The Rolling Stones: Stones in Exile (2010)

Great band. Great album. Mediocre documentary.This is a patchwork of stills, video, and voice overs looking at the iconic album Exile on Main Street.The beginning was excellent staging the setting of how the Stones were forced out of England due to tax issues. Taking up residence in the South of France would lead them to cut this great album.But that is when the documentary began to drift. The story was cut with lots of recreations. Truly. Grainy black and white video with actors who are supposed to resemble the Stones are frequently cut in.What I would like to have seen (heard) is more music. Seriously.Perhaps gathering the band together, not scattered as they were (save Mick and Charlie) would have permitted more dialogue and insight into the creative process.

As a promo for the re-release of Exile, the film does its job. But as other posters have noted there's not much of real substance here. Any Stones fan basically knows the background of the album and it has been covered although briefly in other bio-pics like 25 by 5, and in interviews. I was wanting a little more and by that I don't mean what Don Was and Will.a.am think of the recording. It would have been nice to see the writing process of a song through from beginning to end. The whole creative recording process from first germ of an idea to the final mix of the song. It could have been done too with the very same combination of stock footage, still shots , and interviews. Oh well the album is still great. And wow was Anita Pallenberg ever sexy then.

It must be said that the Stones have brilliantly drummed up a buzz about the re-release of their classic "Exile On Main Street" album, with a combination of press interviews, personal appearances and now this high-gloss patchwork documentary but you have to concede that it's pretty much worked - the album re-topped the charts in the UK and US some 38 years after its original release.So does this new documentary serve the music satisfactorily, well, yes and no, in my opinion. Naturally there are limited sources available - this was 1971 - 72 after all and so the producer has to cobble together only a little verite video of the sessions themselves, mixing this with latter-day interviews with the band, famous fans and others of their entourage, segments from the bootleg "Ladies and Gentleman...The Rolling Stones" concert film of their 1972 US tour (including the infamous incident where a blissed-out Keith and horn-player Bobby Keys throw a TV out their hotel window) and still photo montages of the band at the time. Of course one would wish for more actual footage of the band actually recording the album (although several inserts of tape recordings of the sessions are teasingly included) - for instance, quite annoyingly a great take of "Loving Cup" is interrupted half-way through in the rush to keep the talking going, surely a mistake, but the end result still serves the album well and gives a fascinating insight into the band's M.O. at the time (basically a drink/drug fuelled jamboree by the sounds of things).Out of all this emerged a superb double album of adrenalised, debauched rock and roll, with smatterings of country, gospel and blues, which to paraphrase a line used by Keith seems to have drained the band to the extent that they never hit this artistic height again. There's also little doubt from the evidence here that Mr Richards was the creative heart and soul of the album and this obviously not just down to the album being largely recorded in the basement of his house at the time.Pros and cons, well, on the plus side, every song gets an airing of some kind, it was nice to hear contributions from past Stones Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor and it was cool to hear a previously unheard title song for the album played over the end credits. On the down side, there's a pretty unnecessary visit by Mick and Charlie to their old London Olympic studio, ditto the footage shot in America and especially the fact no entry at all was apparently allowed to the scene of the crime itself, Richards' Nellcote mansion in the south of France.Yes, this movie has that Jagger-ised polish you would expect from control-freak Mick and one might have wished that this had been the Stones' "Let It Be" with film cameras set up to record the sessions 24/7 but under the circumstances, I still enjoyed the film and have been playing the album constantly ever since. Job done, I'd say!

Stones in Exile (2010) *** (out of 4) Nice documentary covering The Rolling Stones' 1972 album EXILE ON MAIN STREET, which today is considered one of the greatest albums ever made. We learn that the "exile" in the title was very appropriate as we learn the Stones were pretty much forced to get out of Britain due to the high taxes they were having to pay, which pretty much left them broke. We learn that they took their families to France where they began work on the album. This documentary is pretty much hit and miss but in the end there are enough good moments to make it worth viewing for fans. One part of the good news is that it contains footage from their CO**SUCKER BLUES documentary, which up to this point had only been available from bootleggers. The footage here looks a lot better than we've seen before so hopefully an official release of that will come at some point (even if the film is pretty bad). We also get some footage from LET'S SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER, another true gem that needs to be released. We also get about fifteen-minutes or so of new footage with Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Billy Wyman and Mick Taylor looking back on this period. We even get to see Jagger revisit the location of where the album was recorded. The biggest problem with the film is that it only runs 45-minutes so there's not too much footage here and one really hopes that at some point an extended edition comes out. The documentary starts and ends with a few thoughts from various fans including Martin Scorsese, Sheryl Crow, Benicio Del Toro, Will i Am and various others.