My musical background was derived from slavish devotion to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal in my younger years that dovetailed into thrash and speed metal as a teen. As such, I wasn't completely enamoured with "Ten" or "Vs" back in the early '90s. Pearl Jam was one of those bands I'd heard (who could have avoided them?), and I usually just kind of nodded along when "Alive" or "Dissident" would pop up on a playlist at parties. It was "Vitalogy" in 1994 that first really caught my attention, with "No Code" my appreciation for the band was cemented, and then "Yield" turned me into a total convert. I promptly devoured the back catalog, read all I could find, and it didn't take too long before Pearl Jam dominated by "favourite band" list as well as my CD player. So in the spirit of full disclosure; I must tell you that this review comes from a totally biased devotee to all things Pearl Jam.

Pearl Jam: Under Review touts itself as "An independent critical analysis," of the band, but in truth it's more of a historical retrospective. There's very little analysis, and even less critique, however there is a wealth of information present. The doc takes us through the early formative years of the band, from humble beginnings as a Seattle punk rock act through the death of Andrew Wood and dissolving of "Mother Love Bone," to the finding of vocalist Ed Vedder and the media sensation that followed when the debut album, "Ten" clicked with the mainstream and started a blaze. These unofficial documentaries often litter the shelves of music DVD sections in big box stores and music chains, and more often than not the budget prices are a testament to the quality of the features. Stock music blares over bland narration while sound bites and short snippets of interview footage are cobbled together, often limited by what "Fair use" laws will allow. In spite of being completely unofficial and featuring no input from the band itself, their label, or their management, Pearl Jam: Under Review is completely atypical of what you would expect.

Almost immediately, I was stunned by the wealth of archival footage, video clips, music clips, and "official" material presented throughout the show. The filmmakers deliver with not only some solid live footage from Pearl Jam itself, but also early clips of 'Jam precursors, Green River and Mother Love Bone. It adds an air of authenticity to the proceedings that, in spite of the unofficial status and the typically low-rent pedigree of these productions, actually makes this particular documentary feel relevant and worth your attention. The talking heads involved in the interviews are also personalities relevant to the subject, including music journalists, biographers, and a former editor from Rolling Stone magazine. All of them are knowledgeable and likeable cats; save for Seattle biographer Charles Cross, who seems to be talking out of his arse on more than one occasion, and AllMusic.com reviewer Ned Raggett, who comes across like a pretentious and condescending wiener. These are the kinds of music journalists that make me hate music journalists. These are the kind of guys who call "OK Computer" the greatest album of all time. But I digress. Ex Rolling Stone/Blender Editor Joe Levy more than makes up for them with his awesome, matter-of-fact delivery.

The only real disappointment comes from the glossing over of the post-"Yield" era of the early 2000s. After touching on the first five studio albums in some detail, "Binaural" gets little mention, and "Riot Act" gets even less. These albums were a big part of an interesting and storied era for the band, and to gloss them over after devoting such time to the rest of the catalog (including 2009's fantastic "Backspacer") seems like a disservice to these albums, and keeps the whole affair from being as completely thorough as it could have been. Another 10-15 minutes added to the run time to discuss these releases, pro or con, certainly wouldn't have hurt.

The presentation is definitely nothing special. The audio is straight up 2.0 stereo and is fine enough for talking heads and raw live footage. It won't shatter eardrums, and it won't shatter glass. Video quality also varies with the footage present, and the interview footage is kind of soft, but it's about what you would expect, and it's no worse than broadcast TV. The only extras are bios for the interviewees, and a brief audio interview with Ed Vedder and Matt Cameron recorded in Berlin in 2009. It's a little quiet at times, but it's solid.

While not quite the all encompassing trip that true fans might be looking for, Pearl Jam: Under Review is a great look at the band's career to this point. It may not bring much new material to the table, and it lacks the insider's perspective, but it's a great little history lesson for those who aren't quite hardcore "Jammers."

Interesting

The only real disappointment comes from the glossing over of the post-"Yield" era of the early 2000s. After touching on the first five studio albums in some detail, "Binaural" gets little mention, and "Riot Act" gets even less. These albums were a big part of an interesting and storied era for the band, and to gloss them over after devoting such time to the rest of the catalog (including 2009's fantastic "Backspacer") seems like a disservice to these albums, and keeps the whole affair from being as completely thorough as it could have been. Another 10-15 minutes added to the run time to discuss these releases, pro or con, certainly wouldn't have hurt.

WHAT A SURPRISE

I know this isn't from any official, band sponsored, product, but it really pains me the way they treat that era. For the fans that got into the band in the Jack Irons era and turned into a devoted fanboy peaking from 1999-2004 this just feels like a slap in the face.

WHAT A SURPRISE

Yeah, call me crazy but those years you mentioned are probably my favorite era of the band. From the Yield Tour through the VFC tour.

that's fair, but it makes sense that the DVD would focus more on the most famous and important era of the band, and the most recent stuff they're doing.

that's fair, but it makes sense that the DVD would focus more on the most famous and important era of the band, and the most recent stuff they're doing.

What does important even mean?

Oh come on Chud--you're just being difficult.

The areas with the longest reaching cultural relevance and importance. Pearl Jam was mentioned in high school history books for fucks sakes. They were one of the major cultural symbols of an entire decade, were declared the 'voice of their generation' made two records that are standing the test of time. They sold 10 times as many records for their first 3 records as they would for almost everything they would do that follows. That doesn't make those records better in a subjective sense but it does make them more important. Sales may not be a gauge of quality but they are a good measure of what people are listening to and care about. the fact that these songs are still all over the radio 15-20 years later speaks volumes. We don't hear too much from hootie and the blowfish anymore. Any documentary worth its salt would HAVE to focus on this period for more than any other because this is what made pearl jam pearl jam. When they get inducted in the rock and roll hall of fame it is because of these records. When they won that USA today thing 5 years ago it was because of these early records.

People can and should like whatever they want, but the truth is no one outside of pearl jam fans simply gives a shit about binaural or riot act. Probably no one outside of pearl jam fans gives a shit about Yield or No Code. It's not that these are critical triumphs that just didn't sell well but serious students of music fawn over. They're just records that largely failed to make any kind of impact outside of the fan community. They could be great records, but they just don't really matter to people not already committed to the band.

Oh come on Chud--you're just being difficult.

The areas with the longest reaching cultural relevance and importance. Pearl Jam was mentioned in high school history books for fucks sakes. They were one of the major cultural symbols of an entire decade, were declared the 'voice of their generation' made two records that are standing the test of time. They sold 10 times as many records for their first 3 records as they would for almost everything they would do that follows. That doesn't make those records better in a subjective sense but it does make them more important. Sales may not be a gauge of quality but they are a good measure of what people are listening to and care about. the fact that these songs are still all over the radio 15-20 years later speaks volumes. We don't hear too much from hootie and the blowfish anymore. Any documentary worth its salt would HAVE to focus on this period for more than any other because this is what made pearl jam pearl jam. When they get inducted in the rock and roll hall of fame it is because of these records. When they won that USA today thing 5 years ago it was because of these early records.

People can and should like whatever they want, but the truth is no one outside of pearl jam fans simply gives a shit about binaural or riot act. Probably no one outside of pearl jam fans gives a shit about Yield or No Code. It's not that these are critical triumphs that just didn't sell well but serious students of music fawn over. They're just records that largely failed to make any kind of impact outside of the fan community. They could be great records, but they just don't really matter to people not already committed to the band.

I'll give you Binaural and Riot Act but in my experience most people who aren't really into the band that I've introduced to via No Code and Yield have taken to them pretty well. In high school I hung out with people who weren't into Pearl Jam based on the Ten/Vitalogy songs from the radio but would concede that No Code and Yield are pretty damn good records after making them listen to them a few times.

I'll give you Binaural and Riot Act but in my experience most people who aren't really into the band that I've introduced to via No Code and Yield have taken to them pretty well. In high school I hung out with people who weren't into Pearl Jam based on the Ten/Vitalogy songs from the radio but would concede that No Code and Yield are pretty damn good records after making them listen to them a few times.