Sheryl

I can say this did not shed any new light on her career, its very boring self centered and not at all interesting. I was expecting so much more honestly 3/10.

I love Sheryl's music, but I felt this was whitewashed and didn't give us a realistic look at her life. It felt completely controlled by Sheryl, doing most of the talking herself. There were tidbits of insight into the industry and I respect her for standing up for herself. But there were no real personal revelations at all. I wouldn't call this a documentary. More of a pat on the back by Sheryl and her friends.

As "Sheryl" (2022 release; 95 min) opens, we are at the Gorge Amphitheater, and Sheryl addresses the camera about her life. We then go to "Bennett, Missouri" where Sheryl grew up and simply loved music. After doing the vocals for a McDonald's commercial, Sheryl decides to move to Los Angeles... At this [point we are less than 10 min into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is directed by Amy Scott (2018's "Hal"). More importantly, this documentary is utterly and completely approved and controlled by Sheryl Crow herself. She does most of the talking and it's all very straight-forward. Yes, th ere is the unwanted sexual harassment by Michael Jackson's manager and the "controversy" around the "Leaving Las Vegas" song title ("borrowed from John O'Brien's book of the same name). And of course there is the background behind some of her greatest and most beloved songs. I> am a big Sheryl Crown fan, who is pretty much the same age as me, and had all of her first decade's albums. So I really wanted to like this documentary. But I found it too bland, too straight-forward. Do I know Sheryl Crow any better now that I've seen this documentary? Not really. Is this documentary outright 'bad'? No, but it does feel like a missed opportunity. I think the definitive Sheryl Crow will be made some other time.

"Sheryl" premiered this weekend on Showtime, and being the big Crow fan that I am, I didn't hesitate to check it out. I can't help but feel a little let down by the film. But of course don't take my word for it, so I encourage you to check it out and draw your own conclusion.

This is a story I honestly have wanted to hear for years. From the first time I heard Leaving Las Vegas more than 25 years ago, I knew I was going to enjoy her catalog. I've read up, watched interviews, but this give a great picture of how her career came to be. Ironically, they didn't talk much about Michael Jackson, but they talked enough. No mention of her many backing vocals for the likes of Don Henley.

I think what I found most fascinating was the Lance Armstrong relationship. Again, it didn't take much conversation, she was just straight forward and to the point. No mention of Kid Rock, but again, it was her story to tell.

I like Sheryl, but have long left the bandwagon, once she went more country and honkytonk, it just wasn't for me. Her first two albums are classics in my catalog and most like the reason she still draws a crowd today. I think she is far more complicated than she wants anyone to know, but I respect her privacy.

How can you make such a boring film about such a particularly talented artist? The plot follows the usual documentary pattern with a few pathetic emotional moments here and there.

Actually just an endless interview in which everyone talks about how great Sheryl Crow is. We all know that, come on! Let us discover something new about this person!

Let us seel more about the music, the way it grows, the way how she works in the studio for example.

Let us know how she handled her relationships with the beloved people during all this time ... I could list so much more things that would have made the film more interesting.

Honestly I don't know what you're trying to achieve with this film. A pity!