The Stone Roses: Made of Stone (2013)

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.

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.

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.

Shane Meadows has been very disciplined. A lifelong fan charged with covering the Stone Roses reunion tour, he could have made a film twice as long which would still have left the fans impatient for more.Instead Meadows restricts himself to watching the band rehearse, play a warm-up gig in Warrington (the sweat-stained heart of the film) and then on tour across the world. The film finishes with the promised Heaton Park date, where slo-mo does real justice to the romance of the band's legacy. More than that, Meadows also allows the full extended closing jam, for which the band's EPs were held in such high regard from fan to critic alike.It's just as well. The band were legendary because they were good, not just because they spawned a fashion movement, or behaved in the time- honoured manner of charismatic outfits before them. The film captures many other things besides, one of which is the age of the fans and shows just how long ago the late 1980s are now. For all the excitement & joy of a second coming, it's impossible to hide the calcifying effect of time; the film itself is already an anachronism, with Liam Gallagher waxing lyrical about Manchester City winning the Premier League (Manchester United had won it back before the film's release).I was saddened and moved, ultimately for the best, in equal measure. But I'd have liked Meadows to have been able to capture more real drama; the footage of Ian Brown telling a Dutch audience that they're not getting an encore, sparks with the belligerence which took the band to the very top. It's just a pity the flames didn't flare as they once must have done. 6/10