User Reviews

I saw the Rolling Stones live last year for the first time and I was blown away. I've been a Stones fan for decades but have never had any interest in stadium rock concerts with their huge crowds and tiny stars on stage. The few stadium shows I've attended were always mediocre experiences. But the Stones' Bigger Bang tour changed my mind.

For one, the enormous video screens make every seat great. Beyond that, it was the Rolling Stones that won me over. Rocking songs, incredible performances, unbelievable energy, and every one in the crowd dancing and singing the whole show. And these guys are in their sixties! Watching 'Shine a Light' on IMAX at times made me feel like I was actually at a live Stones concert, but then I kept feeling that something key was missing. And it was.

Martin Scorsese covered the two explosive shows at the Beacon Theater in New York with 18 cameras but he somehow missed getting the band. As expected, lead singer and ringmaster, Mick Jagger, gets the most screen time, with guitarist, Keith Richards, coming in a not too distant second. And then there's Ron Wood, the second guitarist, and some might argue, the better soloist, He has juicy moments on screen, but is shockingly absent time and again when soloing, the camera instead lingering on a prancing Jagger or posing Richards.

And where is drummer Charlie Watts? Watching 'Shine a Light' one might think the Stones had backing tracks instead of a live drummer. Watts is the quiet one (who doesn't dye his hair) but he's the backbone of their sound, keeping time, holding it down while the boys jump around. I kept wanting to see shots of Watts, not only for the variety of imagery and the visual reinforcement that there really is a live drummer hitting the cowbell on 'Honky Tonk Women,' but also because he's an original Rolling Stone. Sadly, there are only a handful of very brief clips featuring Watts, and just as few wide shots of the whole band on stage. And Watts is not the only one nearly absent from the movie.

Although the original members are Jagger, Richards, Watts and Wood (Wood joined in 1974 so he's not actually an original Stone), they tour with a number of key support musicians, including bass player, Daryl Jones (who's worked with them since 1994), a keyboardist, a horn section and three back-up singers. However, except for some brief interplay between Jagger and the back-up singers, the other musicians are absent from the film. It's not so unusual to relegate non-member, support players to minor roles in concert movies, but to avoid them altogether is baffling and frustrating.

The support musicians may not be Rolling Stones but they are a part of the band. They are playing the music and adding to the sights and sounds on stage. But 'Shine a Light' mostly kept them in the dark. This isn't how a real concert is experienced. In concert the other players are seen and often featured in the spotlight as soloists. But time and again in 'Shine a Light', we hear a piano riff, a sax solo, a horn section blast, a bass run, but we never actually see who's playing. We neither get full nor medium shots, nor even close-ups of hands playing. We don't even get quick cuts of the support players, as one might see interspersed regularly throughout most filmed live concerts today. Instead, we see lingering shots of Jagger and Richards, sometimes so close you can see the brown behind Jagger's teeth, while a saxophone or some other player wails somewhere off-camera. The Stones sound is some much more than guitar, bass, drums and vocals. A concert is so much more than the starring players, but you don't get that from this film. It's as if the film makers had tin ears.

This is baffling because they had 18-camera shooting the action. So the film makers either didn't get the coverage, or they decided in the editing room not to include the other players. Bad decision. This gives the movie, the Stones concert experience, a frustrating myopic feel. I kept wanting to see what I was hearing, but couldn't. I kept wanting to get a visual of the focal point in the song and on stage, but it was not delivered. Even one of the few times Jaggar plays harmonica is off-camera. This left me feeling short-changed.

Ultimately, 'Shine a Light' is slightly claustrophobic, with all its medium and close shots. It rarely opens up to show the entire band on stage. The film suffers as a result, as wide shots would have provided much needed breathing room, offering a more open perspective, and also providing the myriad tight shots with context. We do see the interplay between Jagger and Richards, or between Richards and Wood, but we don't see the whole band working together as a unit. And ultimately that's what a live Stones show, or any live rock show is all about--a group of individuals performing together as a band. Even if Scorsese decided that the film was all about the four Stones, he could have easily divided the enormous screen into quads, now and again, so we could see the four Stones working their magic simultaneously in a multi-screen format. This is common place today and highly effective.

It's baffling that with all the resources at hand and experience behind him, Scorsese didn't quite deliver the goods. It's as if his infatuation with the visages of Jagger and Richards blinded him from showing us the Rolling Stones. 'Shine a Light' is enjoyable for sure, but suffers from a limited vision.

Scorsese has tried his best to recreate the glory of The Last Waltz but seems to have stumbled at the impossible: how can you recreate or better what is arguably the best concert movie of all time? Quite simply, you can't. The intro to this movie is as strange as its ending. There was obviously some sort of ruckus between Mick and Scorsese, because the lack of backstage footage and constant arguments between the two regarding camera, stage and setlists seemed to have set Scorsese on a "I find it very hard to work with this diva" twist on the movie.

This seems to dissipate with the beginning of the actual concert. Maybe he's trying to tell us that Mick's diva-esquire attitude and pointless demands fall apart and don't matter once they come onstage. It's all lost in the music.

As far as camera-work is concerned, this movie is well above most in terms of energy and fluidness (regardless of the lack of rehearsals Martin seems to emphasise). The two cameras behind the front row of people give a great sense of being in the crowd looking up at Jagger and Richards.

The gig itself is as good as any Bigger Bang tour I've seen. Anyone who has seen the Stones live in the past 5 years knows exactly what to expect and they don't disappoint in this show.

Scorsese cuts to archive footage of the band being interviewed at certain times. As interesting as these are to see, they seem to not fit as effectively as the cut scenes in The Last Waltz did. They almost seem separate to the rest of the film.

The performances by Jack White and Buddy Guy are interesting. It seems like they appeared onstage unannounced and had no previous rehearsal with the band and just tried to play along. Especially for Buddy Guy. His usually inch-perfect solos and licks seem rigid and refrained. Its as if he's waiting for cues from the Stones that never come. Christina Aguilaira's appearance proves she certainly has talent in her well-trained voice, but seems like a strange cameo.

All in all, I'd say this is a pretty decent concert movie, but nothing special in terms of movies in general. If you're a fan of the Stones, you'll enjoy this, but it won't shine any special light on the band themselves.

"Shine a Light" is Martin Scorsese's second real concert film after 1978's "The Last Waltz", which by now is generally acknowledged as a masterpiece and is my favorite film by the director. I really hope we will see more concert films from Scorsese in the future, because "Shine a Light" is further excellence from him. If all, or even a significant number of concert films were filmed with such skill and exuded such energy, there would be far more of them made and far more released theatrically.

"Shine a Light" is a concert film. I'm not sure I'd call it a documentary on the Rolling Stones so much as a filming (a brilliant filming) of an especially good concert they played recently. Scorsese is smart enough, however, to use interviews and clips from all stages of the Stones' career for purposes of humor and even commentary on various aspects of music and the music business, as well as the band itself.

Your average Rolling Stones fan waiting to see a Rolling Stones concert and who isn't a fan of film probably will be bored during the film's opening scenes, but for those interested in film, they provide a fascinating glimpse into the marriage of live music and film-making, which doesn't happen as much as it should. It's also quite an intimate look at the Stones as a bunch of people, exposing them in the same sort of way the non-concert scenes in "Gimme Shelter" did. Then again, how much of it is real and how much is an act is really the essential question that we will forever be asking about this band.

"Shine a Light" isn't a document of an important historical event like Scorsese's "The Last Waltz" or the Maysles Bros' "Gimme Shelter" was as a Rolling Stones film, so one shouldn't expect that sort of greatness from "Shine a Light". What one should expect is a great concert, filmed with great skill, tasteful guest appearances that do nothing but add to the music, and a gorgeous film interspersed tastefully with archive footage chosen carefully and played at just the right moments.

The Stones and Scorsese are on top form here, making this a memorable and exciting concert film and the sort of marriage of film-making and live music that really should happen more often.

8.5/10

Take some lyrics:

1. "May the good lord shine a light on you Make every song your favourite tune"

2. "You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite. You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of sh*t."

Both are recent songs by the Rolling Stones. A 1960s rock and roll group. (Band members are now in their sixties.)

Verse 2 is from an anti-Bush song called Sweet Neo Con. An interesting point from which to start a movie perhaps. Veteran director Scorsese even chooses a concert at which democrat Bill Clinton is in attendance. But the song, even though part of the tour, is missing. This film has no hidden agenda or meaning. Sweetness and Light. Shine a Light.

If you are a current fan of the Stones, such details matter little. This is a concert film (at the New York Beacon Theatre) to die for. Production values are far better than any comparable TV live event. A concert to enjoy in surround sound, in a comfortable theatre, with every detail up close on a big screen (or even IMAX). Not a film about lyrics. Not a documentary of these extraordinary long careers. Just a big, brilliant concert.

It rather feels as if the Stones hired the best filmmaker in the business. Who in turn hires the best cinematographers. Who in turn capture every dramatic gesture. Every Mick Jagger mince. Every crowd-pleasing wave. Each impressive guitar riff. Each colourful stage contrast. Each theatrical burst of light. Everything. Except film fans may struggle and ask, "But isn't this supposed to be a Martin Scorsese film?"

When Scorsese did Bob Dylan (No Direction Home), his achievement was in the insights into a complex man. His film resolved the eternal conflict between Dylan's public personas. Shine a Light, on the other hand, offers no such insight into the stars concerned beyond the current state of their stage performance (impressive though it is).

There are some nice cinematic touches. It is fun watching Scorsese in front of the camera in the opening scenes. He worries about getting a specific playlist, so he knows whether to be ready for a guitar solo or singer acrobatics. It helps us understand the complexity of filming a live event. The question of the band's age, instead of being disguised, is cleverly made a feature. Scorsese intersperses Beacon Theatre sets with vintage black and white footage of frequent interview questions relating to age. "Can you imagine doing this when you're 60?" and so on. I wince. I had qualms about watching these pensioners prance about on stage. A fan of their early music, I instinctively feel rock stars should die (or at least retire) before they get old. But blues singers look cool old. Why not the Rolling Stones? Keith Richards looks positively cadaverous. A Munster with a mean guitar. And the Rolling Stones are considered chic both by baby boomers and trendy young well-to-dos. Long gone are the days when buying a Stones album was an act of defiance.

But in spite of the unused Neo Con lyrics and Jagger's single use of the f word in the whole concert, fans seem more concerned that Richards actually smokes a cigarette. A girl in the audience points disapprovingly. The Stones are mainstream. Bill Clinton hails their green credentials. Everyone is lovey-dovey. Much of the concert features impressive showmanship and a high level of professionalism. Jagger never misses a note. The guitar-work is beautiful. And as a role model for pensioners, Jagger's routine is more energetic than any step class. But where was the angst? The blinding energy that seared itself into the brains of the 60s youth? This was a very a different band. I try to forget the old one. I enjoy the toothless new more than I like to admit.

Shine a Light is a time capsule. The latter years of the most famous rock and roll band in the world. A great British institution preserved for posterity. (It releases the day after Gordon Brown's jovial and equally polished tele-appeal on American Idol. New Labour. New Stones.)

Well-chosen guest artists spring into sets. Jack White produces a perfect blend of young and old as he duets with Jagger. Christina Aguilera looks stunning in high heels and tights. How could she not fire up the old man? Jagger hugs her bum as they dance to Live With Me. He has new fire in him as he continues with Start Me Up. By the time he sings Brown Sugar, there is a passion to it. The audience wave and cheer in time. When Satisfaction ricochets through the hall it is like watching the legend. The Mick Jagger of old. I'm almost a convert.

Would it be cynical to say Sympathy for the Devil looked more like a Born-Again pageant? Unappreciative perhaps. The film lover in me would rather have Jean-Luc Godard's film of that title for a sense of the 'real' Rolling Stones. But why should audiences dictate that pop stars – or film directors for that matter – conform to expectation? Accept Shine a Light for the awesome concert film that it is. Miserable old sentimentalists go back to your vinyl. Your 'creative' cinema. There's not much of it here.

The Rolling Stones are still rollin'.

That is the primary message of Martin Scorsese's well crafted if conventional rock and roll movie, 'Shine a Light,' based on two concerts played at the Beacon Theater in New York City in late 2006. Mick Jagger was always considered a phenomenon, the sexiest, most hyperactive white soul dancer in the world. He's almost freakish now, as exhilarating and kinetic at 62 as he was at 20. But 62!

Mick has the same tiny butt and slim body and an astonishingly flat, smooth stomach, But he like Keith Richards and Ron Wood has the ravaged face of a Bowery bum. These Dorian Grays bear the marks of their dissipation--or simply their intense living--in the visage. Only Charlie Watts, the perennial Stones drummer, just looks like an ordinary, healthy old man. Four or five years ago Wood was downing a bottle and a half of vodka a day and smoking a pack and a half a day. Keith Richards' indulgences are legendary, including his own claim, later retracted, that he once snorted up his father's ashes in a line of coke.

Watts, the drummer, has always maintained a Buddha-like silence together with a Cheshire cat grin. Richards is notable for often kneeling on the stage, and draping his wrist over a mike, or one of his cohorts. Ron Wood is constantly mobile and smiling, and has that standard aging rocker look: big seventies mop of dyed or otherwise assisted hair, ravaged face, stick-thin limbs. Mick of course is the front man of the band, its voice, its dynamo, its flame. He has as many moves as Michael Jackson, and you may wonder who influenced who of that pair.

Ups and downs they have had, and changes of personnel, with Wood coming in after Mick Taylor, who replaced the drowned Brian Jones, left the band, Daryl Jones replacing Bill Wyman as bassist, and so on. But the Stones have an exceptionally solid history nonetheless, with Keith Richards and Mick Jagger, who met at the age of four or five in Kent, still after 45 years together not only the creative center but the center of enthusiasm and joy of performance.

The aggregation Scorsese records here is typically excellent. The Stones not only have an unrivaled set of songs but still deliver extremely classy musical backup as well as all the old style in their renditions. It's just hard to get on the stage as an equal with a band this tight and this strong. But since the newest song they do is from twenty-five years ago in the film, the occasional fresh partner provides welcome variety. Success varies. The cute, smiley Jack White is a charmer when he joins Mick with guitar and voice for "Loving Cup," but his performance is so good natured it's more a sweet sing-along than the exciting duel it might have been. Christina Aguilera does a blistering rendition, with Mick, of "Live with Me," but she tries too hard and almost wails out of control. Best of these assistants, not an assistant at all but a fully equal partner, is the blues great Buddy Guy along for a song Mick says he first heard Muddy Waters perform, "Champagne & Reefer." That one is a true duel--and it's astonishing to see the youth of Guy's face, alongside the deep creases in Jagger's, given that he's nine years older than Mick.

As an album, Shine a Light unquestionably works. It doesn't include all my faves, but it does have exciting, risk-taking performances of "Satisfaction" and "Sympathy for the Devil." not to mention "All Down The Line," "Start Me Up," "Brown Sugar," "Shattered," and "Jumpin' Jack Flash" Mick imparts all his old swagger to "Some Girls" and "Tumbling Dice" and makes "As Tears Go By" and "Faraway Eyes" touching and (tongue-in-cheek) sincere. It's simply awesome that all these songs can still come across so intensely and musically; but that's what being great performers and the greatest rock and roll band is about. Scorsese shows them up too close though, and shows too many wrinkles.

Scorsese used so many photographers and so much light it made the Stones nervous ahead of time. The result is technically impeccable, but for a director who made the classic musical summing up 'The Last Waltz' and just recently the penetrating Dylan documentary 'No Direction Home', and for a band famously recorded in the shocking Maysle brothers 'Gimme Shelter' not to mention dozens of inventive song videos, the tame technique used here is a bit disappointing. One thing that's missing is any long looks at members of the audience, though glimpses show that they're of all ages. It doesn't add too much to have footage showing Marty's control freak nerves before the shoot (he could never accept that he didn't know exactly what songs were coming and in what order), nor is it hugely exciting to have Bill and Hillary present, though they have to be, because there they were, and Bill said a few words to the crowd before the concert began. Not earthshaking either are a few clips of early Stones interviews, though it's inevitable to show the one where Dick Cavett asks Mick at 24 if he can imagine doing concerts when he's sixty, and he replies, "Yeah, easily. Yeah." He was playing for laughs at the time, but truer words were never spoken. There is a recording of the concert by itself, including a few extra songs. I'd like to see the whole film again in IMAX. The sound system wasn't cranked up quite enough in the screening I saw. This is a remarkable experience. It confirms the excellence of the band. But to see them in their prime, better the 1974 concert film, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones, when Mick's face was smoother and his costumes more immodest--though that one is hard to come by.

Are the Stones still getting their rocks off? "Yeah, easily. Yeah."

finally,after three unsuccessful attempts at picking a good movie,my friend and i hit pay dirt,with this Martin Scorsese documentary chronicling a benefit concert by the Rolling Stones in 2006.there is also brief footage of Mick and the gang being interviewed in their earlier days, and some of the answers they give to the interviewer are humorous and ironic.most of the songs the played i had never heard of,but they were all enjoyable.there were quite a few bluesy sounding numbers and a bit of country,and a ballad or two.plus,the gang are visited by three special musical guests(at separate times)who join in the singing.all in all,this was a fast paced,entertaining documentary.for me,Shine a Light is a 7/10

Shine a Light displays, thrillingly and with the bombastic POP of a revisited 'happy place', why many love the Rolling Stones and many love the style of Martin Scorsese. It's mostly a concert movie shot over a period of two mights at the Beacon theater (as if doing a workhorse revival of thirty years ago, while Scorsese was busy shooting New York, New York in 76 and doing the Last Waltz concurrently, this time he shot the concert while finishing up the Departed), with some choice documentary footage interspersed in between some songs. On both fronts, however minor the (all archival) interview footage is, it's a big success, visually and musically, as good old rock and roll performance art (well, almost art, but I like it), and as visual virtuosity made incarnate.

It might be easy to adulate the Stones, as well as Scorsese. They've been around for so long, doing what they do, with each side rumored here and there to quit doing what they do (for the Stones it's every tour, much to their grinning bemusement, and for Scorsese it was a point in the 80s when he thought he'd have to leave Hollywood and make documentaries on saints). They're always acclaimed, usually big money-makers, and they've acquired a kind of nether-region between 'cult' audience and full-blown mainstream mayhem. It's this that is, in a way, the subtext for Shine a Light. While Scorsese stays mostly behind the scenes, the Stones are up and front and in center of a marvelous performance, and showcasing the energy and level of pizazz that quiets the naysayers. They sold out, and it doesn't get to them a single bit.

After some funny early footage of Scorsese (shot usually in black and white DV by Albert Maysles, who also appears here and there) getting into a minor tizzy about what the set-list is going to be, and getting some downtime with Bill Clinton, the show starts up like any good Stones show should- Jumpin' Jack Flash. Then onward come some given numbers (Shattered, Brown Sugar, Tumbling Dice), the masterpieces (Sympathy for the Devil, Loving Cup, featuring an awesome Jack White, and Champagne and Reefer with an equally awesome Buddy Guy), and a lot of unexpected tracks too (Live with Me with showy Aguilera, As Tears go By, some country song, and a kick-ass She Was Hot). For fans it's an amazing mix, and it allows for those who are just casual admirers to get their money's worth, primarily in IMAX. This is not just because of the quality of the music and the performances- which is, at its best, revelatory of what this band can do, at any age- but because of Scorsese's cameras, moving around in epic and roving fashion, edited with efficiency to not go all over the place or too slow, and, chiefly, to make it intimate like how many remember the Last Waltz to be (lots of neatly defined close-ups, lingering on to capture these hardened rockers).

And at the end, what is the point? Is it just another blah-blah Stones concert movie? Not necessarily. It doesn't have the heavy sociological context of Gimme Shelter, however it's not a little sloppy like Let's Spend the Night Together. Shine a Light celebrates its heroes, but it doesn't go completely overboard. Scorsese knows, as he did with Bob Dylan, not to get too cocky with these fogies. It's important to throw in those bits with the Stones getting interviewed, candid and without much overbearing ego present, and by the end you know there's still a place for them, firmly, in the public consciousness. They sold out in the most ironically good way in rock music history, with Scorsese now wonderfully in tow. A+

I don't know. It seemed like this should be a great way to summarize the Stones' career: the Scorcese treatment. But I was distinctly underwhelmed. There was the over-representation of mediocre Stones songs (they do have some great material that wouldn't just be a greatest hits set). There was Mick, who ardently believes that more is more. But then he didn't give more (where it counts) on a throw-away vocal on "As Tears Go By." Then there was Marty, who distrusts the viewer not to get bored by not hazarding a single lingering shot. Or to cut away from Mick when Chuck Leavell was delivering a very nice piano solo. My wife noted that the Stones seemed better when Mick stepped off the stage. His "rooster on acid" shtick was nearly nonstop on the faster numbers, and grew boring very, very quickly. I've seen Peter Gabriel and Bono do much, much better as entertainers. But then, I never drank the Kool-Aid.

From a film-making point of view, I don't get the value of the Clintons in there, nor of the footage with Marty. And the crowd looked like a group of friends of the band's and Marty's, with a smattering of trust fund kids and investment bankers for good measure. Check out "Gimme Shelter" instead; there's some pretty gritty stuff in there, and it's not all pretty, but at least it's real.

The Rolling Stones was here for a concert not too long ago, but since tickets were priced way out of my league, there was no way I could have seen them in action live unless I opted for the cheapest of the lot and sat well away from the stage. So I got to thank Martin Scorsese for having design and capture some definitive moments from a Rolling Stones performance, and share that stage magic the quartet provide when they're at their element, on a celluloid screen, captured for posterity.

Make no mistake, the entire movie is just like being there at a Rolling Stones concert, only that you'll have to ensure the cinema hall has great sound system installed, and you can't actually smell the sweat the rockers exude, even though you get to go really up close and personal during their performance, something which even the standing-only front row pit will not allow. You can even throw your hands up in the air only to irk those seated behind you, unless they and everyone else are game enough to turn the sedate cinema atmosphere into a party one. So this review (if I can call it one) largely depends on whether you're a Stones fan to appreciate, or for non-fans to want to give them a go, to kick back, relax (if you can) or just soak in the rollickingly wild atmosphere and immerse yourself into a Rolling Stones experience.

More than 20 songs were performed (if my mental counter serves me right), and for a Rolling Stones fan, you'll likely be satisfied them all for the price that you fork out. For a simple fleeting fan like me, it's an eye (ear?) opener to a lot more of their music, as well as an opportunity to watch them in action on the cheap. The first 10 minutes or so was the setup, with Scorsese worrying and fussing over how to film the Stones in action, and to want to have their set of songs as early as possible so that he could plan certain shots. But of course Mick Jagger and the gang got other ideas, as they flit from performance to performance during their "A Bigger Bang" tour, only to connect physically with Scorsese when they're at the designated performance stop at the Beacon theatre for the Clinton Foundation - where you'll get to see how big a fan Bill and Hillary are, together with their 30 strong entourage.

Interspersed throughout the concert performance are plenty of vignettes culled from past interviews spanning from the 60s, which will bring on some laughter as you watch them with perfect hindsight. You will get to see how youthful all of them looked when they first started out, and be amazed at their longevity in this business where bands come and go after making it to the top, if at all. Despite being grand-daddies, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood and Charlie Watts still look in great physical condition to be touring and strutting their stuff, dishing out high energy, high performance concerts, with Watts even cheekily feinting tiredness at a point. In fact, none of them thought earnestly thought, back in their youths, that they will sustain their popularity, or would have reasons for it, except perhaps Jagger himself who jested that he had dreamt about rocking the stage into his 60s.

Shine a Light doesn't break any new cinematic ground, even though it has cameras almost everywhere in a concert hall to capture every aspect and angle of the performing stage. In fact, despite Scorsese making appearances in front of the camera, his work behind it, with all due respect, could be replaced with any other director, and the outcome would probably be more or less the same, only because of the fact that it is a Rolling Stones concert with the band holding court from start to end. Would have been more of a blast to be able to see this in the IMAX version though.

"We cannot burn Mick Jagger. Very simple." My main problem with concert films is that film, being an inherently visual medium, means that you assume what you're going to be presented with something that needs to be SEEN as well as heard, as opposed to other cultural mediums like music or painting, and invariably, most concert documentaries are simply that: concert, and most concerts are just some folks standing on a stage playing music. Occasionally you'll get someone with a strong visually sensibility, but mostly, it's just dudes (and sometimes chicks) onstage.

For a concert documentary to work for me, there has to be some outside, extenuating circumstances, something that raises its visibility higher than 'just another concert movie'. One that succeeded was the Maysles Brothers' document on the Rolling Stones ill-fated free Altamont concert, Gimme Shelter, because it had very little to do with the music. The film looked at the struggle to put the concert on, the disastrous idea to make Hell's Angels concert security, and the fact that a drugged-up black man with a girl's name got stabbed to death in the crowd. That sort of thing made it more than just another concert movie. Shine a Light, despite the presence of Martin Scorsese and a LOT of cameras that are moving and shifting unceasingly, is just another concert movie.

Scorsese as music director, has done it twice, once with the "just a concert movie" Last Waltz, which is mostly performance, and mostly blah, and the engrossing and captivating No Direction Home: Bob Dylan, which is no performance, and all awesome. This has HD and a lot of swooping cameras, but better The Last Waltz it does not.

The music, as expected, is great. It may not succeed as a film, but the music is as great as you could hope. Special guests Jack White, Christina Aguilera and especially the always and absolute boss Buddy Guy (who looks amusingly stoned) are nice diversions, but the Stones own the stage like few bands before or after them, and they have a cohesive, almost telepathic unity on stage. Compare the sound here to the sound of them in their commercial prime, Get Your Ya-Yas Out, and you'll hear the difference. They have lived these notes for nearly half a century, and they know every fiber of it, although they clean up their lines a bit too much for me, to the point that it felt a bit like they were putting on a happy face for the nice folks, for the big people, which seems a bit disappointing.

There is occasionally breaks in the action for historical, archival footage chronicling the Stones at different points in their career, but most of it is superfluous at best, mostly clips of the band putting a timeframe on live performance, serving as a trite yuk-yuk counterpoint to the fact that they're old men and still playing. The only time the film really came together for me and involved me, just as in Woodstock, was the construction, the pre-planning, the madness beforehand. The group standing around and chatting, meeting the Clintons, Scorses and his team freaking out, putting stuff together, and providing the quote that heads this review.

All in all, after the opening salvo, it's pretty much exactly what every other concert movie is good for: putting on and playing really loud while you're cleaning your house, because it'll give you the energy you won't get from a regular studio recording. But "background noise while you scrub the bathroom" is not much of a compliment for a film, and being put on trial for what it really is, it gets the score it deserves.

{Grade: 6.25/10 (HI-C+) / #2 (of 3) documentaries of 2008}

Scorsese has made another fabulous concert movie using all modern techniques available. Scorsese had the Stones rehearsing their stage show for some days so he was able to choreograph his cameras. Shot with 16 cameras he is able to be always on the right image to the music. But yet it is not senselessly hectic like a bad music clip but allows you instead to watch the musicians and get a feeling for them. The Stones are at their best, delivering one hit after the other. There are some surprises like a duet by Mick Jagger and Jack White III. Buddy Guy and Christina Aguilera also blend in perfectly with the rhythm of the Stones. In between there are some short clips of old Stones interviews which are quite funny and also some Behind-the-Scenes-Footage.

It had such great potential. Martin Scorsese and The Rolling Stones. Yet somehow The Rolling Stones appear to have been replaced by embarrassing old men. Meaning that the two hours of this film becomes more a trial than a treat. There are two things genuinely saddening about this film. The first is that it is so brilliantly shot. You can't help think that if it was a show actually worth recording it could have been one of the great concert movies like "The Last Waltz" or "Stop Making Sense". The camera placement and editing is nothing short of perfect. The other is that Scorsese keeps inter cutting fantastic archival footage of The Stones when they were genuinely interesting and able to hold a tune. This footage just underlines how dull the 2008 version of the Rolling Stones actually are. Maybe Scorsese should have made a straight documentary on the subject matter. Indeed the only highlights come from the cameos. Jack White comes on stage and introduces the concept of singing rather than shouting and gesticulating ridiculously to Mick. Buddy Guy drops in for a song and blows the Stones of stage by producing a massively talented performance, mercifully Mick has a harmonica in his mouth for a large chunk of the song and doesn't shout over the top of him. Christina Aguilera's cameo is somewhat less successful... Well, embarrassing and hilarious are the words that best spring to mind. "Shine A Light" is as good a picture as the subject matter would allow. Scorsese gets an 11/10 for his brilliant work on a gig that is a 1/10. So on average the complete package is a 6/10.

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

Shine a Light (2008)

**** (out of 4)

You could argue that Martin Scorsese is the greatest director in the history of cinema and you could also argue that The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock 'n roll band in history so the two giants teaming up for a movie is a tricky move. A lot of times when two giants team up the results are disappointing but that's certainly not the case here. This concert film is without a doubt the most beautiful one I've ever seen and certainly the best directed. There's no doubt in my mind that Scorsese has taken the concert film and created something so incredibly that I'd compare it to how Dylan changed music history with Highway 61 Revisited.

As for the concert, The Stones need no defending and they deliver a terrific performance here, which was recorded over two shows at the Beacon Theatre in NYC. The guys get off to a feverish pace with a rocking 'Jumpin Jack Flash' followed with a neat version of 'Shattered'. The majority of the show has lesser known tunes and these here are certainly the highlight of the film. The cover of 'Just My Imagination' has the Stones making that song all their own. The legend Buddy Guy joins the band for an incredibly spirited version of the Muddy Waters' tune 'Champagne & Reefer'. 'Some Girls' features Jaggers really having fun on stage and the country based 'Faraway Eyes' really packs a punch. 'As Tears Go By', described by Jagger as a song they were originally embarrassed by, turns into a magical moment. The second half of the show features the big hits like 'Start Me Up', 'Brown Sugar', 'Sympathy for the Devil' and 'Satisfaction'. The entire concert is full of terrific energy as Richards is constantly smiling and even does two songs himself including a sharp version of 'You Got the Silver'. The group is really rocking throughout the thing and Jagger doesn't slow down as he's constantly dancing, spinning and working up the crowd. Not to mention feeling up on Christina Aguilera during 'Live With Me'.

On the technical side of things, this movie makes every other concert films look cheap and generic. Even without the music this thing is pure beauty as Scorsese really knows how to edit all the action together and his direction of the cameras is something really mind blowing. Just look at the 'Champagne & Reefer" segment, which is a rocking blues number and see how Scorsese captures the mood and spirit of the song. The heavier songs like 'Start Me up' are also perfectly captured. I'm really not sure I can put into words how incredible this whole thing looked on the IMAX screen. You get so up close and personal with the band that you can see spit flying from Jaggers mouth and notice every bit of perspiration pouring off the group. The stage settings add for some great visuals, which really jump off the screen. At times I really forgot I was watching a movie as it felt like I was really there at the concert. After the songs would finish and the crowd would cheer, I had to stop myself a couple times from cheering because that's how much I forgot I was watching a movie. The opening of the concert features a camera move that I won't spoil here but it ranks right up there among Scorsese's greatest and probably falls just behind that famous scene in Goodfellas.

The first ten minutes of the movie shows all the pre-show stuff including Scorsese trying to get the group to deliver a set list so that he can determine how he wants to film everything. The eventual set list doesn't show up until minutes before the show so you can imagine how Scorsese was pulling his hair out. We also get a great closing scene with the band leaving the stage, which was great to see because I always wondered what they were doing as they left the stage. Vintage interview clips are also sprinkled throughout the film, including one from when the band was just out for two years and Jaggers is asked how much longer they could keep doing this. He's reply is that they have at least one more year in them. Forty years later we get this film, which shows why Scorsese and The Stones are legends and this film perfectly captures the greatness of both artist.

Retirement age Mick Jagger displays awe inspiring energy in this unimaginatively shot an edited documentary by Martin Scorsese. Jagger's St. Vitus routine is still crisp and sharp after forty (40!) years and it's amazing just to see Keith Richards breathing while the retiring Charlie Watts remains the coolest Stone, placid demeanor in check to all the pretense and bombast around him. As a filmed concert angles are clear and the recording sound pitch perfect but Scorsese a generation removed from the better planned and crafted The Last Waltz lends little more than his celebrity status to the production where he is flustered and frustrated by the Stones reluctance to fork over a set list until the lights go up. When they do it is little more than a nostalgia show or Elvis in Vegas.

As for the Stones, they are a long way from being the threats to Western Civilization as they were perceived thirty plus years back evidenced by vintage documentary footage of the band that Scorsese employs between tunes. They do some driving covers of Jumpin'Jack Flash and Brown Sugar but most of the numbers (All Down the Line is a travesty and Keith warbling You Got the Silver and Connection comes across as cynical self parody much to the delight of the audience) had me reaching for the vinyl relief of Aftermath and Beggars Banquet where the ghost of Brian Jones still resides. Up against the scruffy rebellious blokes in the documentary footage the multi millionaire rockers are like Olympic divers dressed in tuxedos. If they can't get any satisfaction who can?

"Old buildings, whores and politicians gain respectability if they last long enough", in-tone's Noah Cross in Chinatown. The Stones have clearly achieved that In Shine a Light, but for me the guys that provided background music to my rebellious youth are better served sharing the stage with Hell's Angels (Gimme Shelter) than Bill Clinton. With the latter it's downright unseemly.

Note: I did not see this film in its original IMAX release but I feel safe in saying that in this case it's not about size since my 1965 monaural copy of Out of Our Heads in all its primitive glory provides sufficient proof of their talent and passion. They do not have to be as tall as a five story building or enlist an A list director to convince me of this.

Sometimes you might feel that the rock concert movie genre hasn't moved much since "Woodstock". Which doesn't mean Scorsese doesn't manage the tradition in a very proper way.

You certainly have the concert feeling here. But Stones have made it both better and worse. There are ups and downs in this performance, with an absolute peak from the blues man Buddy Guy entering stage.

The clips from old Stones interviews are entertaining, but what's the purpose of having them there? If they are supposed to be included, they should have taken a bigger place, telling something more of this band, which in itself forms essentials of rock history. Anyway, good work by Scorsese, although traditional.

Well filmed concert/documentary but disappointed me. I have been a Stones fan since the first record (Come On) came out in the sixties. I wanted to be Jagger or Richard so badly but I just could not cut it. The reason this film disappointed me is that I feel like Mick has become an exaggeration of himself - his singing voice is just TOO American now. he can still move like a much younger man but should he? I ask myself. Is it becoming at his age? Buddy Guy injected some energy and life into the concert, unlike Jack White who is supremely untalented. I felt some of the early songs in the set were rushed as though they were going through the motions. It was also interesting in the old footage to see how many different accents Jagger employed. After all these years I feel like I know absolutely nothing about him, but that must be part of his charisma and mystique and they way he wants it. I guess I am jealous-just wish I were as fit as MJ is. He can still cut it and he does quite look ridiculous yet but it is a fine line. No-one wants their heroes to become less than what they were and there is a danger if the Stones go on too long doing it like this.

If you haven't seen the Stones, you've got to see the Stones and this film is a good way to do it. But not, as some would have you believe, a great way. It's just a concert film, nothing more nothing less. I don't care who supposedly directed it - exactly what directing is required for a performance on a stage at a theater? Concert films are made by the choices the camera operators make, and then the choices the editor makes in post. This could have been a Billy Jo Jenkins production, for all that we see of the magic Marty's touch. Marty's bit in the opening is amusing, but his faux bit at the end is egotistical and unnecessary (nice special effects, though).

For someone like me who's only a medium Stones fan, it turns out I've seen a lot of Stones films and frankly, they succeed or fail depending on how well the show is that night. For example, I'm holding in my hands an HBO in-concert performance by the Stones at MSG and it's directed by one Marty Callner. I don't know who Marty is, he might have a long and storied career or not, but this show kicks arse and it's not because of who was directing -- The Stones were ON that night. And the earlier IMAX film done back in the early '90s found our boys in much livelier and younger form. Watching Shine A Light, if you've seen much Jagger before, you can tell he's very tense. Not having a good time at all. God bless the guy, he has amazing moves, but he's not in the best voice and he doesn't address the audience at all. Barely acknowledges them, as if he were all caught up in the "importance" of what he is up to. Keith, well he's always Keith and what a hoot. As noted in other comments, you sense that there's a support team behind the main players but you only rarely see them. Chuck Leavell does OK but nothing special, Bobby Keyes God bless him just lives for the moment he can play his Brown Sugar solo, in fact he was so eager he starts to play it in Live with Me. Cristina A. adds nothing to the show but some T&A, she doesn't sing so much as wail and might as well be doing her Lady Marmalade music video over again. Jack White does yeoman service, and of course Buddy Guy is a legend so he can do no wrong.

If you're a fan of the Some Girls era of the Stones, prepare to be disappointed. Shattered is lazy and sloppy, Some Girls is moderately interesting but Jagger took out the line about black girls, and Far Away Eyes is a throwaway. It's interesting to note that for several songs Jagger has a guitar slung over his shoulders, not because he adds anything to the show with it, but because after all these years he's finally realized that the coolest guy on stage is the guitar slinger (i.e., Keith). Poor Charlie is a great drummer and does his usual fine job, but away from the drum kit he seems like a doddering old pensioner. And I swear one of the backup singers is really Lou Reed moonlighting for the night.

So see it and enjoy it, but it won't change your life or the way you already feel about Mick and the gang. about the Stones.

While this starts off as a "documantary" (with a bit of extra movie suspense added, which could also make it a fiction film), with everyone involved playing themselves and also playing with the prejudices people have about them (Scorsese, Stones). But it very soon turns into a concert film.

But what a concert film! Scorsese has "done" another concert film before this, which I haven't watched. But one thins it for sure, if you haven't seen the Rolling Stones live, I'm pretty sure this is the best experience you'll have of their concert(s)! (note: If you don't like the Rolling Stones and/or their songs at all, it might be better not to watch the movie)

While I wasn't really a Stones fan prior to seeing this movie, I kind of got to understand the myth around the group. You get to know them pretty good, not only beforehand (the concert), but also during the movie with Interviews, many of which are from many years ago. The only criticism I can think of, is that the interviews/inserts are really great but come to short. But then again, as stated this is a concert movie and not a documentary (although I do hope there are some more on the DVD).

This isn't meant to make you think (political or otherwise), although there is the odd politician showing up. But even then there is only a light political remark. It's entertainment. What made it a bit disturbing, was the fact that after every song the audience was clapping in the cinema (Berlin), although none of the filmmakers and/or the Band was in the audience (they were in Berlin, but at another screening and might have even been in bed by the time this screening showed) ... Don't get me wrong, I liked the songs, but clapping a/every performance? Think about it, Robert De Niro does his "Talking to me" in Taxi Driver and the audience starts clapping? Weird right?!

During passing black-and-white footage beginning the film, we see Scorsese as he sketches out shot charts to map out the sequence of the songs, right down to the solos, and who would be where on the stage. His hopeful intention is to be able to direct his cameramen through earpieces. However, Mick Jagger fiddles with the list in continuous wavering. We observe over his shoulder at songs scratched out and written back in, as he brings up nonchalantly that naturally the whole set might be altered on the spot. It sounds as if after playing together for half a century, the Stones agree on their song order through mind- reading.

What I love about this opening is that it speaks volumes about the role of a film director. Scorsese has been working as a director for over 30 years now, and he has for almost as long been one of the most beloved and respected filmmakers at least in this hemisphere. However, no matter how many A-list stars he has directed, no matter how many millions of dollars have gone into his projects, and no matter how long he struggled with depression and anger and anxiety during the 1980s trying to make The Last Temptation of Christ, he just cannot seem to wrangle the Rolling Stones! When one deems someone fit to be a director, or anyone in a position of charge for that matter, one primarily discerns based on how they perceive that person's ability to control a hundred or so people. This criteria is not so skewed, as many of these large masses of people to wrangle towards your concrete vision of the end result are big celebrities, superstars, megastars, who are so spoiled and pampered by their status that they work noncondusively, treat the director and others with utter contempt, cause selfish problems, and other such things. However, there is the argument that if one is willing to do absolutely anything to tell a story, to make a statement, to realize their vision, they will put up with as much as they have to in order to do so. (Really, the argument can be made that one could never truly know if they could handle a director's job till they actually do it.) Scorsese proves in these first ten minutes or so that no matter who you are, there are simply some people who are not compatible with you in hands-on creative situations. He also proves that in spit of this, a project can still come to seamless fruition.

The problem is that Shine a Light is not a story, not a statement, and really nobody's vision. Actually, it disregards cinema. It is a filmed concert. At a concert, the audience enjoys a succession of performances. When an audience sees a movie, they enjoy a progression of events. That includes documentaries. Not every documentary has a narrative structure, but every sequence changes something. A documentary could be a story told in reality, or it could be an argument formed from bullet point to bullet point. Simply filming a concert gives the audience none of that. The audience languishes through impressive coverage of a rock concert.

Take it from a fan of the Rolling Stones! Gimme Shelter, Street Fightin' Man, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Sympathy For the Devil, Monkey Man, Let It Loose, You Can't Always Get What You Want, so many quintessential rock songs. Mick Jagger's lazy, drawling vocal style is timeless. I even like to sing like that when I'm in my car, whether Let it Loose ("Leddeh Looh!") has been stuck in my head or if I'm belting Fly Me To the Moon ("Flah Me Tooh d'Mooh"). I enjoy the performances of Champagne & Reefer with Buddy Guy, and their beautiful rendition of As Tears Go By.

Jagger is a dancer and a confidently sloppy one, too, and if I were at that concert, I would enjoy that. He employs his wiry body to command the attention of the audience. Keith Richards and Ron Wood are lazily lithe, Richards especially looking as if to disregard physics as his body leans at impossibly obtuse angles. Surely it has the most excellent coverage of the onstage performance. Directing cinematographer Robert Richardson, Scorsese set up a group of nine cinematographers, all either Oscar winners or nominees, to cover a concert, when if it was possible to round up such a dream team he could have made the most incredible movie imaginable.

Great concert movie. It is amazing to see the Stones have such energy in their performances at their age, and they certainly don't disappoint here. The special guests were great - Jack White, Buddy Guy, even Christina Aguilera, whose music I hate, was excellent. Scorsese's camera angles work perfectly, giving a great vibe to the footage.

Would have been good to get some the behind-the-scenes stuff though, like how the band interact when they're not performing.

Not as good as The Band's "The Last Waltz", the ultimate concert film (and another Scorsese movie), or Talking Heads' "Stop Making Sense", but an excellent movie nonetheless.

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/

Old and rich people play in front of old and rich people filmed by someone old and rich. Oh yeah, and they casted a couple of hundred young girls to dance dreamily in the front row. How can a band that once was so good become so awful?! OK, apparently nowadays Keith can't play to save his life and Mick's singing (and stage behavior) has become a a parody of his former self. Charlie's drumming is still good though. But they have background singers, a brass section and various keyboards trying to make up for what the Glimmer Twins can no longer deliver. As for the footage. Well Scorsese has 15 cameras whizzing to and fro and it's well shot and edited, but it just makes you wanna go back to Gimme Shelter (the Maysles Brothers film from 1970). Back then they had only two or three 16mm cameras to cover the shows but what the heck, the outcome was so much more Rock'n'Roll and back then the Stones were relevant. Here, everyone tries so hard to have fun, everyone pretends that this is the real thing when frankly everyone can see that it is rather pathetic and utterly pointless.