Stoned (2005)

The Worst Film Ever

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Well, not that bad as I first imagined. THis 2005 production is fairly competent take on last days of Brian Jones' life and his tenure with the Stones. This is a very British film, but at times it draws too much from Oliver Stone and his The Doors or Nixon - the imagery, color scheme, sequence, plot, music, faces, blurred visions. Apart from that, Paddy Cinsidine is good as FRank, he did a marvelous job and showed his acting skills to the full. It is Not a movie about The Rolling Stones - well, they are here, you see all 5 of them, but Billy and Cahrlie never utter a single sound, and Mick is a bit detached. Keith is more prominent, but he is a bit too slow and languid. Anita is good, she is not very vivid here, but her drug-drenched life is shown well. What is great, is the excellent scenery of the park, and the excellent 60's soundtrack. Too much nudity is a bit embarrassing, and too many drug moments are a bit imposing. But that was part of life, just another faucet of that. All in all, a nice Brian biopic, with many good details and nice memos. Good for Stones fans, and a good word of warning - drugs do kill

I was looking forward to this one (despite the negative reviews it got) because of its subject matter - the mysterious death of Rolling Stones guitarist, Brian Jones. However, apart from good central performances - Leo Gregory (Brian Jones), Paddy Considine (Frank Thoroghgood) and David Morrissey (Tom Keylock) - and a couple of attractive females, I have to say I was let down by it. There really is little depth to the characterizations: Jones, especially, is portrayed as a pill-popping, egotistical snob who beats up his girl and enjoys needling the meek Thorogood but he is shown to lose interest in his band's activities far too early (in 1966!) which is negated by history given that he still exerted some control over the Stones' musical direction in unusual sounding songs like "Lady Jane" and "Paint It Black". First-time director Stephen Woolley (Neil Jordan's frequent producer) overdirects most of the time and, apart from Jagger and Jones, none of the rest of the Stones look anything like the real people. To add insult to injury, three of the classic songs of the era are only rendered via bland recent cover versions rather the originals which, at least, would have given it an air of authenticity.

How does one cast a movie portraying at least three of most worshiped, admired, envied, charismatic people in the business? Add to that, two of them are still alive and performing, maintaining their persona quite effectively into their sixties. Perhaps if this all had occurred before high-quality film, video, and sound-recording was so easily available. As it is, any one from any generation can get a first-hand idea of how fascinating the Rolling Stones' entrance into the pop-music scene was. If you want to know all about the aspects of Brian Jones that really matter, listen to the music; his total immersion into whatever style he was interested in gave him almost instant ability on whatever instrument he wished to play; his knowledge of and ability at Chicago Blues guitar styles,(not the hot solos, but the foundational group styles), was unparalleled. If you want to understand why he was so adored; look at his pictures. You're not going to get the idea from this film, but it's almost not fair.

The worst thing about this film (and there are so many) is that Brian Jones is portrayed throughout as a snotty, drugged out loser. Yes, he was at the end...but there was so little insight about his prodigious musical abilities (beyond a cursory look via grainy flashbacks) that it is hard to be sympathetic to his plight, and unfortunate demise.(another curious point) Why, besides the ton of boobs shots, were there mostly frontal nudity of the male characters only? This has nothing to do with my main comments, but it is indeed curious why only male "members" are shown, and female genitalia were mostly hidden? It is usually the reverse in most films. I also now might add that I am no prude, but the gratuitous nudity seemed more for "show" then to further the idea that indeed... this was the swinging 60's.The scene near the end sums this movie up. Tom is telling Frank how he has to "clean up" everyone's messes including Frank's. Frank is about to confess to the murder, when Tom cuts him off, saying that he doesn't want to know how it happened. Tom's attitude mirrors my own.It really doesn't matter what the truth is/was, Brian Jones was dead..and who cares at this point? ..and that's exactly the biggest problem with this film.After making Brian himself and the viewer so desensitized to his life and accomplishments (and only belaboring the drugs, booze and sex) the movie at the end, tries to insert some meaning into it all by a imaginary meeting between Tom in his old age, and Brain's ghost. The scene might have been more poignant if the whole movie was a flashback through Tom's eyes, but it wasn't, so the scene plays out like one of Brian's drug hallucinations.Another way the film tries to patch things up is the statements on the screen before the credits, but it is too little, too late. My first thought when I turned off my DVD player was, "what a waste"..... and that goes for both Brian's beleaguered life, and this film...