IMDb RATING
7.6/10
2.4K
YOUR RATING
Filmed before a live audience at a North London TV studio.Filmed before a live audience at a North London TV studio.Filmed before a live audience at a North London TV studio.
Ian Anderson
- Self - Jethro Tull
- (archive footage)
Glenn Cornick
- Self - Jethro Tull
- (archive footage)
Clive Bunker
- Self - Jethro Tull
- (archive footage)
Tony Iommi
- Self - Jethro Tull
- (archive footage)
Pete Townshend
- Self - The Who
- (archive footage)
Roger Daltrey
- Self - The Who
- (archive footage)
Keith Moon
- Self - The Who
- (archive footage)
John Entwistle
- Self - The Who
- (archive footage)
Jesse Ed Davis
- Self - Taj Mahal's Guitarist
- (archive footage)
Gary Gilmore
- Self - Taj Mahal's Bassist
- (archive footage)
Chuck Blackwell
- Self - Taj Mahal's Drummer
- (archive footage)
Marianne Faithfull
- Self
- (archive footage)
John Lennon
- Self - The Dirty Mac
- (archive footage)
Eric Clapton
- Self - The Dirty Mac
- (archive footage)
Keith Richards
- Self - The Dirty Mac and The Rolling Stones
- (archive footage)
Mitch Mitchell
- Self - The Dirty Mac
- (archive footage)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaFor a fortnight in 1968, future Black Sabbath founder Tony Iommi briefly joined Jethro Tull as lead guitarist. This was his only public appearance with the band, but the performance was mimed - he never played live with Jethro Tull.
- Quotes
Mick Jagger: You've heard of Oxford Circus, you've heard of Piccadilly Circus, and this is the Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus, and we've got sights and sounds and marvels to delight your eyes and ears, and you'll be able to see the very first one of those in a few moments.
- Crazy creditsSPECIAL THANKS Everyone's Mum...
- ConnectionsEdited into The Kids Are Alright (1979)
- SoundtracksEntry of the Gladiators
Written by Julius Fucík
Featured review
Filmed live in 1968 as an intended television special but kept from the public eye due to the Rolling Stones' own dissatisfaction with their performance over a span of two nights, "Rock N' Roll Circus" showcases the Stones at the height of their game. Although I admit they have performed better in terms of musical companionship and melody, there is no denying the amount of energy they exude here.
The standout for me is the reggae-infused "Sympathy for the Devil" which sounds like the drunken plea of society's virus. The original came across as a taunt, and this rendition of the song is helpless and a desperate outcry - in a good way, of course.
Mick Jagger's vocals have been better and his voice is a bit off - I guess the guys were totally wasted and stoned out of their minds around this time. But watching them on stage, it's hard to deny they were one of the great rock n' roll bands. They're really not given enough credit for their fusion of blues and mainstream rock - at the time of their emergence, a lot of critics compared them to The Beatles - a comparison both understandable and equally unfair. They did write a few Britpop songs early on, but they always had a bluesy edge that the Beatles - despite their superiority in musical influence and range - never had.
If you're into the Stones, this is a must-see. If you're *really* into the Stones, it's probably a must-own. And if you aren't into the Stones at all, I'd recommend starting off with their double-album Forty Licks (a Greatest Hits compilation).
The standout for me is the reggae-infused "Sympathy for the Devil" which sounds like the drunken plea of society's virus. The original came across as a taunt, and this rendition of the song is helpless and a desperate outcry - in a good way, of course.
Mick Jagger's vocals have been better and his voice is a bit off - I guess the guys were totally wasted and stoned out of their minds around this time. But watching them on stage, it's hard to deny they were one of the great rock n' roll bands. They're really not given enough credit for their fusion of blues and mainstream rock - at the time of their emergence, a lot of critics compared them to The Beatles - a comparison both understandable and equally unfair. They did write a few Britpop songs early on, but they always had a bluesy edge that the Beatles - despite their superiority in musical influence and range - never had.
If you're into the Stones, this is a must-see. If you're *really* into the Stones, it's probably a must-own. And if you aren't into the Stones at all, I'd recommend starting off with their double-album Forty Licks (a Greatest Hits compilation).
- MovieAddict2016
- Aug 13, 2006
- Permalink
- How long is The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Рок-н-ролльный цирк Роллинг Стоунз
- Filming locations
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 5 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.33 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus (1996) officially released in India in English?
Answer