Cocksucker Blues
Cocksucker Blues
| 26 July 1972 (USA)
Cocksucker Blues Trailers

This fly-on-the-wall documentary follows the Rolling Stones on their 1972 North American Tour, their first return to the States since the tragedy at Altamont.

Reviews
Perry Kate

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

... View More
Helloturia

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

... View More
Blake Rivera

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

... View More
Aryana

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

... View More
jc-osms

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!

... View More
Bear90039

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.

... View More
MisterWhiplash

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

... View More
Tashtago

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.

... View More