I know I'm gonna open up a can of worms with this one!
It seems critical opinion of this film is split squarely down the center, and I myself am in the category of the naysayers. For me the problems with the film were many, but if I had to spew off a few of my most immediate observations, I would say:
1. Too many characters
2. Not enough development of said characters
3. Too damn long
4. Too in love with itself
The deserved success of Rushmore (one of my favorite movies, ever) seems to have corrupted the creative force of all parties involved, both behind and in front of the camera. In short, this movie seems to presume it will win you over, and thus makes no effort to edit it's own over-indulgent self.
The soundtrack seems to make many of the same presumptions. Whereas Rushmore's was inspired and cohesive, this just feels like a set of "quirky" tunes all pasted together, and for what reason? Maybe it's just that I was too familiar with too many of these songs previously. For instance, if you've heard the Nico record from which both of these tunes were pulled, then you know that the selected songs are simply the first two off the album. It's as if they picked the record simply by virtue of it's obscurity, and then without giving it much thought just grabbed the first two songs. It just feels lazy to me.
I know you all hate me now.
By the way, I can answer all the questions about why there are no Stones songs included: the Stones don't allow their songs to appear on soundtracks. They can appear in a film, but not on a soundtrack. Interesting, eh?