Wordiezett So much average

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

eddiez61 Here's the ridiculous problem with this sad little orphan of Godard's oeuvre: Jean-Luc at first seems to be havin' his way with us, mocking anyone for taking any of their own "political" ranting too seriously, which is fine - I can relate to that. But what does this attitude say about the apparent earnestness of the Stones' as they labor to create that outrageously excellent song? I think those moments of the Bad Boys of Rock n Roll working together like inspired scientists is the real deal, the genuine article. They aren't pretending to be creating, they aren't pantomiming for the camera, they aren't subverting their own creative process. They are just doing it. Very little false reality, it seems, going on during those gripping scenes of the band engaged in something wonderful - as tragic as it is to see Brian Jones deteriorating. So why would Godard keep interrupting these sublime moments? Why does he disrupt this "sacred" ritual with his own "profane" parody? Or, is it that in celebrating radical revolutionary thought and activity - by way of his self conscious cinematic method - he is expressing kinship with the spirit of the Stones? Could be, but he can't have it both ways. Anyone familiar with Godard, however, is aware of his well stated revolutionary beliefs, so, ultimately there's little doubt as to what position he endorses, so why this ambiguity, these contradictory signals? This ambiguity only undermines whatever position he might be endorsing. His "philosophy", in this instance, is intrusive and self diminishing, as opposed to the expansive revelatory magic of the Stone's performance. In short, he's confused and this "film" is a mess. A classic case of the Radical Philosopher shooting himself in the foot (or ass, or head). Ah, the perils of a revolutionary.Thanks to digital technology now we can all be creative film editors. With astounding ease I could re-cut this unfortunate disaster and make it a brief but thrilling peak into the Stone's Laboratory as they assemble one of rock's all time amazing monsters. And what to do with all the mock radical philosophical rantings? Off with its head! I give the Stones portion 10 out of 10, and the rest 0 out of 10.

Michael_Elliott Sympathy for the Devil (1968) BOMB (out of 4) Jean-Luc Godard's "documentary" shows The Rolling Stones recording the title track while mixing in footage of the Black Panthers preaching hatred. This is without question one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen and it's the worth Godard film I've seen to date but it's rather amazing how incredibly stupid this legendary director can be at times. The title is going to attract mainly fans of The Rolling Stones but their footage isn't here for fans and I'm still trying to think of why Godard put the footage here. Apparently he's director's cut run eleven minutes longer and features more of the Black Panthers and it's clear that he wanted the spotlight on hate instead of the band so why include the band at all? There's one scene where a couple Black Panthers tell a story of how they want to kill white women and Godard follows this up with a short film of black men gunning down white women. There's non-stop hatred talk coming from this group so I'm really shocked there's not more controversy surrounding this film. There are various short films throughout the movie and there's all sorts of stuff acted out, which makes no sense when put together and you also get constant scenes of men spray painting cars. The Stones footage shows them recording the classic song from the early stages to its complete version but with all the other crap in this film I can't even recommend this to fans of the group.

newsphoto Rocky Dijon plays congas. Also engineer Andy Johns is seen and my father, producer Jimmy Miller can be seen through the studio window and heard talking to Mick. The band was working at Olympic studios in London. I spent my childhood in England and many weekends and holidays at Olympic Studios while my father recorded the Stones and Traffic. I made tea or brought soda for everyone while they worked. I sometimes sat on the drums and played around. Charlie said he would give me his kit from his home and I am still waiting for the drums to arrive. The memories will last forever. Now if there was a way to return to the 1960s I would in a heart beat. Steve Miller

dueyfinster As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.