some guy from manitoba weighed in here and i can only echo his comments. i have been a fan of this band since 1970 and now i feel like i would have been better off not seeing this film. i don't care to read interviews with musicians, and i knew neil only through his music. he comes off as being a rather dim guy (not knowing even roughly the distinction between the old and new testaments of the bible), getting in pointless arguments with the band. i am almost of the mind to say that the whole film is a put-on, that jim and neil thought it would be really funny to do a spinal tap-like thing, but if that is the case, the thing backfires. watching pedro talk, not once, not twice, but three times about how the filmmaker can't possibly do his job effectively may be the big wink, but ironically jim creates nothing but a tedious film that offers no enlightenment whatsoever into the people who are making this music, and the grainy 8mm (no doubt supposed to reflect the raw nature of crazy horse's music) only keeps us from seeing just how boring it is to watch these guys in action. i am living in berlin right now, and the germans just love neil, and some think this film shows a guy at the height of his powers (one review of the show at the waldbuhne actually claims his voice has mellowed and gotten less whiny). to me, the one-chord solos only reveal a guy who hasn't given his instrument much attention over the decades (but he can sure write songs!), and the feedback-drenched "we may never end this coda" philosophy has grown really, really stale to the point of self-parody. spinal tap indeed. jim, on the other hand, seems to think less is more. less insight, less clarity, and not a bit of interesting camerawork in over ninety minutes. for comparison, see what scorcese did with the last waltz or demme did with stop making sense. truly one of the worst portraits of a group i have ever seen.
Review of Year of the Horse
