ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

classicsoncall I guess by reading most of the other reviewers here I'm supposed to hate this flick, but by and large I thought it was a decent one. The picture focuses in on just the last five or six years of Jimi's life, basically corresponding to his rise as a rock star from very humble beginnings. Usually these stories take a great deal of liberty in the telling, and I don't know if everything here was a hundred percent as represented on screen. One bit of trivia that I thought was interesting was the inclusion of Hendrix opening for The Monkees, one usually doesn't see or hear of that mentioned in other treatments. In the 1973 documentary "Jimi Hendrix", the artist was depicted as being somewhat insecure and easily manipulated by agents and members of his entourage. In this film, whenever actor Wood Harris voiced Hendrix's opinions on matters like race relations and violence, it appeared to come from a well reasoned position held firmly in belief. So the dichotomy was readily apparent between the two films. As far as the music goes, I would have liked to see more of it. Others have stated that all of the efforts here were not original Hendrix tunes, but for the casual fan I don't know that it would make a difference. For most, I would think Jimi himself expressed it best - "Music doesn't lie".

Moviezmaniac This movie completely misrepresents Jimi Hendrix and is disrespectful to his memory. Besides the fact that the acting by Wood Harris was abysmal and made James Hendrix look like a fool, there are other deeper flaws. The writing is terribly lazy. It picks out certain moments from Jimi's life and incorporates them into the script without any true insight on the background of the experiences. And once it's in the script, it barely casts any real insight on James's life or true character. For example, Jimmy had a very rocky relationship with his father, and got very little support from him. The writing didn't even bother to touch on this at all. The writer seemed to be stricken by a severely one-dimensional view of James's life, or at least may chosen one. In the last of the two or three scenes that briefly elaborate on James's relation to his father, the script consisted of mere small-talk, and then Al stating his mother would be proud. It doesn't even bother to touch on the true-life familial instability. It seems as if this would've been "too hard" for the writers. Hendrix barely interacts with anybody besides his lawyer and managers. Hendrix actually had real relationships with other people, including his fellow musicians, who didn't merely whine at him when he did too many takes. After the Experience breaks up, the plot doesn't even touch on the relationships he had with his new band members, the arrangement of the Band of Gypsys, and the final band mixture of the Experience and Band of Gypsys which combined Billy Cox and Mitch Mitchell. In a sense, all of these arguments have to do with the technical and literary aspects of the film-making. Sure, this type of representation of Jimi Hendrix is good for the average complacent viewer, but for anyone who is genuinely wanting to know something about Hendrix's life, the tragic thing is how much of a misrepresentation this film is. The real problem is that the people in charge of this film actually had the disrespect to even make this movie after getting denied the rights by the Hendrix estate to actually use his original music. The filmmakers decided it would be okay to make a film about Jimi Hendrix, even if they would have to substitute Jimi Hendrix's playing with covers by an anonymous guitarist whose playing did not even come close to conveying Hendrix's true musical genius. That, and all of the songs "played" in the film are songs that he had performed that weren't even his own compositions (Wild Thing, Like a Rolling Stone). The fact that they had the audacity and the disrespect to just go along and make the film under these conditions is staggering. Essentially, they made a film about Jimi Hendrix, yet his music was in the background of the plot while his LEGAL TROUBLES took the foreground. I would say one of the primary fascinating aspects about Jimi Hendrix is his music, considering that is what he is so famous for. His musicianship was incredible. His playing was certainly along the lines of a virtuoso. Not only that, but a very powerful aspect of Jimi Hendrix's music that is often taken for granted these days is that before him, NOBODY PLAYED LIKE HE DID. Nobody at all. His style was absolutely unheard of and original. Neither this aspect of his music or his original songwriting were touched on at all in this film. Instead, this film focused on half-truths about Hendrix's so-called deterioration. Something the film failed to touch on, yet was a big part of his life in 1970 - he was working on a brand-new double album with all-new material, First Rays of the New Rising Sun. He didn't just become a big hopeless baby of a wreck, as the film portrayed him to be. His death is shrouded in mystery and it can't just be displayed as an intentional overdose. A very false picture of his life is presented: that Jimi Hendrix overdosed on drugs due to immaturity and an inability to cope with fame like a reasonable human being. It is such a disservice to his memory that he was portrayed like this. If you want to really know Hendrix, read about him. Not just a brief mini-biography, read a book about him. Or two. And above all, listen to his music. Peace out.

imapoa Wood Harris portrays Jimi with respect and determination, but doesn't quite PORTRAY him. Then again, how many actors could? I don't think Mr. Harris had ever experienced LSD when he attempted to deliver Jimi's oratory at Monterey; his effort was...well, kinda silly. Some of the other dialogue is also clumsy but this was a demanding role. I'm aware of some Hendrix career history and inclined to believe that the movie is basically accurate throughout (as with Gotti HBO movie).Although the music isn't too bad, I have to wonder why they didn't use actual Hendrix tracks? And why does the guy who plays the role of Little Richard look nothing like him? Was Michael Jeffrey really such an a-----e in real life? The real Chas Chandler seems like an unsympathetic and driven producer on the Electric Ladyland DVD...yet he and Jimi were said to be a great music partnership. Billy Zane does a fine job as Michael Jeffrey I guess, considering that I really don't know what he was actually like! Oh well.

mammamoon MammaMoon and I are going to buy this film regardless of the reviews we have read. We saw it and loved it, we are Jimi Hendrix fans. We feel all the acting was well done, the sound track awesome--we highly recommend this film to be included with anyones film collection on the history of the 60's Culture and those wonderful creative and inspiring years.