|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|Index||29 reviews in total|
9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Very well done movie, 18 November 2001
Author: Pete Davis from Arkansas
I'm very disappointed by the reviews I've seen so far. I think they can be
broken into two very different views: 1) This is a low budget movie and
should have done better, and 2) I'm a guitar player and the guitar playing
and depiction Jimi's life were incomplete.
Okay, I think I can address those all at once: It wasn't a move for guitarists, and being a low budget movie, they couldn't possibly cover every aspect of the man's life.
What they chose to cover, I believe, was very substantial and important. Being a guitarist myself, I'm not disappointed in Wood's performance. Was his "guitar playing" perfect? No, he's an actor, not a guitarist. Nevertheless, the movie was very well done, Wood did an amazing job of portraying the character of Hendrix, and the story told a great deal of Jimi's early life in music. The latter part, I think, is probably what bothered most, as it didn't go into enough details about his demise.
I think it's unfair to put down the movie for that. I don't think that's where the writers and directors were focusing. They were concentrating on his early music career and I think they did it brilliantly. I found it entirely engrossing and having seen it three times, I'll watch it a fourth.
If you're not a Hendrix fan, but you're curious about his early career, I think this movie is just for you. I won't guarantee that it's entirely accurate, but it's close enough to satisfy me, and the acting and music are exceptional.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good acting, otherwise awful, 10 October 2004
Author: DR from Toronto, Canada
All of the actors did a very good job of portraying their characters,
I've seen plenty of footage of most of the key players and I thought it
was spot on. Still, when people are playing Britons they should hire
British actors, not Canadians.
Otherwise though, it was a bad film. The story lagged through the first couple of years of his fame and then flew through the last few. Could have profiled Billy Cox more, he was a very good and close friend of Jimi's and deserved a higher profile.
As well, when making a film set in the 60s, people should have 60s clothing and hairstyles, too many people looked like they were straight out of the year 2000.
If you want to see Hendrix, there are many good films of him, better to see those instead.
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
terrible movie, but a great performance by Wood Harris, 19 February 2005
Author: tanjadr from new york
I didn't see the beginning and came upon this movie just by "zapping through", in the scene where Faye Pridgeon (Vivica A. Fox) tells Jimi "The Village ain't no neighborhood for a black man, Jimi, you'll see!" What follows then (not surprising for a made-for-TV movie) is a ridiculous medley of some terrible acting, really bad wigs and wannabe sixties set productions, reminiscent in parts of Oliver Stone's Doors movie. I guess I was watching for a little while just for amusement, when it occurred to me that Wood Harris as Jimi was catching my attention. He is giving a consistent performance throughout this inconsistent movie, channeling "his" Jimi Hendrix, who comes across as curious, vulnerable, friendly, pacifistic, bottled up, addictive, selfish, self-destructive, sad and complicated. That for me is an accurate enough description of the real-life Jimi to be satisfied. Also Harris looks a hell of a lot like Jimi and has the only talented wardrobe person on the set working for him (I wouldn't be surprised if he himself chose some of his own wardrobe). It is a hard task to begin with for an actor to portray a legend like Jimi, also performing on stage, making us believe he plays the guitar like one of the most unusual virtuosos of our time. On top of that, the concerts he is required to reenact are some of the most viewed (and admired) Jimi Hendrix performances: Monterey Pop Festival, Woodstock etc. but I think he does it really well. The moment where he addresses the crowd at Monterey and tells them something like "I can't tell you 'thank you', 'thank you', 'thank you' enough - I just want to hug you all, squeeze you, like, uh..." you get this fuzzy feeling of a Hendrix who was not a cool and distant rock-star but a boyish, tripping (he just dropped acid), loving musician who did manage to transcend some of that love through his music. Wood Harris stands up to any close-up shots. He has a vast repertory of emotions going through his face, his eyes becoming more and more distant and blind throughout the movie, indicating effectively the disillusion with life and inability to 'understand' and cope that tormented Jimi Henrix. I do like also that the use of drugs is subtly indicated and not used in a melodramatic way. After all, they were the 'chosen' remedy against the disillusion and not its cause. There is a scene where Chas Chandler says goodbye to Jimi who talks but isn't really there. During the conversation he feeds his void, constantly swallowing pills, flushing them with alcohol, taking a drag off a pipe, while saying things like "Yeah, I'm cool man" in this almost, but not quite convincing tone. The drug use is indicated as barely noticed by Jimi himself, but very much noticed by his surroundings, unable to stop it or even address it. There is another scene which sticks with me: The "Plaster Casters" are visiting Jimi to make a cast of his penis. They show him the cast of Keith Moon's penis which is apparently not quite matching up to Jimi's size. The laugh with which Jimi responds is not one of an arrogant rock-god, but eerily confused, part what he feels is expected of him, part surprise with the seriousness of the "Plaster Casters" and part amusement with him winning this "contest" without having actually done anything. The movie seems so plump and with no real direction for the actors that it is beyond me how Wood Harris managed to give such a versatile performance. I wonder if he will be equally stunning in portraying completely different characters or if he just managed to channel Jimi Hendrix so well. I will certainly keep his name in mind and hope he will get interesting parts offered in more serious, important and artfully done movies. The worst part of "Hendrix" is the ending - no symbolism, no poetics, no mystery, just a text appearing informing us (what we already know ) how he died and this quote of his about transcending love and spirituality - well, dear director, that is exactly what your movie was supposed to do, to SHOW us what is in this quote, leaving no need to SPELL it out in the end....
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
lame, 29 January 2010
Author: mw1561 from United States
This is a movie that attempts to do nothing except exploit the Hendrix
legend to make some money. It is a Walt Disney version of his life that
tries to say as little as possible and offend as few as possible.
Jimi Hendrix was a very complex man who was a brilliant musician. I had the pleasure of seeing him perform in 1967. He was the only person I ever saw who could play lead guitar while singing simultaneously. Having said that, this movie I think is geared for people who were too young to remember him during his life. If you are old enough to remember Jimi Hendrix then this movie will have little appeal. A lot of ground is covered, but so very little time is spent on events that they become blurred and almost irrelevant. During the recording of "Electric Ladyland", one of the greatest rock albums ever by the way, the bassist becomes frustrated as accuses Jimi of treating him and the drummer as if they were groupies. Perhaps there was truth in that, but there was nothing in the film leading up to that scene that would have given evidence that this was so. This is but one example of the rush to cover too much ground.
All in all, this film is a cheap exploitation of Hendrix that might be useful as a history lesson for people under 40. But is is a fake history, so buyer beware.
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
"cliff notes" movie, 1 April 2003
Author: Jae-12 from new mexico
I have been a huge Hendrix fan for many moons and I was prepared to hate this movie. And I did hate it. It glosses over many key points of his life and blows other avenues out of proportion (ie why emphasize the relationship with Fayne Pridgeon and not even touch on Devon Wilson?). This was like a "cliff notes" movie about a beautiful creative genius and it just reminds us of what the original managers did to Jimi when they insisted that he cut his songs down to under three minutes. And no offense to Wood Harris, but couldn't a better looking guy have been found?
7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing, 20 October 2004
Author: Yojimbo_Jones from Canada
A very lame, cheap & disappointing production. If this was a tell-all about the Monkees it would be embarrassing, but we're talking about the greatest instrumentalist of rock music, one of the true genius of 20th century art. What's lost in this film is Hendrix' MUSIC. He was an amazing songwriter, but you won't find any idea of that here. If your introduction to Hendrix is this movie, you'd think he was nothing more than a glorified karaoke artist. The film has the actor performing "Hey Joe," "Wild Thing," "All Along the Watchtower," "Star Spangled Banner" ... getting the drift yet...? ALL cover songs, not a single song or composition actually written by Jimi. Obviously the Hendrix estate / copyright owners had nothing to do with this production. Then there's the Woodstock conceit, with Jimi wailing in front of the half-million. Anyone who knows Woodstock or Jimi knows he played in front of the last remaining 40,000 straglers on the Monday morning when near everyone had left. Most of the acting was okay, but the rest is a waste.
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Good movie for the average viewer, but not for the dedicated Hendrix fan, 15 December 2002
Author: midnight_lamp from cincinnati, OH
When I first saw this movie, I was not a very big Hendrix fan. However, now I am a very, very dedicated Hendrix fan. I own all of his albums, I have several T-shirts and collectibles, and I have read two very in-depth biographies on the legendary guitarist. I feel you can't tell the story of one of the most influential music figures ever in just a 100 minutes. The movie had a pretty well cast, and most of the information was accurate, but there simply was not enough. It was great to see what I had read come to live, but only a fraction of it. This would probably have been a much better movie had it been double the time. For the average person, a fairly good movie. For the average hardcore Hendrix fan, a fairly disapointing movie.
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Definitely disappointing, 9 March 2003
I'm a big fan of Jimi,and this music totally ruins itself soon after it starts. The camera work for one,is horrible. The zooms and constant angle changes don't convey any kind of meaning, they just make you dizzy. Also, I didn't like how it went from stock footage from the actual 60's to pretty little film, it didn't fit. The plot was extremely slow, and the only reason I kept watching it was because of the music, and the acting was good, but horrible direction.
Say What?, 30 April 2012
Author: jenfrees from United States
There is no way on this green earth, in ALL of Jimi's life, that he ever acted, looked, sounded, or behaved as goofy-retarded as the actor Wood Harris did. The costumes looked like they came out of a sixties party and the writing was so piqued and vague that it was pointless to even try to attain background from it. The Monkees cancelling their concert from being offended at how their fan's treated Jimi started a riot. One would think that would be mentioned. Also, where were the Beatles in all of this? Nevermind the fact that Eric Clapton and the Beatles came to hear him play as soon as he hit the scene. Jimi's representation: are you kidding me? What an insult to Jimi's legacy.
Jimi's songs, 23 February 2008
Author: pinballwizard782 from United States
everyone, hendrix's copywriters won't let the rights to any of his songs go to the movie makers, that is why the only songs you hear throughout the movie are covers (famous and excellent as they are). they CAN'T use his orig's, thats why they don't. this is also why the rumors of all these renditions of hendrix's biography (ie quentin Tarantino directing, andre 3000 or will smith acting) will probably not happen anytime soon. as you have been saying, his music is what was missing and that is part of what makes this movie under-par in some ways. Jimi was music, and his music was him. No music, and his biography is simply incomplete in a huge way.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |
|External reviews||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|