justincward 'Stoned' is a Brit docu-drama in the mould of 'Scandal' or even '10 Rillington Place' about the final weeks of Stones founder Brian Jones' life - and it purports to give the explanation of how a strong swimmer who had been coming off drugs drowned, when he shouldn't have.Good points: It's very low budget, but for all that never feels set-bound, and the main location is fantastic; the sixties feel is authentic, and the use of contemporary cameras to film the flashback scenes works. The feel of how Brian alienated himself from the band, and how he was both exploited by and dependent on hangers-on like Thorogood and Keylock is well expressed. I didn't find it boring because maybe I am aware of the background - 'Stoned' starts with a fair amount of exposition of who Jones actually was, which must be news to those who discovered the Stones after 'Angie'. The relationship between Jones and Thorogood is the key, and 'Stoned' makes this completely credible.Not so good points: I'm afraid that Leo Gregory never persuades me that he is the super-charismatic Cheltenham boy who founded the world's greatest rock'n'roll band. I kept thinking he was supposed to be Peter Frampton. Brian Jones was one of those people whose sexy, defenceless smile made people forgive him just about anything - Leo Gregory never captures the vulnerability or the extreme arrogance that would have driven Thorogood to murder. He seems to leave it to the script. I would also have liked more about how Thorogood allegedly 'confessed on his deathbed'. This is left as a footnote at the end, which kind of dilutes the fact that this was a big mystery at the time, and is actually the whole point of the film. It's what we want to know.If you like docu-dramas, 'Stoned' is an unusual one and definitely worth your time if you know anything about the early Stones. If you don't, it won't tell you much, and in that it falls short. I've given it a nine to balance the unreasonably low scores given elsewhere by Mick Jagger fans. It's an intelligent film, but not over-intelligent.

tyrssen Very nearly as bad as claimed. It falls just short of "awful," and I read somewhere that it only made 32 K -- not even enough to cover production costs.I remember when Brian Jones died.So I was hoping for a decent tribute, even if critical. I didn't really get it, with this film. Sorta. But not quite. Brian was a quirky musical genius in his own way, and such people often live in their own worlds, often misunderstood. Syd Barrett, 'nother excellent case. "Stoned" starts at the end, with Brian dead in his pool, and re-traces things from there ... but in a manner so choppy that it leaves the viewer going "huh? What was that? Who's that, again?" more times than I care to count. And, that little flash-scene in the opening, with a dog's throat getting cut, isn't about anything in the movie or in real life. Why is it in there? Obviously, the film maker hoped to be making something as "cult" as Mick Jagger's film, "Performance," an infinitely better picture.But "Performance," this is not. Brian is tolerably portrayed, the other Rolling Stones are barely recognizable in spite of their best efforts. And Anita is tolerably done. But I'm afraid all the lovely naked ladies that flash through this film (literally) can't save it from what, ultimately, is an odd script, lousy direction, and quirky (to be charitable) cinematography.

HAWKEYE 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.

barbara-butler I had to get the DVD of this to see it as the local cinema is not too good at showing this sort of thing. I have now watched it twice. I was a teenager in 1960s London and remember it all well, although I was in education and then earning a living at the time. I liked the Stones from the word go and once went with a friend to disturb a couple of them in a flat in Hampstead (as far as I remember) and was told to f*** OFF. It was the first time I had heard the expression, but as my favourite, Brian Jones was not there, I wasn't too interested in the two that were. As I had been on 1963 Aldermasten march, I was more into protest songs than pop, particularly Bob Dylan, but I liked the Stones for their music until Jones left. My only disappointment with the film was it didn't show Brian Jones's skill at arrangements and embellishments, which made the difference between a vacuous piece of pop and a superb piece of music. Also in 1963 I went plum picking in Evesham and met some Liverpool lads who were Beatles fans... the Beatles, I felt at the time, were rather twee compared with the Stones, although they improved when they came to London, but unfortunately, like Brian Jones, got into things which were not good for them. I was still listening to the Stones early stuff in the 1980s, after I had moved to Colchester. I had a favourite tape and would listen to Red Rooster whilst eating my bran flakes at breakfast. I had friends who went out of control in the 1960s, but they could not afford to go as much off the rails as Brian Jones did. I used to walk out of parties and get the bus home when the joints came out. As an asthmatic, it used to make me feel ill.Watching Stoned brought the whole era back, it made me sad, not nostalgic