Review in Uncut magazine

[thegooddoctor]

First review I've seen - wasn't aware it had been screened to the press yet. Anyway, they're quite sniffy - the main complaint being that it's not a "warts and all" approach. They give it 5/10.

[Dave]

That's a weird complaint to make... it's pretty much just saying "It's worth 5/10 because it's not what I wanted".... which is hardly a professional method of reviewing! ha

There are a few quotes on the end of the trailer, so it must have had an early screening for some critics. Not the completely finished version either considering it's still being worked on.

It might not be what the Uncut reviewer wanted, but it sounds like it's exactly as Shane intended!

[jill]

Is there a link to this? Can't find it.

[thegooddoctor]

I don't think so - I picked up the print edition today. June issue, Jeff Buckley on the cover. Only a short review (p.101) so only worth a quick nose when you're next in a newsagents.

The core of the review is that Shane is too much of a "fan" and "not a natural documentarian" and that there's not enough dirt being uncovered. Make of that what you will.

[thegooddoctor]

Much more generous review in the current issue of 'Sight & Sound' (June 2013). Says that the film sometimes feels 'slight' due to an emphasis on concert footage & celebration of the comeback (rather than exploring inter-band conflict; Reni being a "cunt" etc.), but they summarise the film thus:

"Avoiding sheer hagiography, Shane Meadows makes it his task as a Roses devotee to capture the atmosphere of expectation and catharsis, producing a documentary which is more loveably shaggy and real than the recent Rolling Stones equivalent"

Which sounds good to me. (Didn't they famously turn down the chance to support the Rolling Stones on tour, saying "they should be supporting us"?)

[shanemeadows]

Any Reviews that are out at the moment are based on the finished edit, but an ungraded and unmixed version. Which on most of my films, isn't a huge dealbreaker, but on this project, the sound in particular is a huge part of the viewing experience for obvious reasons. What the press saw, was good, don't get me wrong, but hearing it now, mixed in Dolby 5.1 and using all the tracks from the desk (20-30 rather than 2) it really enhances the whole experience.

I didn't want to show the film before we mixed/graded it, but it is one of those necessary evils that can't be avoided when you are releasing so close to the end of post production. If you want quotes to use on your posters, trailers etc, you have to screen it. Saying that, I know we have some corking reviews coming from the exact same press screenings so it probably wouldn't convert a hater into a fan, but as a director, you can't help but wish they'd seen it finished.

[Andy Wilkin]

Just a quick question Shane, do you care much for reviews? I know that in some cases they can make or break a film in the publics eyes but was it more important to get nice feedback from the band?

[thegooddoctor]

Just a quick reprise - someone at Uncut clearly has their knickers in a twist. There's an equally sniffy review of "Spike Island" in the latest issue which refers to Shane's film as "cock awful".

My guess is that there's a disgruntled ex-goth at said magazine who's pissed off that no-one' s making a movie about Fields of the fucking Nephilim.

[shanemeadows]

Haha!!!