jubilee77 Most people would have expected this film to be an insight in the life of Rolling Stones founder Brian Jones whom met his mysterious death in his own swimming pool and in more recent times lead to theories that he was murdered by builder Frank Thorogood but with hindsight, much of these theories that Brian was murdered were based on the opinions of girlfriends like Anna Wohlin so who cares? My own theories about this film is that it is really poor and is one of director Stephen Woolley's near-miss yet he had spent a decade trying to piece together this rubbish hence to such wasted effort and is also one to miss for it provides far too little fact about the life of Brian. Get real, folks! Nobody should take those theories about Brian Jones being killed by Frank Thorogood seriously as fact because little or maybe no real evidence exists and deathbed confessions from Thorogood were nothing more than incoherent ramblings. Brian Jones has been dead all those years. His bizarre lifestyle and unpredictable mood swings coupled with his asthma were the only known contributing factor to his short life. Save your money.

halwill Originally posted as a rebuttal to Peter Travers review in Rolling Stone magazine: Good times, bad times and very, very sexy! Oh, behave. Stoned is not an action film, nor is it dull, as Mr. Travers would suggest. It's also not a movie about the band, although they are an important part of the story. Woolley shows us the moments in Brian Jones' life that lead to his early death with beautiful, if sometimes awkward pace, great music, and quite a bit of good nookie and acid. Monet Mazur is breathtaking, Leo Gregory poses handsomely as Jones, and David Morrisey and Paddy Considine are worthy of more than just a mention. Yes, some early Stones tunes would have been a plus, but the White Stripes, The Counterfeit Stones and a hand full of others pull off a nice mix of devilish blues. After all, that's what Jones was into. The Rolling Stones did their best work immediately after his death, I'd love to see a movie that chronicles that period, as would Mr. Travers it seems. After several viewings, I'm as intrigued as ever about Brian Jones life and death. Go to your local video store and get Stoned. (Did anyone else not take into account the movie's title when preparing to watch it?)

lazur-2 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.

japonaliya 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...