The Stone Roses: Made of Stone (2013) User Reviews

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

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 1 June 2013]

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

[grantss · 8/10 · 9 July 2016]

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.

Skip the start

[james_lane-1 · 6/10 · 8 December 2014]

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.

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

[paul2001sw-1 · 7/10 · 11 October 2015]

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.

Tight

[KlinePatsy · 8/10 · 19 May 2014]

A celebratory film, there were hints about the reasons for the breakup, and really it didn't need any kind of in-depth analysis. It was self-evident at the time why the band had imploded, to any self-respecting fan at least....Life got in the way, as it tends to do, so it was good that the director put the focus onto the positive elements of the band...the biggest positive being that they somehow managed to get back together at all. Listening to John Squire eloquently fend off a question about his past insistence that there would never be a reunion, you get a sense of the chemistry and no-nonsense spirit that underlies the band. They are a magical group. They are at times indescribably brilliant. They have at times also been numbingly average, but that humanity at their core is what defines them. There's a kind of joyful aura that goes with them, and it's infectious, humorous, uplifting, sometimes spine-tingling. The Warrington gig was brilliantly built-up and you could literally taste the euphoria. Probably fans of the band will get more out of this than casual viewers. The rehearsal scenes are really excellent, seeing them together again and enjoying themselves. Such a positive group. Can't wait for the next instalment after the third album tour.

Never mind the Pollocks!

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 24 December 2017]

It's pretty obvious from the off - in spite of a bizarre Hitchcock interview to open proceedings - that director Shane Meadows has made a love-in piece for his favourite band. Which of course is honourable and perfectly understandable, because, like, we all would do it. But here in lies the problem, that of a documentary which really doesn't bring much to the party for those not already in love with The Stone Roses.

For fans there's a lot of essential stuff, such as early footage of the band members when they were so vibrantly youthful, be it ripping around on scooters or those early gigs, it has a nitty gritty vibe that gladdens the spirit - and this even allowing for some of the cringe worthy interviews where arrogance and naievity rule . Also, as expected with Meadows, there's a great snap-shot of the era of their youth, as The Sex Pistols God Save The Queen belts out we are also privy to the depressing site of Hulme in Manchester, a place where the crows go to die...

Cut to later on as the band prepare for their reunion gigs, where it's great to see them so radiant and relaxed during rehearsals, it's this stuff, coupled with all the live footage we get, that lifts this to must see status for fans of the band. But we learn next to nothing about the problems within the band, both in early form and the reunion, these are given short shrift, as is the glossing over of the Spike Island gig, which if fans are honest, was beset with problems and not as mythical as some might have you believe...

But ultimately, this is a band who deserve their iconic status, and Meadows knows this and ensures that their status as revered music legends is not tainted. Cantona, Liam Gallagher et al know it, and we know it, The Stone Roses rock and are important in the pantheon of British rock music. 6/10

brilliant.

[balearicpunk · 10/10 · 17 October 2013]

a brilliant,superb documentary about the return of the stone roses.remember this film is not about the history of the stone roses,nor is advertised as such,it is about the roses come back gigs in Manchester,and the warm ups to that.it includes the fans and the band,talking about now.as a massive roses fan,along with millions more,we already know the history by heart.Shane meadows has made a superb film about a band he loves.lazy reviews rattle on about the history,this DVD is about the now.if you have ever wanted that ticket so badly,you will do anything,you will get this film.if you love the roses,you will get this film;m.if you,re after pointless tickle tackle about fall outs and passed bull.its not for you. it is for people who's glass is full,not half empty.10 out of 10.meadows has made a good UN.

Documentary style weak- band awesome

[gypjet-1 · 4/10 · 3 May 2014]

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.