UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Stoned

Stoned (2005)

November. 18,2005
|
5.7
| Drama

A chronicle of the sordid life and suspicious death of Rolling Stones co-founder Brian Jones, who was found in the bottom of his swimming pool weeks after being let go from the band.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Hellen
2005/11/18

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

More
SpuffyWeb
2005/11/19

Sadly Over-hyped

More
Sexyloutak
2005/11/20

Absolutely the worst movie.

More
ThedevilChoose
2005/11/21

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

More
KineticSeoul
2005/11/22

This movie had sex, drugs, and rock and roll like the audience would expect and even though I am not a big Rolling Stone fan I decided to give this movie a chance. The casting for this movie was excellent although sometimes the acting seemed a bit weak. Leo Gregory and Ben Whishaw did a exquisite job of portraying Brian Jones and Keith Richards. This film was a good surprise, with even creating the atmosphere of the 60's, the music was great and the editing was done really well. This film got me hooked from the beginning but didn't add anything new besides showing some cliché stuff some rock stars do. This movie is also not about the Rolling Stone but Brian Jones and some struggles he went through in the band and his private life in till his death. This movie isn't a intelligent docu-drama, but it isn't that bad and somewhat kept me interested.7/10

More
HAWKEYE
2005/11/23

Considering that there are no other movies available that look into this particular subject, for those interested in the final days in the life of the brilliant Brian Jones this is the film you will have to see if the subject interests you as much as it does me.Having read all of the material available on the final days in Brian's life and being endlessly fascinated by all the mystery surrounding his untimely demise, I was impressed with impeccable way that it was presented in this film. Clearly the people associated with this film made a point of sticking to the established facts even if the existing evidence was contractive at times. Allowing scenes and accounts to be contractive from time to time is refreshing and considered taboo in presenting a film for entertainment.I was impressed with the acting, direction, dialog and portrayals in this film. All in all a fascinating character study. Brian Jones was a tremendously talented, gifted and complex human being who has become a bit of a mysterious "martyr" since his death in his early 20s. This film leaves one with a sense of just beginning to know him in a very human way. The good and bad.It is a genuine film that portrays Brian as a brilliant, sensitive yet confused, troubled artist. All true. Mistreated and yet capable of mistreating others. A complex person to be sure. And this film shows it all. Very competently. Leo Gregory's performance is top notch. The same can be said about Paddy Considine.Absolutely a film worth watching.That being said, I did have just a couple of issues with the film. And in all fairness I thought I would mention them here.First, Brian Jones' musical genius was given very short shrift here. Just a brief look into what Brian was capable of musically clearly shows that he was an absolute prodigy. Capable of picking up any instrument that he had never played before and becoming completely proficient in just an hour or so. This film does seem to gloss over this fact. This is unfortunate because this was so important to know about him.Second, some may consider this a warning of sorts. This film does seem to contain what I consider to be a gratuitous amount of full frontal male nudity. Don't get me wrong, I am not a prude. It is just that it seems to be completely done simply for the "pleasure" of the director. Absolutely none of it is required to tell this story at all. One is left to wonder why the director felt it necessary to include these scenes. Perhaps it was done to create controversy. But all it really serves to do is take people's attention away from the story being told.If one was watching a film about John Holmes for example, then one would expect a glimpse or two of his appendage. There was just no point in doing that with this film. Personally I felt that the director was insecure about the quality of his film and included these scenes hoping that he would draw more viewers due to the controversy.Either way, this is a very good film and worth viewing. If you don't mind seeing a penis swing by from time to time.

More
lazur-2
2005/11/24

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.

More
japonaliya
2005/11/25

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...

More