The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus

The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus

The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus is a film released in 1996 of an 11 December 1968 event put together by The Rolling Stones. The event comprised two concerts on a circus stage and included such acts as The Who, Taj Mahal, Marianne Faithfull, and Jethro Tull. John Lennon and his fiancee Yoko Ono performed as part of a supergroup called The Dirty Mac, along with Eric Clapton, Mitch Mitchell, and Keith Richards. It was originally meant to be aired on the BBC, but the Rolling Stones withheld it because they were unhappy with their performance.

  • Rating:
    4.00 out of 5
  • Length:65 minutes
  • Release:1996
  • Language:English
  • Reference:Imdb
  • Keywords:circus,   band,   musician,  

Originally filmed in December 1968, "The Rock and Roll Circus" was originally intended to be released as a television special. The special was filmed over two nights and featured not only ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus torrent reviews

Andres V (ru) wrote: Que cosa tan patetica, lo unico que se medio salva es la actuacion del ninio protagonista, de resto es un fracaso de punta a punta, actores pichurrias, historia tonta y confusa y una direccion nula!

Marisa R (it) wrote: Very enjoyable! I appreciate the small town reality so much, and the light hearted depiction of corruption and blue tape. Good stuff.

David A (kr) wrote: george lopez is a sad excuse of an actor. I will not see this heap of garbage

Joanne R (de) wrote: My daughter is addicicted to this film!!!!

Zelyaine T (de) wrote: For me, the absolute feel and flow (disjointed a flow as it may be) of dreams was portrayed exceptionally well in MirrorMask. It took me a little by surprise, though in a very good way. Maybe it's only my own dreams, but for me, the whole feel of this movie was nearly *exactly* what the experience of dreams is like.

Steven H (kr) wrote: It's the worst movie ever made.

Cecily B (nl) wrote: This is my fav of the candy man series scared this shit out of me

Alaura S (fr) wrote: Kinda old but pretty good.

Tanner B (us) wrote: Gladiator (2000) C-154m. ??? D: Ridley Scott. Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed. Dynamite sword and sandals epic, with Roman general Crowe returning to his country as a gladiator to seek revenge on corrupt leader Phoenix after his betrayal and family's death. Crowe's bravura, Oscar-winning performance makes up for narrative's ramblings. Film, Costumes, Sound, and Special/Visual Effects also won Academy Awards. Reed's final film. Extended version runs 171 minutes. Panavision.

Garwin S (kr) wrote: Wong Kar Wai's movies are like the best of the 70's French movies. Slow, boring and tedious, and yet you have to watch them till the end, and even twice or several times.

Don S (kr) wrote: This is why I know (1986) Star Wars prequels will be a let down.

Jaime W (au) wrote: Experiencing this, and Back to the Future the next year, in the theater, changed my life. For the better. Helped show what was possible in the realm of movies.

Alex V (jp) wrote: Tonally fucked up. Overacting by Gibson. Trash.

Duncan P (ag) wrote: Interesting, albeit quite light on details, seemingly for the sake of attempting at promoting a rah-rah conservatism picture of politics (stressed out Maggie dealing with the awful riotous populace who take exception to her "poor people are lazy" attitude). Though, I'd argue that it fails at that too - while it's certainly commendable for her to have been the first female prime minister of England, all this does is show her off to be a tyrannical bitch (which I'm sure is not at all far from the truth; and I'm sure it was about the only way she got as far as she did) who was so dead-set on being proven right and being proven to be tough that she cared nothing for actual people and their actual concerns. Of course, the film offsets this by pulling a sympathy card with her later dementia, but even that falls flat when contrasted against her earlier political years.So, ultimately, interesting, enjoyable enough, but not nearly detailed, politically impartial, nor human-oriented enough to work as a definitive portrait of a divisive figure. It says a lot about your film-making skills when you don't manage to make someone unrelatable any more relatable throughout.

Gergely K (gb) wrote: Kellemes szellemid (C)z (C)ses B mozi. Jobb szn (C)szekkel (C)s kvetkezetesebb trt (C)netvezet (C)ssel kiemelkedhetett volna a kz (C)pszers (C)gb'l.

Emily E (fr) wrote: Having manic depression myself I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was so bizarre seeing portions of my life depicted on screen since mental illnesses/bipolar disorder is usually a taboo subject. I thought Ruffalo depicted the real happenings of this illness very well and I could see parts of our lives scattered in the film. Like any film it is not going to portray an illness completely and since manic depression has such a large variety of affect on people it only portrayed the writers experience with it. Overall, it is extremely well done and I think it sheds light onto the illness for those who do not know how a lot of the population have to fight daily against manic depression.