"Shine a Light" igniting the silver screen in IMAX is a visual experience you may not want to miss - if you're a Rolling Stones fan - in particular.
In the fast-paced documentary, with Oscar-winning Director Martin Scorsese at the helm, a penetrating lens slices through layers of the mystique with razor-sharp precision close to the bone.
But, ultimately, the doc misses its mark.
By the end of the film, Jagger remains as elusive and mysterious as ever.
But don't say Scorsese didn't try.
In an insightful effort to add a bit of depth and breadth to mix, Scorsese handily juxtaposed old news clips, with scintillating stage footage, to great effect.
After all, the mesmerizing image of Jagger - prancing, pouting and sashaying about - is still potent stuff.
By today's standards, though, Jagger pales a tad.
Indeed, a younger generation in a feeding frenzy over titillating sensual MTV images ( and used to slick choreographed numbers by boy-bands and the like) may find Jagger a bit tame.
But, the pop icon still awes.
In what amounts to a tribally-inspired sexually-charged strut - a bold-faced tease, if you like - Jagger still manages to captivate and hold the excited crowd in his thrall.
Years ago, when the celebrated Pop Icon was queried about the phenomenon of his success, Jagger (then, a doey-eyed innocent - on the surface at least - who sported a page-boy cut and fashionable tweed jacket with collar turned up, just so) opined off the cuff:
"I guess, there is a chemical reaction, of sorts."
News reels of yesteryear reveal a surprisingly down-to-earth quality and Jagger's healthy sense of humor.
For example, when Dick Cavett starts to pose a simple question - which ends up being a long-winded, confusing one - Jagger grins, shakes his head, and confesses with a sheepish look on his face.
"I've forgotten the question."
Keith Richards could be remarkably quick on the uptake, too.
When one reporter probed - What question are you asked most?" - without skipping a beat e chuckled "That one" - with a delicious smile on his face.
Given the opportunity, I'd ask Mick about his wardrobe selections.
Are they of his own choosing - conjured up with the assistance of a stylist - I wonder?
In "Shine", he sparkled and made tantalizing fashion statements.
The lead singer for the Stones - the world's "top rock band? - tends to favor elegant button down shirts in lush fabrics (oftentimes, fashioned in blood red) usually highlighted with a stylish panels adorned with sequins running down the front.
On occasion, he squeezed into a black "T" with a spray of glitter across the face - which caught the light - and subsequently dazzled.
In one shot, he looked for all-the-world like an idyllic "Prince of Pop" in a tastefully-tailored Tuxedo jacket - with ubiquitous tails and satin lapels - to boot.
A mainstay?
Black jeans, which fit snugly, and screamed out pure "sex" appeal.
At the beginning of the film, Scorsese often came across as a wise old owl perched on high from afar.
His on-the-ball crew often captured the award-winning director fussing about behind-the-scenes - and occasionally - rabble-rousing with Jagger over an issue or two.
But - when the lights went up and the show began - the camera-work was flawless and carried out to perfection.
The expert cameraman were there to catch each solo riff, or striking vocal that chimed in unexpectedly from across the stage, for instance.
In fact, the reveal was so up-close and personal now and then, that the audience caught sight of Jagger's dental work and perspiration soiling his underarms.
Back off a little, Marty.
While the cinematography was excellent for the most part, the lighting - in contrast - was not very flattering to the boys, at all.
If what they say is true - you get the face you deserve at fifty - then it applies in this instant case.
The mugs of Mick and the boys were haggard and deeply-lined; a roadmap which reflected the downside of their jet-setting, party-hearty lifestyle, eh?
One failing of the documentary?
Scorsese failed to take a foray into their backstage personas; in fact, their seemingly endless days of wine and roses and lusty pursuit of women, is left out in the cold.
Essentially, the doc is a superficial glance at Jagger and the lads.
In sum, "Shine A light" doesn't.
Perhaps, it would be more aptly titled "In Concert".
For this reason, as a whole, the audience doesn't get much satisfaction.
