The long-awaited authorized Led Zeppelin documentary has finally landed, and like the mythical airship it’s named after, it’s an impressive vessel that doesn’t quite reach its destination. Becoming Led Zeppelin soars when it comes to musical archaeology but struggles to escape the gravitational pull of its own carefully curated narrative.
The film’s journey to the screen is almost as compelling as the band’s story itself. Director Bernard MacMahon, fresh off his acclaimed series American Epic, found his way to Led Zeppelin through an unlikely childhood encounter. “When I was 12 years old, my mother, who was an antique dealer, brought home a box of antiques. At the bottom was a tattered 1975 paperback simply called Led Zeppelin,” MacMahon recalls. “I fell in love with the story, and was inspired by a tale of apprenticeship and dedication to craft.” In a twist worthy of rock mythology, that same mother would later reveal that “Uncle Peter” who visited their home was none other than Peter Grant, the band’s legendary manager.
Director MacMahon deserves credit for unearthing a treasure trove of archival footage that would make any rock historian weep with joy. We’re treated to gems like a young, bashful Jimmy Page on a BBC talent show, John Paul Jones laying down bass lines for Shirley Bassey’s “Goldfinger,” and early Zeppelin performances where audience members literally plug their ears – a delicious bit of irony given the band’s eventual world-conquering status.
The film excels at tracking the individual paths that led four extraordinary musicians to their destined meeting point. Robert Plant’s near-miss with chartered accountancy (imagine those quarterly reports delivered with that banshee wail) and the session work adventures of Page and Jones paint a vivid picture of Britain’s bustling 1960s music scene. Perhaps most valuable are the previously unheard interviews with John Bonham, whose absence has loomed large over the band’s story since his tragic death in 1980.
The process of securing these precious materials was itself an epic quest. As producer Allison McGourty notes, “We had spent six months undertaking research, writing a script and creating a full storyboard for the film and it could all have been for nothing. We were terrified.” When Robert Plant pointed out that the band rarely allowed filming at concerts, McGourty responded with characteristic determination: “Well, ‘American Epic’ was an era before sound on pictures, with even less cameras and we managed to make a whole series about that, so I think if anybody can do this, we can.”
But here’s where things get thorny. Becoming Led Zeppelin takes its title quite literally, wrapping things up right after the release of Led Zeppelin II in 1969. It’s like telling the story of the Roman Empire and stopping at Augustus – sure, you’ve covered the origin story, but you’re missing quite a few important chapters. The decision to focus solely on the band’s formation and early success feels less like an artistic choice and more like careful curation.
MacMahon’s exhaustive approach to research sometimes leads to exhausting viewing. At 137 minutes, the film occasionally feels like it’s trying to include every piece of footage ever shot of anyone who might have influenced Led Zeppelin. Yes, Bo Diddley and James Brown were important, but do we need extended performance clips to get the point?
The surviving members provide entertaining commentary throughout, but their separate interviews inadvertently undermine the film’s insistence on their incredible brotherhood. It’s a bit like trying to convince someone of your amazing party while showing them footage of everyone sitting alone in different rooms.
Then there’s the visual presentation, which seems determined to remind viewers that the ‘60s were, indeed, very psychedelic. The IMAX format magnifies every dated zoom effect and garish color overlay until you half expect Austin Powers to pop up and declare it all “very groovy, baby.” During discussions of “Ramble On,” we’re treated to such subtle imagery as… actual scenes from The Hobbit. It’s the kind of on-the-nose visualization that makes you wonder if they considered showing actual lemons during “The Lemon Song.”
What’s conspicuously missing is any hint of the darker currents that would later define the band’s legacy. No groupies, no drugs, no occult interests, no hotel-room destruction – it’s Led Zeppelin as presented by Disney+. While nobody’s asking for This Is Spinal Tap: The Documentary, the sanitized approach feels at odds with the raw, primal nature of their music.
Still, when the film lets the music take center stage, it’s a powerful reminder of why Led Zeppelin matters. The restored concert footage is electrifying and watching these four virtuosos find their collective voice is genuinely thrilling.
There’s a particularly poignant moment that pairs footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing with a concurrent Zeppelin performance, suggesting that while NASA was reaching for the stars, these four lads from England were achieving their own kind of lift-off.
Becoming Led Zeppelin ultimately feels like a fascinating first chapter of a book that someone forgot to finish. It’s meticulously researched, beautifully restored, and frustratingly incomplete. For dedicated fans, it’s essential if not entirely satisfying viewing. For newcomers, it’s like being handed a map with the most interesting territories marked “Here Be Dragons” and left unexplored.
-Staci L. Wilson
Photo: Getty
Great review. I like the band, they got me started on my rock journey, but at age 66 they’re more memory than active listening. Wonder if this doc touches on the plagiarism charges levied against Zep? Sounds like it is primarily recommended for the music/concert footage. Thanks for reviewing.
Hey, Pete — No, the documentary is Led Zeppelin approved/official, so it doesn’t go into that sort of thing. Plus, it stops in 1970 and I don’t think any legal issues were raised until way later.
I thought it was well worth viewing (and hearing which, given the theater’s audio levels, was not difficult!).
It was lengthy, but I thought historically entertaining for the most part throughout. I agree about some scenes feeling a bit longer than they needed to be, but not irritatingly so and, hey – poetic license and all that…
To be kindly contrary regarding the “fascinating first chapter of a book that someone forgot to finish” remark, the title does indicate the film being about , “Becoming”, so I think it’s conclusion was appropriate. Maybe someday we’ll get “Being Led Zeppelin” and then “Having Been Led Zeppelin”..??
I personally don’t understand the rationale of it being exclusively IMAX; I think it would have been just as effective (and perhaps reach a wider audience) on smaller screen theaters which these days tend to have very good sound systems.
All in all, I found both the film and your review well worth experiencing and I appreciate the efforts!
Oh, yes — definitely worth the watch. Hopefully there will be sequels, but knowing how many years in the making this film was, I kinda doubt it (at least, not from the same filmmakers). Time will tell!
No, it doesn’t. It glosses over a lot of things that I think are worth touching on. For example, in this doc, Robert Plant mentions going to see Sonny Boy Williamson perform, but the fun part, about how he snuck backstage and “nicked” Sonny’s harmonica, is not in the story.
Thanks Staci.
It’s exhausting to read all of this nitpicking over a fantastic documentary that IN THE TITLE acknowledges that it will not be the entire history of the band. Oh, and people don’t like the fact that three incredible musicians would rather tell stories about the music rather than the salacious details of life on the road? Particularly when those tales of excess are rooted more heavily in the 1970s than their first two years in the 1960s. And, Staci, I appreciate your comments on the impact that a group interview could have had, particularly if one person’s memory conflicted with another person’s. But I’m tired of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame recognizing people when they are dead or too old/ill to appear. I’d rather hear Jimmy and Robert and John Paul tell their stories while they can still remember them, rather than quibbling because they don’t tell the most shocking stories. Let’s leave that to the “unauthorized” doc that someone puts out with no Zeppelin music or participation.
I’m happy you enjoyed the film! Every review is just an opinion. Mine is an informed opinion — I’ve been covering music since the 80s, and I have been a professional, working film critic since 2001 — but it’s still just that. I’m hoping there will be more films to follow from the whole team.
I respectfully disagree with all of your points except for where you rave about the film. My girlfriend and I both said we could have watched two more hours of the story and it didn’t feel long to us at all.
The title said Becoming Led Zeppelin not the entire history of the band. I was satisfied with the period they covered if they try to fit their entire history into the same length people would have said it was too short and things were left out.
I tip my cap to the filmmakers and the band agreeing to being interviewed. They may not have been able to be in the same room, but I was glad to hear their own takes on what it took to Become Led Zeppelin.
That’s definitely true; I liked a lot but didn’t love it. As the old saying goes, “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.” You are certainly in the majority of loving it — and I am glad so many people are turning up for Led Zeppelin (my favorite band since 1979). It broke some box office records.
So much internet journalism about popular music is mediocre (or worse); it’s a pleasure to encounter something that’s really well-written.
I’ll start by saying I love the musically creative, melodic Zeppelin, but not the dinosaur rock noodling and 20 minute drum solos — the stuff that punk rock rightly tried to kill.
“Becoming Led Zeppelin” is a tedious, disappointing hagiography that doesn’t reveal much. It reminded me why I fell asleep every time I watched “The Song Remains The Same” at the midnight movies back in the 80’s, even at a time in my life when staying awake all night was easy. Ironically, “Becoming Led Zeppelin” would have been a lot more interesting if they’d shown LESS of the band’s live performances. In a couple of interview segments, Page talks about how he was determined to NOT record singles. He wanted to put weird stuff in songs so that the record label couldn’t pigeonhole Zeppelin as a singles act. So instead we get Jimmy dinking around with a theremin — ZZZZZEEEEE! — and I swear, every time he pulls that bow out, I’d rather drive bamboo spikes under my fingernails. At least Spinal Tap is funny. (And their songs are mercifully shorter.)
Maybe “Becoming Led Zeppelin” unfairly suffers by comparison to “Get Back,” which was a joyous and revealing window into the lives, characters and interactions of The Beatles — whereas in this film you never see the three surviving Zeps conversing side by side. “Becoming Led Zeppelin” starts off in a promising vein, as it explores the evolution of Page and JPJ as studio cats. But when the band starts blowing up, there’s very little useful film footage (what a lousy call by Peter Grant — like when John Fogerty refused to allow Creedence to be filmed at Woodstock). All we see are a few too-long performances for audiences that are (understandably) covering their ears and wondering when it will all end. Too much of “Becoming Led Zeppelin” consists of (apparently bootleg?) video with original recordings dubbed over the top.
In a scene that encapsulates the movie, Jimmy Page stands on a river bank and looks across at the home where the band rehearsed their second album. But the film doesn’t show or really even describe the interior. We’re just watching an old dude reminisce about a shell without ever looking inside.
Aside from the scant selection of video, the film’s failure (refusal?) to ask interesting questions is galling. Does Plant regret ripping off the blues masters word for word? Could he talk a little more about his interest in the LOTR series? The film talks a lot about the wives and children, but there’s zero about groupies or how the marriages turned out. There’s nothing about Peter Grant — and there’s plenty bad to be said about him — except for an aside about him looking like a mafioso. There’s nothing about drugs! I can see how Zeppelin fans can forgive all that, but how can you forgive the total lack of interest in how the band members worked together, how they interacted, what they liked and disliked about each other?
At the end of the day, when I tell my buddies about this movie, I’ll tell them about John Paul Jones playing a Fender VI while Shirley Bassey blasts out Goldfinger, and I’ll tell them that Robert Plant and Jimmy Page looked incredible — Plant especially, then and now. But once the film get into the actual Zeppelin part, eh, there’s not much joy.
Can’t say that I agree, Staci. If you had researched the subject of the film you may have written this review differently. The end of the film in 1970 leaves open the door of another film covering the band’s musical adventures in the 1970’s..
There were a few scenes that seemed a bit long, yes but have you ever been to a Led Zeppelin concert? Silly question but our perspectives will differ there.
BTW, I saw Led Zep twice and they were amazing! I found the live footage exhilarating and it brought me right back to March of 1970 in Philly.
There were many things I didn’t know about the background’s of Plant and Bonham. Huge highlights for me were of Jimmy Page explaining how the band was to be represented ( no singles, full control in the studio).
All in all I’m really glad I saw it, it was great! 👍