Is The Rolling Stones - The First 20 Years Worth Watching? Honest Movie Review & Audience Verdict (1982)

📖 The Core Premise

With the release of The Rolling Stones - The First 20 Years (1982), audiences are invited back into the world of Music, Documentary. At its heart, the film explores complex themes wrapped in a compelling storyline. As the plot unfolds, we see characters navigating a world where stakes are high. "Documentary about the first 20 years of the Rolling Stones with interviews and a lot of rare archive footages all over the world, pictures, TV and live songs 1962-1982 ("Satisfaction", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Time Is On My Side" and many more). Hosted by punk star Nina Hagen. Interviews of Mick Jagger, his brother Chris, his father Joe, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman, Ron Wood, Ian Stewart, Bianca Jagger, Paul McCartney, Marianne Faithfull, Rod Stewart, Wendy O'Williams (from the Plasmatics), Diana Ross and Bill Graham (manager)."

🎬 Performance & Direction

A movie's success often hinges on its execution. Unfortunately, Kenneth Anger feels underutilized in a role that lacks depth. The direction aims to balance pacing with character development, a hallmark of good Music. While there are moments of brilliance, the pacing occasionally dips.

🤔 Why You Should Watch (or Skip)

Is The Rolling Stones - The First 20 Years worth your time? If you appreciate Music, Documentary films that take risks, this is likely a decent one-time watch. However, if you are looking for a flawless masterpiece, you might find some plot points predictable.

🏆 Final Verdict

Ultimately, The Rolling Stones - The First 20 Years misses the mark on several fronts. With a runtime of 107 minutes, it asks for a significant time investment, but for the right audience, it pays off.

Our recommendation: Skip It.