User reviews

A couple of things at the start. The rating of five is purely because I can't accurately rate this movie. Enjoyment is based upon your love of the Stones. My feelings for the Stones is one of like not love. I do enjoy their music but I think that they are little more a money machine now with their interesting music coming out of the various side projects.

This is the story of the Stones 1972 tour (sort of, director Robert Frank is interested in doing more than a straight documentary). Mostly its following the Stones from Hotel room to hotel room and performance to performance. Its the rich and famous interacting with the not so rich and far from famous, with everyone behaving badly. In its way its a sad story as Mick and the boys seem to drift aimlessly with in the confines of their cages. How they manged to survive it and, not go mad and continue on the road is probably a story that needs to be told. This story on the other hand is a bit dull and long at 90 minutes. It comes alive in fits and starts, mostly when we get to see one of the too few musical numbers (the Stevie Wonder/ Stones piece is amazing).

This film is rarely screened since due to a lawsuit it can only be run once a year and only when the director is present. Its rather dumb if you ask me, but the Stones were unhappy with the result and how they are seen to be. Why this film is still restricted considering all thats passed in the 30 plus years since its filming is beyond me. At this point it couldn't hurt the boys at all, since all it does is give visualization to what we knew already.

If you can manage to see this and you're a Stones fan do so. If you're not a fan you may want to give it a try, if for no other reason than its a unique and rare experience (due to the law suit that restricts its viewing).

I like both Robert Frank and the Rolling Stones, but this combination is not that hot. As the other reviewer ( withnail-4) pointed out, this is pretty banal with lots of drug taking. Robert Frank is a photographer and this film seems like a motor wind gone wild. Imagine the "Exile on Main Street" cover coming to life and you have a pretty good idea of what this film is going to be like. The mystique comes from the fact that the Rolling Stones have done a pretty good job of keeping this off the market and out of the theatres. Thanks to modern technology, this film is pretty readily available in forms of varying quality. In fact, it was a local film groups showing this from a DVD that rekindled my interest in seeing the film. Short of being a serious fan of the Stones, you will be pretty bored with this film. You might even be pretty bored if you are a serious

An East Village guitar-store owner sold me a bootleg copy of this legendary Robert Frank documentary, which was suppressed by its subjects, the Rolling Stones. Full of arty effects and stony, fragmentative editing, the movie intermittently fascinates in its depiction of a day in the life of the Stones--a life that alternates between massive, almost unthinkable amounts of ego-gratification, and routine, torpid, everyday boredom. The intent seems to be an anthropological portrait of the habits of visiting alien gods: the Stones are made both otherworldly-regal and incalculably drab. Because of the scenes of groupie-shagging and substance abuse, Frank was forced to credit the Stones as "playing characters" in the end credits (if memory serves, Keith Richards plays "Pizza Delivery Man"), and the picture is available to be screened, by Mick-generated court order, only when Frank is present.

'Cocksucker Blues' is a cinema-verite style time capsule, filmed by American photographer Robert Frank, who functions as a sort of fly on the dressing room wall, so to speak. As such, comparisons to any other existing "rockumentary" are pointless.

The film is essentially a collection of real life situations captured during the Rolling Stones' infamous 1972 U.S. tour, when their celebrity status had reached critical mass. Viewers are sucked into the band's fishbowl existence, travelling from jet to hotel to venue, spending time, in many cases, in a surprisingly un-glamorous fashion.

If nothing else, the film lets the fan into the eye of the storm; the band's onstage performances are repeatedly set in contrast with their travelling constraints, while around them both the media and the public continually orbit in a veritable feeding frenzy.

The viewers' realization of what is the general event-less reality of a rock band's actual offstage touring experience--even more pointed, given the Stones' worldwide notoriety--makes the live musical highlights all the more impressive, and reveals insight into why no hotel room t.v. is safe from any rock band who can (or, sometimes, can't) pay for what they destroy.

The band's treadmill lifestyle, coupled with the fact that the group is all but isolated from their fans lends perspective to why touring bands tend to indulge in random acts of destruction, self and otherwise. Possibly the most inane segment of the film is the backstage presence of seriously unwelcome hangers on such as writer Truman Capote and Princess Lee Radziwill, tabloid-style jet setters for whom the Stones are merely the Flavour of the Week, their dressing room another place to be "seen".

Obviously, a tour film's main appeal is to the fans of the group. In the case of the Rolling Stones, their inner sanctum is harder to reach than almost any other, and considering the mythology that has built up around the band over the last 30 years, they deserve credit for having the courage to reveal their private world, warts and all.

Anyone who has seen the film can understand why it has never seen official release, and probably never will. And that just makes 'Cocksucker Blues' an even bigger treat for true fans of the Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band in the World. See it if you can; regardless of its' flaws, it's still an amazing document of yet another turbulent period in the amazing lifespan of this remarkably resilient band.

I like the Stones older music, not so much in love with the dudes that I would defend them though. This movie starts good, or fair enough. I didn't mind initial scenes of excess-- was to be expected from what I had already heard about the film...

Problem; heroin taking, groupy fondling, and much of the gabbing wasn't done by the Stones but by some dude, who knows who the hell he was, who was enjoying the excess. So I have to agree with Mick and the gang, this movie's exploitive in that it features them, and keeps cutting to some scumbag getting his kicks from the attention he got out of association. Not my bag.

The Stones are stoned, who cares. Best line, when Mick is messing with some 16MM cameras and looks up at the documentarian, in a very stoned out scene, saying 'Do you wear the same socks everyday?'

Worst is the scene that looks like something out of a Bucky Beaver 8MM porn stag film... Don't worry ma, I didn't see anything because obviously they hadn't invented razors back then...

Rent "Give Me Shelter" instead (if you haven't seen it on DVD.) Trust me, if you were missing out I'd tell you.

An "infamous" film, if you will - never released, but not exactly difficult to get your hands on if you are persistent.

I eagerly anticipated all of the "controversial" moments, awaiting a festival of groupie abuse and substance indulgence. To my surprise, these bits proved to be dull and tiresome, the real gem in this film being the excellent live performances by The Stones.

Years of such consistent, excellent music makes it all but impossible to refer to any Stones era as being "their prime", but the concert footage here shows them well and truly on form and, if you will, on song. It is almost criminal that performances with Tina Turner and Stevie Wonder have all but been buried and forgotten about owing to this film being buried.

I hope one day that this gets a legal, cleaned up release. Edit out all the non-music stuff and just release the concert footage if nothing else, for the sake of all music lovers!

Watched this on my Ipod on a holiday flight as a real dyed in the wool Stones fan. However, the copy I saw had obvious editing problems and may have been a rough-cut, but then again maybe not...

John Lennon once likened the madness around the Beatles mid-60's tours as like Fellini's Satyricon, well here it's certainly made flesh as we get a more candid than candid fly-on-the-wall insight into life on the road with the Rolling Stones around the time of their 1972 US tour. It's not an edifying sight, with groupies being treated as casual sex-objects to the amusement of the leering male entourage, drugs openly ingested by needle and inhalation and of course the classic "rock-star" cliché of Keith Richard ceremoniously dumping a TV out of the band's high-storey hotel window.

In between these scenes of madness are odd shots of, or sequences with celebrity hangers-on like Truman Capote and Dick Cavett, as well as star support turns Tina Turner and Stevie Wonder and endless static non-shots of Mick and a gap-toothed Keith (Bill Wyman, Mick Taylor and Charlie Watts barely get a look-in) and other grainy shots of producer Jimmy Miller well on his way to his early drug-overdose death, if the footage here is any guide. At times in fact the whole sometimes looks like some cheap, almost "snuff"-type exploitation movie.

Somehow though, the endless boozing and schmoozing doesn't affect the band on stage and they look like the great louche rockers they were by this point. Thus there's the odd occasional musical interlude where the "film" flickers to life (an exciting encore of Stevie's "Uptight" spliced with the Stones' "Satisfaction") and a rollicking "Happy" but watching this monument to decadence, hedonism and self-indulgence left me at the end actually liking the Stones less, certainly as people. No, for me the whole sex and drugs and rock roll mystique is shot to bits here and I can only hope that the Stones themselves are a bit older and wiser now.

To paraphrase John Lennon again, you shouldn't ought to have been there!

As an artifact of rock n' roll in the 70's this film is hard to beat. . The movie demystifies the band - Mick, Keith etc. seem extremely ordinary going about the day to day drudgery of being on tour. As far as the music goes this was the band at their peak both live and on record. I didn't realize what a good country/blues piano player Keith is. There are also a couple of interesting moments showing both Jagger and Richards composing. Visually, director Frank's purpose seems to be to re-create the pictorial equivalent of a heroin trip. The film is an at times almost unwatchable series of grainy images, disembodied voices muttering banalities, and freakish distorted faces. The in-famous sex/rape (?) of the groupies on the plane accompanied by the Stones playing cabalistic percussion says a lot about the attitude the group took to the various women who flocked to them. It is disgusting/haunting/ and comical all at the same time. Tough viewing but essential for any fan of rock music.

Saw this movie last night in Toronto at TIFF and can well see why this film had a court restriction attached to it back then. This film could have done serious damage to their tours.

From what I have read, cameras were left for anyone to pickup and film whenever and whatever which can explain how some of these scenes were taken.

Considering this film was made just a few years after Brian Jones's death due to drugs this fact obviously didn't make much of an impact on anyone.

Movie is shaky and loud at times and dialogue not clear but you take it for what it is ... a piece of music history.

"Except for the musical numbers the events depicted in this film are fictitious. No representation of actual person and events is intended"....and if you believe this, you are incredibly naive to say the least!

The story behind this film (I probably can't even say the title...it would be against IMDB standards) is interesting. A documentary filmmaker was given access to the Rolling Stones on a concert tour and he recorded a lot of stuff the band later wished he hadn't! Drugs, alcohol and sex were rampant and the final product made the band look rather depraved...and they moved to block the release of the film even though they originally gave permission for the movie to be made. Eventually, this made it to court and the judge offered a strange solution...that the film can be released in a very, very limited way. The director MUST be present when it's shown and it may be shown only once a year! Not surprisingly, bootleg copies somehow got out...and I watched it on YouTube.

The movie actually surprised me because it looked so incredibly rough. Perhaps it wasn't ready to be shown to audiences and never was polished and ready. It had that look to it...with what appears to be hastily made cheap credits, VERY poor sound (which is awful for a film about a rock band...though it might be because it was a bootleg copy) and was in need of a LOT of editing. It also is filmed in color but many of these segments look black & white because of the condition of the print. A few scenes are colorful...most look as if they were shot with a Super 8 camera and have degraded over time.

As far as the shocking material goes that the band objected to folks seeing, there is some full frontal nudity, drug use and alcohol use...which is EXACTLY what you'd assume traveling with this particular band would be like! In this sense, it's like sneaking past security and seeing the band...warts and all.

Now here's the bottom line....the film is amazingly boring! Yes, even with all the excesses, it's just dull and not exactly a great look at the PERFORMANCES of the Stones. For hardcore fans, it's still probably a must-see film...for everyone else, it's a curiosity at best and easy to skip. Frankly, I hoped it would be a lot more interesting.

The entire film is miserable. It is the Rolling Stones at their absolute lowest point. The footage is almost unwatchable and for the most part, the band was too toxic to perform. They sound bad, very bad. I have nothing good to say about this movie. I am a huge Stones Fan if that shocks anyone. If you're a true fan, pass this one up like a bad dose of heroin. Yes it does show the cooking, drawing and shooting of smack. Then an immature Keith throws a television out of the hotel window, while being egged on by his professional entourage. Let's don't even talk about their skanky choice of women. If you own a copy of this do the stones a favor and destroy it.

The defining moment of this film is watching an inhumanly bored Charlie Watts staring morosely at commercials on a hotel television screen. In fact, you'll find yourself slumped in a chair somewhat like Charlie as you watch this haggard, limply compelling shambles of a documentary. The Stones themselves come off less as satan's own emissaries on earth and more as boring, boorish, and mundane teenagers -- emissaries of casual personal disintegration. It all leaves one feeling icky, stained, and disrespectful of rock legends, which is probably why it's impossible to see today. That, and the scenes with groupies having sex and roadies shooting up and nodding off. Interminably boring and unstructured, but probably a dead-on accurate portrait of a travelling rock band.

Having seen their previous documentary, Gimme Shelter, I decided to check The Rolling Stones' next one that's uploaded on YouTube: C*cksucker Blues. There's a reason it has never been officially released and it has to do with all the drugs and sex depicted here that must have been embarrassing to them even then despite the more liberal time they were in during the making of this film. With all that, there's also plenty of boring talking scenes concerning people I didn't recognize. I did like seeing famous people like Dick Cavett-whose interview portions with Mick Jagger and Bill Wyman are some of the most interesting parts of the film, Tina Turner, and Atlantic Records head Ahmet Ertegun not to mention Andy Warhol in some scenes. And Mick's then-wife Bianca was also fascinating to watch. Otherwise, it was just one boring stretch after another when it wasn't on the concert footage of which the most entertaining parts were when opening act Stevie Wonder dueted with the group on "Uptight/Satisfaction" and when Mick sang with bandmate Keith Richards on "Happy". So on summary, this film with the unmentionable title is a mixed bag for me.

Like a handful of Rolling Stones fans, I found the film C***sucker Blues through bootlegging. There was just no other way around it; there has been so much written about how this was the 'unreleased' Stones documentary, that it was much too controversial and shocking to be released- had actual sex and drugs really depicted hardcore without a flinching camera lid- and that it was even suppressed by Mick Jagger and the Stones. Having now seen the film, it becomes clear that it isn't unfair to figure on why it never seen the official light of public day. It is pretty graphic with the sex (chiefly on a plane we see some groupies getting it on with some members of the Stones crew, I don't think they were the Stones themselves having the sex, although they were hilariously shaking tambourines and beating drums like some tribal ritual), casual with pornographic detail in the nudity, and the drug use- primarily coke and heroin but also a little grass- is all real and done almost like it's nothing at all.

So, to play devil's advocate, there is a reason for the Stones why something like this wouldn't be good for their 'image', whatever that might be, as opposed to Gimme Shelter which despite the Altamont nightmare was crafted by true masters of the documentary craft (the Maysles brothers), where as director Robert Frank crafted a scatter-shot, collage-like assemblage of footage, veering between avant-garde and home movie. Maybe it could have gotten a release in a true underground level, but the fact was, and remains, that they are one of the biggest bands ever, regardless of their notorious times.

And yet, there is also another argument, and this even more-so could be said for today, that C***sucker Blues, in revealing what's shocking mixed with the banal dealings of hotel rooms and the fly-on-the-wall style on back-stage, is important in retrospect. This way of rock and roll life simply doesn't exist anymore, with the BIG press being Dick Cavett and the sex and drugs and groupies just there, and the attitudes so casual. It's seeing life on the road and life in the hotel rooms and life on the stage and in little private moments with this band and those around them, and on a pure rock and roll movie level it's definitely the most primitive in construction. Artistry, however brief (i.e. slow-motion shots of a Exile on Main Street billboard), gives way to Frank just being there and getting everything he can, however mundane it might seem to be. Why not let today's audiences, more than three decades later, take a view into the unfiltered time capsule?

Granted, as mentioned, Frank is no Maysles, so the camera-work sometimes looks amateurish (the sound guys occasionally tap the microphone just so that the editor probably knew where to cut) and, sadly, it's probably not too much of a wonder why he didn't work again outside of the lowest of low-budget art-house pictures and shorts. But he does manage to capture, for those Stones fans who would be so dedicated to seek out the film (or, for that matter, be one of the two dozen more or less that get to see it at private screenings commissioned by the Stones each year) not just some of the finest/craziest moments in Stones history (i.e. Richards and friends, in now as a cliché today, throwing the TV out the hotel room window), but just rock in general.

Contrary to what Jagger said in a recent interview about one of the reasons he clashed with Frank, that there wasn't enough live music footage, there's a good plenty of live performances, if maybe not as many as some fans might expect. There's awesome cuts of Brown Sugar, half of an intense Midnight Rambler, Happy, Street Fighting Man. But probably most joyous of all is seeing, almost as a total surprise, Stevie Wonder playing a kind of medley with the Stones, starting with Uptight (Everything is Alright) and going into Satisfaction. This is pure musical ecstasy, of people going full-throttle to put on a show for the crowds, but also just digging the music so much that it looks like nothing else matters. If only for scenes like that, amid the masses of footage of the randomness and fun and down time of touring, is C***sucker Blues an achievement worth seeking this dangerous, crude piece of non-fiction. 8.5/10

Sheer brilliance from Robert Frank, one of the great visual artists of our time. Let's say right at the start that the concert footage (the only portions of "CB" in color) captures some of the Stones' best performances ever on film, including a splendid "Midnight Rambler" and a wonderful medley of "Uptight" and "Satisfaction" with Stevie Wonder.

But the meat of this film is in the off-the-cuff, life-on-the-road footage, shot in a beautiful, grainy black and white. Other important filmmakers worked with the Stones before and after (J-L Godard on "One Plus One," Hal Ashby on the regrettable "Let's Spend the Night Together"), but this is the great one because it does the opposite of glamorizing the band -- it reveals the quotidian nature of their antics on the road. Lots of outrageous things happen: roadies shoot up, Keith Richards throws a TV set out the window and displays himself in various states of extreme intoxication and/or nodding off, groupies are abused on the tour bus, etc.

But Frank reveals it all in his unique deadpan style, letting you see the band members as individuals carrying on an everyday existence rather than as celebrities. In his camera, the excess is all of a piece with the mundane details: Jagger sitting on his hotel bed ordering a bowl of fruit, a conversationless walk along a road, etc.

Frank doesn't deglamorize his subject, either -- despite the squalor of some of what he shows us, he isn't out to debunk the Stones and their hangers-on, but to reveal them to us as part of everyday life and the spectacle they put on as a workaday component of the larger spectacle society feeds to the masses as entertainment. The effect is a little like the messier backstage scenes of such films as von Sternberg's "The Blue Angel," Bergman's "Sawdust and Tinsel," or Fellini's "Variety Lights," where the everyday routine that goes on behind the making of an illusion seems somehow harder and crueller than it would in any other setting. But it's life, as Robert Frank observes it in our airbrushed, late-capitalist world.

The wonderful last shot, as Jagger throws his arm into the air amidst an explosion of lights and camera flashes, ends it with a flourish, but by now we've seen the mess behind the flash. This film grows you up.

Officially, "CB" was the film of the Stones' 1972 US tour, but for murky reasons (one hears it was the shooting-up sequences that did it) the band barred its release and only allows it to be shown occasionally. In its place, the relatively uninspired "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones!" was released. Too bad -- catch "CB" if you can, or seek out one of the many bootleg videotapes circulating, although the color repro on the latter can sometimes be lousy.

I saw a screening of this last year at the Tate modern, i had heard a lot of the rumours surrounding this film... Was Robert Frank going to be there, was it the only screening that year... Well no on both points, it was however the only time it was likely to be shown in London this decade. But it did contain some of the most legendary and amazing rock and roll images that exist.. there were groupies having mass orgies on private jets, TV's thrown over balconies, awesome drug taking, celebrities, and sheer backstage boredom. Half way through, however, i did think, this is rubbish, its just full of rock clichés. But then i thought, actually no. This is where the clichés come from, they were the first people to do these things... And that is what you have to remember when watching this film, it is truly a snapshot in to the creation of rock and roll. If you get a chance to see an authorised screening of this film... Don't miss out. If that never happens, there are always copies floating about....

Joe

It's gritty, grimy, meandering, raw, crass, dark, dreary, miserable and spectacular - just what life on the road with the World's Greatest Rock Band should be. This seemingly uninhibited peek behind the curtain of Pop celebrity is not always pretty, not always inspiring, but it is nearly always absolutely fascinating.

There are few people in the world that can comprehend exactly what it means - what it feels like - to be at the center of the whirling cyclone of attention directed towards international mega stars, and Robert Frank does his best to give us a meager glimpse of the insatiable monster. The few moments of near still quiet that occur between Mick and Bianca are so oddly surreal, partly because of the quaintly eerie sound from the music box that Bianca is playing with, but largely because such mundane moments of domestic interaction are in such outrageous contrast to the non stop vortex of madness surrounding them. Business plans and arrangements are somehow accomplished in fractured, hectic, incomprehensible shouts and whispers among the din of their party life. Society's sophisticates, like Truman Capote and Lee "Princess" Radziwill rub sweaty elbows with the likes of "Snatch Girl", "Junky Soundman" and other lowly denizens of the underground conduit. Girls are witnessed fulfilling every promise that is implied by their status as Groupies. And even other celebrities at times seem bewildered and stunned by the carnivalesque proceedings, like Tina Turner's moment in the dressing room where she is every bit a deer in the headlights of the Stones' thundering locomotive. Maybe she always looked that way back then, battered as she was by Ike, but her expression is so perfectly matched to my own feelings of shock and awe.

The few live musical moments are thrilling in their intimacy, their proximity to that entity that is the Band at work. On and back stage the camera functions as a trusted band mate. It's the eyes and ears and heart of an active, invaluable member of the group - the audience. And as valuable and irreplaceable as that role is, we, the fans, are still left behind when the camera closes in on the face of an enraptured (possibly tripping) Keith as he unleashes a flesh tearing solo. No one but the boys themselves will ever know just exactly what wonderful, magical, mysterious stuff it was to be at the center of their mad, beautiful world, but now I have a fair clue, and it's awesome.

Did you expect anything else?

Monotony. They live within four walls that change every night. Rock and roll is almost between the lines. But such is life, it's what you make of it. And I like it!

A true spark of your soul will tell you whether this is something you like or don't like... for me, this is the life. Besides the smell of the room you are there, and what a beautiful place it seems to be.

The film is excellent, is uncensored, but with good breeding. That was the real life not only of the Rolling Stones, but of 90% of hippies in that period. In this film you can see the Glory of those golden years! Rolling Stones was not release this film officially, easy to figure out why! All rock stars are doing the same thing backstage, not only the Rolling Stones; When you're bored, Sex, drugs & Rock'N'Roll is the solution... The Rolling Stones had enough courage to put it on film! After seeing this movie, I've been thinking at "Fire and Loathing in Las Vegas" :) "Cocksucker Blues" was the title of a song Mick Jagger wrote to be the Stones' final single for Decca Records, as per their contract, but the track was refused by Decca and only released later on a West German compilation in 1983, although the compilation was discontinued and re-released without the song. You can find the lyrics of this track on the Internet, and you will see why Decca Records refused it... Of all the tours the Rolling Stones have made across North America, the 1972 tour is still remembered as the most outrageous, most provocative, most inventive musical outing the fab five from London ever performed. The film was shot cinéma vérité, with several cameras, making it a real masterpiece of those times. If you like real music, you must see this !

semi-staged documentary trying to show the coolness of the rolling stones, but the only thing they can think of doing is taking drugs and trashing hotel rooms. the banality is overwhelming, and displays the collapse of a counter culture into unimaginative squalor. I like the Stones' music, but they make lame celebrities.

I really liked this movie, I think it works on many levels, and the fact that it has many levels is itself interesting. It neither analyzes, glamorizes, or de-glamorizes anyone. It's a fly-on-the-wall. It's nonlinear and linear. Linear in the sense that it follows both the tour and playlist, at the same time. Non-linear in that no storyline is imposed and no agenda or imposed concept. And the editing is phenomenal, interweaving color and b/w, and sound from one scene into and out of another. The sound editing especially, the switch from the mayhem outside the concert to the silence of walking across the tarmac to border the plane was great.

I would have loved to hear more about what happened in Montreal and what happened to Leroy, but that would have destroyed the basic idea of the film, and I'm sure there must have been more stories worthy of expansion.

This film, to me, is not some much about the Rolling Stones, but more about a phenomena, and the real people that live it through.