... fan to tell me if this is not the best Stones live movie that has ever been made
345264
I challenge any true Stones fan to tell me if this is not the best Stones live movie that has ever been made. It's simply the Stones at their best, with no frills or overdubs, pure high quality rock n roll.
4286945
A great showcase for a live band at the peak of their powers. That band is, of course, the Who. The Stones themselves sound pretty sloppy, and Salt Of The Earth is a cheat, being a backing tape to which Jagger sings live. (Jethro Tull mime too -- naughty Ian!) The other high point is the bone-crunching take on Yer Blues by Lennon, Clapton et al. Fairly mediocre -- one can understand why the band refused to release it at the time. Ah, but crank up the Who again ...
565312
It's better than I remembered. A must have for any stones lover.
1078631
I ususally don't go in for greatest hits albums (Hot Rocks and Meaty, Beaty, Big & Bouncy are the exceptions).  But I suppose they serve a purpose which is to introduce folks who are not familiar with the music so that they'll go out and buy the regular albums.  I don't own this one nor plan to own it but I know all the songs on if from the original records.  I would concur that it is the best of The Doors but to appreciate them, get the original albums.  Of course, on some of those, you'll have to sit through the filler.
I also think that Jim Morrison was a flake and overrated.  But that is a different matter.
1520254
Not a great rep for this one, but if EVERY Stones album were like this they'd be one of the best rock and roll bands ever.  But they get blamed because 4 of the last 5 studio albums were just that much better.  Life isn't always fair!
4581293
I am sitting here reading these reviews and I am wondering if these people watched the same film that I did.  This is the first place I ever saw these theories about stonehenge and darlington walls being linked in some other way than prototype and finished product.  His discovery of this massive paleolithic city is an impressive feet not to mention the Boulevard between the two henges.  But as one the reviewer's stated there's no proof that his theory could be correct.  The video shows the theory of how the rock was moved and what distances they believe they where brought.  This is ground breaking information on an iconic monument of human enginuity, but no there's nothing of any importance in the film.  As for being not very well known, prior to the discovery of Tut's tomb no one knew the name Howard Carter but now it is a name synonymous with Egyptology.  Much like art, archeology has a hard time accepting that some theories that have been accepted for a long time are more important than really knowing the truth.  Watch it, it is well worth your time form your own opinions and don't let someone else's skeptical nature dictate your desire to learn.

Then post your own review,
3104131
Shame on you Warner I am with Peter Jackson on this one...

"I agree with the fans. I was heavily involved in the DVD process when the films were being released through New Line, but now that Warner Brothers has taken control over the releasing of the films, they just tell me what they're doing and don't involve me in the process. [With New Line,] the one thing we never did with the fans was make them feel cheated. Back in the original release, we always put extra material in, extra documentaries -- a lot of added value. I so totally understand why the fans would be upset; I don't disagree with them."

-Peter Jackson

... BTW no Extended Edition you will get no money from me.
3128133
I enjoy the Stones and ANY DVD of them is worth owing and watching. For 2007, the 5.1 audio is good but not as good as compared to the 2009 digital remaster of "Live at the Max"). The filming was great, high quality, The Stones as usual played great engergetic shows, no complaints.  I just wish using 6 speakers they would have re-mixed the songs for better separation, it sounds almost like a straight to video sound board recording, but is still good to listen too.
2407166
I know allot about the Stones, and have several already awesomely released films of theirs that they have released that were once only available on Bootleg DVD's only. With Crossfire, it is a 50/50 as for material, yes there are several unreleased scenes in the movie, BUT, for every one unreleased bit, there is a section of equal length material that you have already seen if you have bought such films as "Charlie is my Darling," "Ladies and Gentlemen...", "Let's Spend the Night Together" or "Give Me Shelter"...ect. So as a previous reviewer has pointed out when they show 'Jumping Jack Flash' it dose have about half the promo with alternate rough cut angels but then the rest is what you've seen on the bonus DVD to the singles volume 3 box set, so some alternate angels but then again half is what you already can see on a site like youtube. When they talk about Brain's death, do they use footage from that time, NO, they jump several years to the Stones looking sad or depressed in the studio while listening to tracks from Exiles, which is footage you can find on the "Exiles" DVD that the band released several years ago in conjunction with the re-release of that excellent album. That being said when they talk about Andrew, there early manager, you get some 20 second bits, no complete segments of film, intermixed with allot of footage from this years release of the awesome "Charlie Is My Darling." over all when i first watched this is was 100% disappointed, felt like a quick flash in the pants, and i still feel the stones could have given us more or the director could have used allot more unused footage that we had not seen yet, still waiting for the Stones to release the Hyde Park Concert, which was film, in full (you get about 5 minutes, that's it). To me now watching it again, the new commentary that they did over footage is not bad and sometime is it vary insightful, but with all they have written already about themselves, you could find what they think without watching the film, though it is nice to hear them say it. i simply wonder the unreleased stuff or bits, will it be available in a few years in full, is this a teaser for more unreleased material ? my friend for years has had the Hampton coliseum show on Bootleg dvd in full for years, we get about 5 minutes cut up at the end of the dvd, while not looking that much better, will this be released in full, if so, I have a feeling this release like so many greatest hits albums will not be essential unless you like the the one or two new songs they through on, with allot that you already own. Love the stones, but i would rent this not buy it. Also as one person also said aside from it needing to be more thorough like the Beatles anthology was, it stops about a few years into wood career making the last 30 years almost seem unimportant, sad.
3510821
This concert is "so-so". They should have stuck with just playing their own songs. That is what people want to hear. When they did play their own songs, they did a good job. I thought the best performance came when they played "Pretzel Logic". One of my all time favorite Steely Dan songs! The sound quality of the concert could have been better too. The bluray seemed to lack "pop" and I have a very good surround system with the best set up for sound and picture quality. Overall I'd say if you like these guys, you'll enjoy the concert. It was just not their best performances and I've seen them live.
787954
The Rolling Stones are one of the greatest bands of all time and Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest directors of all time.  For those two reasons, this film should have been fantastic.  Well, at least the sound was fantastic, but why were the cameras on Jagger 95% of the time?  Okay, if they were on him 50% of the time I might have been okay with it, but there weren't enough shots of Keith and barely any shots of Ronnie and Charlie.  Plus, there were almost no shots of the rest of the musicians.  A band is much more than it's lead singer, and the Rolling Stones are much more than Mick Jagger.  At least Keith, Ronnie, and Charlie should get a sufficient amount of camera time.  It's especially frustrating when Keith and Ronnie are playing riffs or solos and the camera is focused on Mick.  I would expect more from Scorsese and I think most others would too.  The highlight of the movie for me was "As Tears Go By" and the old interview footage.  It was also great to LISTEN TO songs such as "Shattered" and "All Down The Line," but almost every single performance could have been filmed better.  Four Flicks in my opinion is so much better and their are so many more shots of Keith, Charlie, Ronnie, and the rest of the musicians.  Scorsese should have gone through some of the Stones archives to find older concert footage from the late sixties and throughout the seventies.  I swear that so many of these bands need to release DVDs like the LED ZEPPELIN DVD, the BEATLES ANTHOLOGY, THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT, and TOM PETTY'S: RUNNIN' DOWN A DREAM.  The Stones should really think about going through their archives as a treat for their fans who weren't around to see them in the late 60s and 70s.  Anyway, if you are a Stones' fan and don't care about the camera focused almost entirely on Jagger, then you will love this film.  However, if you require many shots showing Keith, Ronnie, Charlie, and the rest of the musicians playing their instruments, I think you may want to take a pass.
1819986
What the hell happened to these guys? I have not bothered to see the Stones since about 81, and watched this out of curiosity. Everyone says they're "better than ever", but... What's with all that junk all over the stage? Why do they need 3 keyboard players and a 5-piece horn section? Why do they need huge inflatable things, 10,000 spinning lights, and flashy pyrotechnics? It all makes the Stones themselves seem utterly ridiculous and unimportant, as if their music alone is not enough entertainment. No wonder their tickets are so expensive.

KR and CW are a great rhythm section, and they should not need ANY of that unimaginitive, hi-tech slick show-biz crap to pull off their tunes live. Why Stones "fans" eat this BS up is beyond me.

Watch Gimmie Shelter or C***s****r Blues or the TAMI Show for the Stones live without - not this silly Hollywood crap.
2365085
Hate the camera going all over the place. Bring back Mick Taylor for a new album. They should have had more of him here. What a waste of supreme talent. I bought it because I'm a Stones junkie even if they frustrate me at times. The show in Anaheim last year was simply stunning (made all the better by Taylor).
4225647
The unfortunate thing with Ummagumma is the live performance on Disc 2 pales in comparison to some of their bootleg's. While the recording quality was high it wasn't as good a performance as the show in which the recording didn't work properly. Overall, Disc 1, while not as cohesive as their later work is interesting in that hints of their future greatness do shine through...
1460293
It's hard for me to knock this group because I have all their albums so I didn't need the greatest hits cd.  I bought mainly for the live DVD.  I have seen them live a few times and was blown away.  But the video is a little grainy and sound is bad at times.  The lead vocals sound ok but the background vocals sound too loud and out of place.  Just wasn't as good as I expected.  Still love the band and wished they released a proper live DVD.
3886286
A great show.  I have seen the Stones since 1966 and they still have the ability to put on a great entertaining performance here in 2013.  Seeing Mick Taylor play with them again was nice too.  It's good to see them do so well in their 70's.  In fact it's amazing that Mick Jagger can jump around as much as he does.  I don't care for the 'change-the-view-every-three-seconds' editing.  But the quality of the music makes it enjoyable.  The crowd loved it too, the park was packed.
152374
First off, I am a world class Stones fan. I am also a Scorsese fan. I don't see what this great director added to the Stones legacy. There are plenty of Rolling Stones concerts from the last twenty years on DVD. The last two tours were heavily documented by the Stones themselves. This production is nothing special. I think some of the concerts filmed by the Stones are better. The only thing to sell this particular product with is the inclusion of songs not previously on DVD, such as Tears Go By and She Was Hot. Jack White's duet was not particularly good. Christina Aguilera's was better, and Buddy Guy was probably the best of the star turns. But this is not riveting stuff. The fans need a more historical documentary, since 25X5 has never been issued on DVD. There has to be a ton of interesting footage from Brian Jones onward. Go ask Bill Wyman, he's probably got the motherlode squirreled away. As for 'Shine A Light', I don't get it. What did Martin Scorsese add?