Load of rubbish!!

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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

Scorcese, obviously a huge Stones fan, sets out to make a 'documentary' with this film "Shine A Light" but as you probably have read by now, it is no documentary. It's a concert film and nothing more. We are treated to some pre-show clips and setup, some roadies unloading gear, and a couple of extremely short interview clips. When the concert gets going, The Stones are in true form...again. The songs sound tired and rehearsed. It's all so obviously staged, every single second of it. The feeling is all gone.For those of us who have seen films like "Rock n' Roll Circus," "Let's Spend the Night Together" and even the fairly recent "Bridges to Babylon" concert video, it's merely more of the same. The budget for the production was clearly huge, as we can see every wrinkle in Mick's face the whole time. The cinematography is flashy-dashy MTV-style and we never have the camera on anyone for more than a few seconds at a time.I'd be so much more impressed if The Rolling Stones would stop jumping around on stage like children, grab a few acoustic guitars and give us an intimate 'Unplugged'-style concert. Plain and simple they look ridiculous out there. Keith is haggard as always, still smoking and picking away. Ronnie is really showing the years. Charlie still rocks at drums but now he really looks like my grandfather. And Mick, well...he just makes me uncomfortable, shaking his hips at his age. I loved the appearances, especially Buddy Guy and Jack White. There should have been more of them.If you wanna see Martin Scorcese, see "Mean Streets." If you wanna see The Stones, see "Let's Spend the Night Together." All in all not really a great example of Martin Scorcese or of The Rolling Stones, two artists who I really like, so I can't recommend this one.5 out of 10, kids.

The Rolling Stones is really unsinkable. And this doco is about their concert in Beacon Theatre, New York City on their latest tour. Bill Clinton, with his whole clan, was there too. Mick Jagger looks like some undernourished count Dracula these days and shouts his songs in rather small voice but he tosses and leaps around the stage like a teenager. I bet Martin Scorsese, who is the same age, can't run like this now. Keith Richards resembles most an ancient resurrected mummy and imitates back Johnny Depp now, like Johnny Depp used to imitate him in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Ron Wood is a blackest crow and Charlie Watts perches at his drum kit like a buzzard but he's wise like an owl. Most of all I liked flashbacks from the sixties and seventies when in 1966 Jagger said that they probably manage for a year more and in 1972 he said that when he'll be sixty he can still continue. Is there no Bill Clinton review at this site?

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.