incredible tracking shot around a garbage dump, while members of the Black Panther group read from various texts on different issues of colour, some of them completely absurd, while a group of young white women are escorted through the dump at gunpoint.

This is incredibly wild, revolutionary filmmaking. More of a poem than a film. And always brilliant.

pretentious, god-awful CRAP
Just how many times can one listen to half-assed versions of the same unfinished song? Well, for about three hours I suppose. Not only does the song never seem to end but it is also sandwiched between the avant-god-awful cinema of who-ever-the-hell the guy with the camera is.

word to the wise, buy this only if you want to torture yourself or your guests.

Godard as poseur, the Stones as artists
At the time this film was made, Godard's reputation was as a great avant-garde artist while the Stones were mere pop singers. Thirty-odd years on, the roles are reversed. It can be seen that the Stones created something lasting while Godard's contributions to this movie are cinematically amateurish and politically primitive. Unfortunately Godard wasn't enough of an artist to appreciate the material he had, and so he keeps cutting away from the Stones to add various undergraduate-level film tricks. The net result is increased appreciation for the professionalism and discipline of the boys -- well, of Jagger, Richards, Wyman and Watts (Brian Jones is a silent, stoned presence playing inaudible rhythm guitar) -- because it contrasts so strongly with the lack of professionalism and discipline in the film itself.

Great insight in song writing
This video is a great insight into the construction of a great song. The magic of Keith Richards & Mick Jaggar in pulling the song together is a must see. On early attempts of the song you would think they would give it away but to their credit they persist and create the song of the century .. well in my books at least. The weird clips in between the recording sessions are very weird. I suspect they could be used as a