The Stone Roses: Made of Stone (2013) Reviews

• A loving documentary but doesn't really tell the story of the Roses

  Red-Barracuda2013-06-01

  The Stone Roses are definitely a seminal band. In many ways their music set the scene for the musical landscape of British rock of the 90's. They didn't really record very much but a lot of what they did has proved remarkably timeless and sounds as invigorating today as it did back in the day. They recently reformed to massive excitement and a whole new legion of fans. So it seemed entirely appropriate that a film should be made to document their story. So the question has to be does it do the band and their music justice? The answer is yes and no. The chief drawback is in fairness not so much a criticism of the film but maybe more one of expectation and that is that this doesn't really tell the story of the band, it actually specifically documents their reformation. While there is some archive footage, there isn't a lot (an especial shame seeing as the car crash interview with Ian Brown and John Squire from the archives is one of the best moments). There isn't any narrative that documents the rise of the Roses or discusses their albums or singles. And for a band with a fairly slim back catalogue, it's a shame that it doesn't even feature excerpts from all of their most famous tracks. Furthermore, quite a lot of the songs are recent live recordings, as opposed to the classic studio versions. These criticisms may seem picky but as a fan I was hoping to see a film detail their rise, discuss their music and detail their impact on the wider music culture. What we do have is mainly recent footage of the band. There's really not a great deal of drama, the one bad moment being the Amsterdam gig where Reni refused to back on for an encore causing a lot of ill feeling and the cancellation of the remainder of the European tour. In the main it's really a documentary that focuses on positivity. Director Shane Meadows is too much of a gentleman and a big fan of the band to dwell on any negativity. This can affect the dynamic of the film overall but you can't criticise the sentiment. We see them playing a lot, jamming together and then later on stage in various gigs. The free show in Warrington was documented in more depth. Much of the focus was on the fans themselves here and as fun as this was, like them, we are really here to see the band. The finale is the huge Heaton Park gig and it's here that we have the highlight of the whole movie – an absolutely blistering version of Fool's Gold. It's moments like this that really underlines the power and legacy of the group.

  More

• Documentary style weak- band awesome

  gypjet-12014-05-03

  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.

  More

• The fans were excited, but (really) was the band?

  paul2001sw-12015-10-11

  Shane Meadows is one of my favourite directors; the Stone Roses are one of his favourite bands, and when they reformed a couple of years ago, Meadows got the job of making a film about their comeback, which is also a review of their career. The maker of 'This is England 90' is at his best when he captured how the band both shaped and were shaped by their time; perhaps unsurprisingly in an official documentary, we don't get much discussion of why the music on their second (career-ending) album was considered so disappointing by so many. The film of the young band is enchanting, though, if only because they are so young; as fifty-somethings, the band appear more guarded. The affectionate footage of the lifelong fans delighted by the reunion is a definite highpoint. What spoils it a little is the new concert footage at the end; an interminable guitar jam, followed by a dull rendition of 'Made of Stone' that loses all traces of the original's delicacy. One has to wait for the closing credits, and the chance to re-hear the original studio recording, to gain an appreciation of what the band did best at the peak of their career.

  More

• Skip the start

  james_lane-12014-12-08

  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.

  More

• More concert film than documentary, not that this is a bad thing

  grantss2016-07-09

  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.

  More