Diagonaldi Very well executed

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Spikeopath 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

james_lane-1 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.

gypjet-1 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.

Framescourer 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