Wordiezett So much average

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

grantss 2011. After 15+ years apart, the original members of iconic English band The Stone Roses - Ian Brown, John Squire, Alan "Reni" Wren and Gary "Mani" Mounfield - reform for a concert tour. Enlisting the film-making talents of director Shane Meadows (This is England, Dead Man's Shoes, A Room for Romeo Brass) this film documents their reunion, including initial meetings, practice sessions and the concerts themselves. There is also coverage of their 80/90s history.More concert film than documentary, not that this is a bad thing. While there was decent coverage of how they burst on the scene, including media coverage and a good feeling of how big they were, there is very little on why their ascent faltered after the first album or why things went south after their second album. This is a notable omission, as the lack of success, or even musical production, of The Stone Roses after their brilliant debut album is one of music's greatest tragedies.However, the music coverage is great. Fantastic music, as you would already know if you are a Stone Roses fan, well-performed, well- recorded and produced. I am generally not a fan of bands reforming after many years apart - they generally lack the passion of younger bands, have nothing new to offer and seem to be only in it for the money. However, the music here is great - no rustiness, no going through the motions, no cynicism. It's as if it's 1989 all over again.

james_lane-1 This is an interesting film if you like the Roses, and has some great live footage. However it's far too long. I'd suggest you skip the first 40 minutes, you won't miss much, especially the at times excruciating early interviews. Mani and Reni were one of rock's great rhythm sections. I saw the Stone Roses in Australia in one of their later incarnations. Unfortunately Ian sang outrageously flat - I believe his live singing was a source of discontent within the band. For the most part he sounds OK in this doco.There wouldn't be too many bands that could mount a successful reunion tour on the basis of one great record.

KlinePatsy A celebratory film, there were hints about the reasons for the breakup, and really it didn't need any kind of in-depth analysis. It was self-evident at the time why the band had imploded, to any self-respecting fan at least....Life got in the way, as it tends to do, so it was good that the director put the focus onto the positive elements of the band...the biggest positive being that they somehow managed to get back together at all. Listening to John Squire eloquently fend off a question about his past insistence that there would never be a reunion, you get a sense of the chemistry and no-nonsense spirit that underlies the band. They are a magical group. They are at times indescribably brilliant. They have at times also been numbingly average, but that humanity at their core is what defines them. There's a kind of joyful aura that goes with them, and it's infectious, humorous, uplifting, sometimes spine-tingling. The Warrington gig was brilliantly built-up and you could literally taste the euphoria. Probably fans of the band will get more out of this than casual viewers. The rehearsal scenes are really excellent, seeing them together again and enjoying themselves. Such a positive group. Can't wait for the next instalment after the third album tour.

gypjet-1 I'm a rare thing, an American fan of the Roses. I know the songs, but I don't know much about the band (I didn't even find out until recently they gotten back together). So, when I saw there was a documentary, I had to see it. It was obvious the director was a fan, not just because he keeps showing up in the film to tell us, but because he tries to stay positive, and shows snippets of songs. However, the content is weak when it comes to telling the audience about the band. I wanted a typical 3-5 act story. I wanted to see them form, get famous, fall apart, and get back together. That stuff is in there, but it's scattered, you have to piece it together yourself and it's weak on original footage from the 80s-90s. I wanted to also know more about the music, and I wanted to hear more music. At the end of the day, that's what the fans want. The Stone Roses music is amazing and the songs timeless. That's what it's all about. Plus I wanted more of my favs! The weird Hitchcock thing was just bizarre. The Roses aren't about film Mr. director, they are about music, good rock music.