Jimi: All Is by My Side (2013) User Reviews

TIFF Review: All Is By My Side, Night Film Reviews www.nightfilmreviews.com

[lucasnochez · 7/10 · 21 September 2013]

When dealing with such an iconic figure such as Jimi Hendrix, sometimes the hardest thing about capturing the essence of a character, the perspectives of a legend, and the workings of a man are the most difficult points to show on screen. Jimi Hendrix is a name that pretty well everyone knows, and a name that many will continue to remember for many years to come. So how does one humanize, arguably, the greatest guitar player who ever lived?

The film itself is an exercise in the practice of subtly and minute brilliance. All Is By My Side is a rustic and antique look at the life of a man; Johnny Allen Hendrix, a man who served the US army and was honourably discharged; Jimmy James, the backing guitarist for the Isley Brother's, Little Richard and Curtis Knight; finally Jimi Hendrix–the experience.

Undoubtedly, first time director, veteran screenwriter and passionate Hendrix fan John Ridley had a difficult time with the production. Relying mostly on passion, Ridley focused on the small instances of Hendrix's career, and navigates through the film with nuanced characters and fragmented events in Hendrix's career.

Its admirable how Ridley, through a slew of obstacles, was still able to delve deep into the world of Hendrix through extensive research. Unable to attain the musical rights from the Hendrix estate, Ridley opted for covers of Hendrix songs and songs Hendrix covered to fill the somewhat hushed void of a musical autobiography. I won't lie in saying that I was quite surprised to see an autobiographical film of one of the loudest and most electric guitarist to be so quiet. The soundtrack is definitely something I will not be rushing to get.

Although Ridley was unable to fill the musical gap of the film, he made up for it visually and in his actors performances. Andrea Benjamin's take on Hendrix will surely be the overlooked performance of the year. Nailing Hendrix's mannerism, voice, passion (or lack there-of) and his nonchalant attitude, Benjamin is spot-on. Not far behind is Imogen Poots and her portrayal of Linda Keith, the woman who was responsible for introducing the world to Hendrix. Poots is an absolute acting force to be reckoned with. Linda's subdue scenes with Hendrix, although somewhat tame and uneventful, give the audience the most auspicious look into the inner workings of the Hendrix psyche.

All Is By My Side will surely be an overlooked film by critics and audiences alike. Substituting thunderous Hendrix stage antics with gorgeous shots of the London landscape, the smokey underground music scene at the time and blurry world of rock and roll, cinematographer Tim Fleming creates an intimate portrayal of a man who was mysterious and misunderstood to others, but to himself as well.

All Is By My Side is a beautiful, quiet and stylistically generous offering to the hardcore Hendrix fan.

Night Film Reviews: 7/10 Stars

Andre 3000 finally lived his dream of playing Hendrix

[bbickley13-921-58664 · 6/10 · 28 September 2014]

And he does a great job of capturing the persona of the man.

It's funny, I did not realize how much I knew about Hendrix. Than again, his impact in music was iconic, but his time on the scene was very short, so the info is consolidated. Everything I know about Hendrix comes from second hand accounts from those who knew, or to be more accurate, played with the man. This makes everything going on in the movie feel like Jimi is now telling his side of the story

Comparing this movie to another movie about the guitar god called Hendrix which came out in 2000, which like this movie had no Hendrix music played in it, but All Is by My Side makes you feel like your not missing that.

Andre Benjaminn and the filmmakers really capture the man and make you feel like you hear the music (even though you never do). I been hearing about Andre wanting to play Jimi for 10 years now so he had plenty of time to research the role and it was everything I heard Hendrix to be.

Also, unlike the other Hendrix film, this movie focuses on Hendrix before he became an icon. That year before he broke in America. When he was playing in New York than headed to London and formed the Experience.

It also focus on three woman who had a big influence on his life during this time, this was my favorite part of the film as I had no idea how much I actually knew about Jimi's personal life.

I read one review on this website in which the person who wrote it was upset about racist comments stated in other reviews. This is fitting for a Hendix movie and this part of his career is touched on nicely about how Jimi was not black enough for blacks and should be playing more music for black people, none of them realizing at the time that having a sea of white people worship the ground you walk on is just as good for the cause as James Brown singing a protest song. All Jimi cared about was the music he loved to play and the film was fair about this point.

In comparisons to Get on up, I like this movie way better, but I'm a huge fan of Hendrix. Hopefully one day, we will get a movie using Jimi's music, but it's weird that this movie truly works without it.

An OK movie, and enough with this 'racist' garbage - read his biography.

[sigmund_igthorn · 6/10 · 6 July 2014]

The movie was OK. Nor a masterpiece by any means, but a solid entry that shows part of the Hendrix life. I'm not good in writing reviews, in fact I believe that they are pointless, and everyone should base their opinion by seeing a movie. Nevertheless I had to make an entry because of that ignorant 'garbage' and 'racist' review. Do not get me wrong, you are entitled to think about any movie as garbage, and I'm fine with that. But when someone shows his/hers ignorance and calls historic facts racist... That's just sad. Shall we rewrite history? Please read Hendrix biography. If it wasn't for that lady, that was sleeping with Richards, Hendrix would not made a contact with a manager, that helped him develop his career. Sames go with so many (white if that matters - for me not, and if that matters for you, you are the racist... I'd like to remind, that it works both ways..) other people that helped him along the way, e.g. if it was not for McCartney he would _never_ play at the Monterrey Festival... That festival made him well known in the USA, because earlier his hit from Britain did not even enter top 100 in the USA... Similarly with the violence - quite well documented. The guy just couldn't handle alcohol, and changed after it, as so many people do. To sum up - Hendrix would always be a Hendrix (even changing name to Jimi was suggested by a white guy, oops). Great talent, great naivety, and bad life decisions. The point I'm making is, that at that time, without the help of white people, he would not become so famous. Sometimes skills are just not enough, you have to have luck, and met the right people. Do not try to rewrite history... You know also what? These people were so much better than the mindless PC obsessed masses. They didn't care about the skin color, just the talent, the music, the person. Who he was. An that was the late 60s I want to remind you. Not an easy time for people of color (less in Europe, but still). So, people, please watch the movie, read Hendrix biography (or if you are lazy, his Wikipedia page), and stop with this racists BS.

great rock biopic

[jamesdamnbrown · 8 October 2014]

Man, I don't know what drugs some of these other reviewers are on. One person seems to be under the impression that the movie claims Jimi didn't play guitar before he came to England. WTF? Another person claims the film is racist because it accurately portrays white people helping Jimi move to London and start his own band. Yet another person claims Eric Clapton didn't walk off the stage when Jimi sat in with Cream because Clapton doesn't mention it when he's interviewed, but plenty of others remember it that way, and Clapton isn't going to go out of his way to bring up something that makes him look bad. Which brings us to Ms. Etchingham. You know, every time you watch a documentary about Hendrix there's an interview with a different woman whose only claim to fame in life is that she slept with Jimi, and they all seem to be self-appointed guardians of his legacy, every one of them was the real true love of his life, and none of them have a single negative word to say about him. But Hendrix was a famous womanizer—how he juggled jealous women is part of the focus of the film—and it is well known that he became angry and violent when he drank. So maybe Jimi beat her and maybe he didn't, but if he did I wouldn't really expect Ms. Etchingham to admit it, and if he didn't it doesn't really bother me that much because the episode can be viewed as a metaphor for a darker side of his personality that really did exist and wouldn't have been explored in the film without that scene.

Artistically I thought the film was a triumph and one of the best rock biopics I've seen. Andre Benjamin NAILS Jimi. He deserves an Oscar nomination for his performance. He obviously spent a lot of time listening to audio of Jimi speaking because he captured the rhythm and inflections of Jimi's speech perfectly. And acting-wise Benjamin was excellent, I thought he got inside Jimi's character even more than Jamie Foxx did in Ray. As an actor he was remarkably in the moment and very subtle. And the female leads are with him all the way, especially Imogen Poots as Linda Keith, she's soooo good. The reviewer who said that the "crazy cuts and directing style" gave him a headache would undoubtedly get a cerebral hemorrhage from a Godard film, the editing was artistically innovative and miles ahead of standard Hollywood flicks like Get On Up and Ray.

As for the lack of original Hendrix songs, in the end it didn't bother me much. In a way it might have worked to the film's advantage, because it forced the director to concentrate more on creating a character study based on dialogue and narrative instead of recreating one performance clip after another, as in Get On Up. And anyhow, two-thirds of the movie takes place before Jimi put together the Experience and started writing songs. I did wonder why they didn't use "Hey Joe" since Jimi didn't write it and he was playing it onstage when Chas Chandler saw him for the first time. But overall, I loved the movie and thought it rocked hard.

All is by My Side

[Nolg101 · 7/10 · 4 January 2016]

John Ridley's, Jimi: All is by My Side is an ambitious effort that depicts the life of famed musician Jimi Hendrix. The leading role is played rather masterly by André Benjamin, of the hip-hop musical duo Outkast. Imogen Poots & Hayley Atwell act out the roles of Linda Keith and Kathy Etchingham, respectively. Both turn in fantastic performances revealing the multi-layered, nuanced nature of the two women who played pivotal roles in the life of Hendrix.

The setting for Ridley's film begins in Manhattan, in 1966. Benjamin's character has a chance encounter with Poots' character, who introduces Jimi to a few people, connecting with some influential and wise music industry folk, and before not too long he is convinced to go to London, where he's told that he will set the world over there ablaze. Poots' character is highly adept at acting with solely her eyes, letting them linger in scenes and communicating so much more than could be with only words. It's no wonder that Jimi follows her advice on testing the London music scene.

But, insert Atlwell's character, who comes into the film with the attitude and the familiar wear of that of a rock n roll groupie. An emotionally, likely alcohol/drug fueled spat leads to some major emotional and career decisions and Poots' character leaves Jimi to return to the States. Atwell very capably plays a role that is underminded by the premise that the nature of a groupie entails, one of sort of sucking the life from those who have truer intentions and more wholesome habits, but the role of Kathy Etchingham is no simple one to play, and certainly not one that had little importance in Jimi Hendrix's musical influences.

Biopics can be extremely difficult to produce, even when they are about high profile people like Jimi Hendrix. Major studios will typically scoff at the idea because of a lack of commercial appeal (Steve Jobs can be an exception to this). But, this indie picture which was reportedly produced on a budget of $5 million, and received generally positive reviews, did so because it didn't attempt to "do too much". It covered only a year of Jimi's career, albeit it was a short one, but it was able to capture some of the intricacies that made Jimi the man that he was.

Didn't meet the expectations

[ffvlahos · 6/10 · 2 June 2015]

The reason why I write this review in a simple language is because the film worths nothing more than that. The film itself is simple. Sure you learn things about the life of Jimi Hendrix, at least for the period of his life it refers to. André Benjamin is doing a good job, for a man who is not purely an actor, but up to a point. Very poor directing in terms of technique and aesthetics. The passion, the vibes and the electricity of the music of that period did not appear in any phase in the film. The approach to social issues was so simplistic that i would prefer if the director/writer avoid it. As an avid fan of Hendrix i saw the film without resentment but with disappointment. For the rest of the possible viewers, don't waste your time i suppose.

Yes it is garbage

[kathy-etchingham · 1/10 · 7 March 2014]

The theatregoer hoping to get some insight into Jimi Hendrix and London in 1966/67 will leave the theatre disappointed or duped by the film makers.

Before seeing the film I was apprehensive, as I had been told that my character was portrayed in a derogatory and potentially defamatory manner. I had been told that Jimi had beaten me with a telephone in the film and after I had protested that this was not true the film makers had replied that it was true because they had "thoroughly researched" me.

In other words they were saying that they were telling the truth and I was not.

During the opening scenes I found it difficult to comprehend the way the story was unfolding, or what it was depicting. The editing was disjointed and dialogue was layered on top of alternate dialogue, seemingly from a parallel conversation.

The film progressed in a confusing and dull manner but there was one scene that gave me a momentary lift of anticipation. The scene depicts Jimi playing with Cream at the Polytechnic Students' Union and should have set out to depict an absolutely epic event that I had witnessed. (I had been carrying Jimi's guitar).

I hoped that they would do Jimi justice in their interpretation of what happened. Unfortunately, once the music started, my heart sank. What a disappointment. Not only was it insulting to Jimi's legacy, but I would say it was fairly insulting to Eric Clapton as well because the real Eric Clapton would never have been in awe of the unremarkable performance presented to viewers in this film.

The storyline progressed in an awkward and illogical way and was hard to comprehend.

The basis seemed to be that the dimwitted "Jimi" could not make up his mind between the good rock chick (Linda Keith) and the bad rock chick (Kathy Etchingham) who later goes bonkers and takes an overdose. (If I was the actress having to play this lousy part wearing those ugly clothes I may have taken an overdose too.)

The strange fact that jars with this fictional narrative is that, in reality, the unfortunate Linda Keith ended up in rehab at around this time because Keith Richards, of all people, initiated an intervention that probably saved her life. She was hardly in a position to be advising Jimi on how to play the guitar and do his hair.

Fictional characters were introduced that furthered the deluded political, racial and sexist agenda that John Ridley seemed to be pursuing. In particular Michael X was presented as a saintly black political guru whereas in truth he was a violent criminal con man who was executed for a gruesome murder. An "Ida" character is introduced who never existed in real life.

The biggest disappointment of this film was that after expecting at least some kind of depiction of Jimi's humour and creativity and the amusing and creative times that were happening in London, instead we were shown a gloomy and depressing dark tale that pictured Jimi as some sort of moronic mumbling mystic with no ambition.

Instead of showing Jimi touring the UK and Europe, writing and performing the most innovative music of the century we are shown scenes of banal mumblings, fictitious gratuitous violence and fictitious mental breakdowns and overdoses.

My initial anxiety turned to scorn for the thoroughly bad screenplay and direction. I became bored and impatient for the end of the film.

The fictional nature of the film left me feeling that the events I was watching were more akin to a made for DVD movie than a biopic.

I felt that I wasn't watching an interpretation of the real events from the time, but rather a stiff and poorly depicted mashup of trivia from events described in my book, sprinkled over Ridley's racially driven fictional theme.

Even the imaginary domestic violence, mental breakdown and drug use that my character was involved in did not evoke the emotional response I expected, and I found myself feeling just as I have when watching other bad movies, impatient for it to just finish and spare me the indignity of having to watch another tiresome scene with wooden dialogue and disjointed editing.

A short-sighted and somewhat offensive portrayal of Jimi and those around him at the time.

Final verdict: Fictional Movie – 2/10 Biopic purporting to be based in fact – 1/10 (for spelling all the names right)

"You can't change the world. If I could, only thing I'd probably do is just put... I'd like a little bit more color on the streets." I SAY THE SAME ABOUT THIS MOVIE!

[afallguns · 7/10 · 3 June 2015]

First of all, I'm not really a fan of The Jimi Hendrix Experience... I mean, I know a couple songs and really enjoy "Are You Experienced" album... But everybody is talking about how much this film is not accurate... OK, It is a biopic, but, does it really matters? It is based in events between '66 and '67... It is virtually impossible to make any mention of this period with a hundred percent accuracy, just for the fact that its been almost 50 years since they happened and any personal source would be subjective about what happened and how it happened... AT THE END OF THE DAY... Liking it or not... It is a Fictional movie just as much it is a Biopic... Andre Benjamin was just terrific! I think really he captured the essence of who Jimi is to me... The kinda mumbling and careless with the words, but someone who really speaks with the music. Physically Andre Benjamin was like a second coming of Jimi... Imogen Poots and Hayley Atwell gave us really good and solid performances... I really wouldn't complain if Imogen had a few minutes more in scene! The editing was a little bit confusing in some points, along the movie, maybe for an artistic effect or whatever... But it was OK! The lack of Jimi's songs it was a little bit upsetting, but it didn't make the movie less enjoyable, for its really good soundtrack. John Ridley was quite fine as director... And considering It is the first feature film he directed since '97, It is even more impressing... I really hope he directs more, cause I like what i saw.. It's more about art than the box office... We need more directors like that! About the bad reviews, I'll quote Andre's Jimi: "Words, man, just words... They're all just words... I don't get uptight about them words, you know."

An insult to the man and people who loved him...

[ttophaze · 1/10 · 2 October 2014]

I have been an avid Hendrix fan ever since the first time I heard his music back in the sixties. I've listened to all his recordings, watched every video and read most literature written about his life. This film makes Jimi out to be a dull moron who was violent and not interesting! What I would give to have had his talent and beautiful character! He was a lovely human being and the greatest musician to have ever graced this planet! He would have never hurt Kathy as was portrayed in this horrible film! Ridley made it seem that there was no interest in Jimi after he got to London and he lived as a hermit in his London flat... that is so far from the truth! When he played with the Cream, Eric did not walk off stage with anger and jealous envy... he has said in several interviews that he greatly enjoyed the session and had a great time playing with him! I am sad and offended that this garbage was allowed to air throughout the world! I hope that most people agree with me and will not be influenced into believing this trash!

Beginners guide to Hendrix

[iamtherobotman · 6/10 · 29 March 2018]

I feel some of the reviews here have been overly harsh on this film.

Is it entirely accurate? No, but then tell me, what biopic is?

It's a real shame though that none of Hendrix' music was featured in the film but then that only serves to credit the makers even more that they managed to creat a wholey enjoyable film without the music of the maestro himself.

There was still some fantastic musical moments and the Soundtrack overall done the film justice.

There was some excellent acting performances throughout and I feel the casting was remarkably well done in the main. The film gave the overall vibe of the times and how Hendrix came to prominence in the UK before hitting the Monterey music festival.

It would be nice to see a biopic of this man made whereby his music is showcased, since that is what he was about and carry it throughout his overly short musical career.

Yes, there are errors in this production and that's a real shame in honesty but there are also a lot of accuracies too.

Overall, really not a bad film. Is it one for diehard Hendrix fans who know about his life? Well, probably not but for anyone new to the Hendrix phenomenon then sure, it'll serve as a basic outline into how he started in music.

Hendrix without his Mojo or Hey Joe

[steve-131-458835 · 1/10 · 12 October 2014]

Jimi: All Is By My Side starts in June 1966, when Jimi Hendrix was just a young struggling R&B musician trying to make it in New York. It ends moments before Jimi leaves London to appear at the Monterey Pop Festival, June 1967.

This was an exciting period in Hendrix's life, but what director/writer John Ridley (12 Years a Slave) offers the audience is a slow-paced drama full of inaccuracies, and not even one note of original Hendrix music. It helps to know a little about the rock star's life before watching the movie, but the more you know, the more fault you find.

The story seems mostly told from the perspective of Linda Keith (Imogen Poots), girlfriend of Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones. While Richards is away on tour, Linda discovers Hendrix at a discotheque, introduces him to LSD, and unites him with a producer who has plans to make him a big star in England. Unfortunately, too much of the next 117 minutes focuses on the rivalry between Linda Keith and Hendrix's new girlfriend Kathy Etchingham (Hayley Atwell).

André Benjamin does a decent job of capturing Hendrix's chain-smoking, gum-chewing, cosmic babble persona, but not much of his stage charisma. His lines are a conglomeration of quotes Hendrix said years after this short time frame. The line "When the power of love overcomes the love of power…" was never even said by Hendrix. There are also several uses of current urban slang like "hella" and "fo' real" that easily flow off the tongues of the '60s characters.

The real life Kathy Etchingham has objected to her portrayal in this film from its very start. Etchingham is portrayed as having an instant infatuation with Hendrix but tolerates several beatings from him. Etchingham does admit there was a time when she threw a plate at Hendrix after he made snide comments about her bad cooking, but it was nothing like the bloody scene in the movie where in a jealous rage Hendrix beat her with a telephone receiver until she was unconscious and hospitalized.

Also disappointing was session player Robert "Waddy" Wachtel's take on Hendrix's sound in the studio and on stage. Granted, those are some big shoes to fill, but Wachtel's guitar work falls way below an acceptable line. The scene where Hendrix wins over Chas Chandler (Andrew Buckley)with a stunning guitar solo at the Café Wha? comes off lackluster, as is the version of "Sgt. Pepper's…" which isn't even close to the way The Jimi Hendrix Experience played it on several occasions.

As mentioned earlier, no original Hendrix music was authorized for this movie. Experience Hendrix LLC (run by Hendrix's step-sister) said no to the project early on, so all Hendrix fans are left with are covers like "Wild Thing" and "Killin' Floor." And for some reason, "Hey Joe" was left out. Hendrix's cover of "Hey Joe" was an important motivator for Chas Chandler to bring Hendrix to England. It went to Number 6 in the U.K., but the movie gives the impression that Hendrix wasn't having any chart success.

As the credits role, Benjamin and Wachtel do an odd duet of "Bleeding Heart" in the style of the Hendrix's acoustic version of "Hear My Train a Comin'." The whole experience felt like a low- budget made-for-TV flick that came out in 1974. Jimi Hendrix deserves far better. http://bammagazine.com/hendrix-without-his-mojo-or-hey-joe-2/

Racist garbage? Try historically accurate.

[uberificbrownie · 9/10 · 6 March 2014]

The dude who said this film is racist doesn't understand Jimmi Hendrix's life. He was a complete unknown drifting from venue to venue under a lot of different monikers only to be discovered by the girlfriend of Keith Richards. That was the era he lived in-- as a black musician in that era coupled with his ridiculous dress, he would have never been given a chance otherwise. If you look into his Harlem show, even black people didn't "get" him. If you're a real Hendrix fan, or have read some of his biographies this film aims to stick true to the actual story of his life--not a politically correct version modified for the 21st century.

And borderline autistic? That's how Hendrix spoke. He was incredibly shy and soft spoken unless he had his guitar in his hand. Watch just about any interview on live television where he was talking one on one with the host--it's awkward and clumsy to the point where you think there's something wrong with him. Add on an intense amount of personal substance abuse and you'll be able to understand why Andre 3000's portrayal of Jimi was spot on.

I'd say if you walk into this film with a little bit of historical understanding of Hendrix's life as well as an awareness about the social pressures shaping the man you'll find this film to be a pretty accurate representation on the guitar god.

right good watch mate!!!!!

[ahhyperchic · 7/10 · 25 November 2016]

This movie's good, while there might be less action then say, Indiana Jones, but its still pretty entertaining. No but for everyone, this is a good movie, interestingly shot, well acted, no it won't be winning any Oscars, but its worth a watch. PS this really isn't racist, its something realistic to its time era. It is an interesting story that makes you feel like you were actually there with the people. It holds your attention and like I mentioned before, the filmography is something you don't see very often - very interesting point of view. No, I don't agree with everything portrayed, but overall, its not as God awful as other reviews make it out to be and is really a great watch.

I'm not sure if I'll watch it again, but I feel happy that I did watch it, and don't regret anything.

Nooooooooo energy

[joker-scar · 4/10 · 5 February 2017]

I have never read a bio on Jimi so I have no idea what is real, made up, embellished or left out. I have only seen other bio-pics or docs on him. A two hour film of a persons entire life should be able to cut out all the boring bits and leave an interesting, if not realistic version of one's life....too bad this film didn't follow that rule. It had a slow moving pace that few directors can make work. Unlike Jimi's music this film has almost NO energy. Very little tension. The performances are OK and could have been better if the director would have utilized them better. Very little use of the song catalogue. Very little focus on the other band members. Other all, just not worth it.

Not that accurate

[tetsuwanatom · 8 March 2014]

@uberificbrownie In fact the women featured as Hendrix' friend and lover have come out publicly to declare the film is very inaccurate in several ways. You can read for yourself on the real Linda E.'s web site. She said that Ridley took bits of events that she wrote about in her autobiography and turned them around to fit his modern-day vision. I think she's right in some ways, certainly if you look at Atwell in the movie she's portrayed as being rather common and juxtaposed against Poots' character who is a posh intellectual/romantic.

You see what he's doing right off; Linda E. is the "old" Jimi who played juke joints with few noticing, Linda K helps him find the new Jimi who will be remembered forever. His process going from a back-up blues man to a legend was very likely a lot more complicated than that, and took more than a few notes from a friend to make him what he became.

But that's the Hollywood formula biopic, it encourages simplification of complexities. And sometimes, unfortunately when it comes to observing African American figures, the script may often have a White hand leading the Black hand along (see also 12 YEARS).

The other thing to note is that Ridley does seem to be a political conservative. They tend to observe black and white (not talking about race) more than grey.

It isn't hard to get things right like Hendrix' tone of voice (yes he was soft spoken) or his clothing and hair. Getting the rest "right" is likely harder.

A very unusual kind of biopic. Not the Hendrix biopic that fans wanted but maybe this is for the better. Jimi: All is By My Side is oddly subtle, quiet, and very well made.

[movieboy13 · 7/10 · 11 October 2014]

(Writing out of passion. Therefore grammar mistake beware)

Jimi: All is By My Side is an arts film. Keep this in mind

2014 is a great year for musician based-biopics. Get On Up and Jimi: All is by My Side are the reason why.

Everything about Jimi: All is By My Side is unusual. The fact that 39-year old rapper Andre 3000 plays the then 24 year old Jimi Hendrix. The fact that this movie only takes place during 2-years of Jimi Hendrix's life (being able to focus on a certain period of Jimi Hendrix's life and not rushing over his whole short life gives the movie more focus). The fact that the film was not allowed by Jimi Hendrix's estate to use any of his popular music. Some of this oddities are what make this movie really good.

John Ridley (Oscar-winning writer of the screenplay for 12 Year A Slave) has made the Jimi Hendrix biopic that fans did not expect or honestly want. Yet he also made the original biopic that film lovers look for often yet seldom find. The film is surprisingly subtle and quiet nature may be of putting to some. For some cynical reason, this is the exact reason I respect this movie. It may not be my favorite movie of this year but I think it one of 2014's best because it at least comes across that Ridley cared about his subject and wanted to show his story in a creative way. This movie will not give you Hendrix's whole life story or even make you go, "Yah!!! Now I am pumped to listen to Hendrix", you feel like you know Hendrix as a person yet don't completely know him. Ridley tried to bring as much as Hendrix as he could to life through interesting artistic filmmaking. His screen writing here is also quite engaging. If you have seen 12 Years A Slave, interestingly you'll notice similarities in filming between that film and this one. As for the performances, the three leads are great. Andre Benjamin surprised me with his performance as Hendrix. I did not know much about Hendrix. I do not even know his music that well. All I know is that he is known as one of the best if not the best guitarist of all time.As a man...Hendrix was kind of insecure and awkward. Who knew? For such an influential musician at such a time of political unrest, Hendrix was pretty content simply just play his music. He was simple yet profound sometimes in real life but more often this was evident in his lyrics. Shy in public yet when he wanted to do something that seemed crazy to others, he did it. Imogen Poots is very appealing as Linda Keith, the woman who discovers Hendrix in Greenwich Village, is lover to Hendrix, all the while dating Keith Richards. There is something so charming about Poots and after starring in some pretty bad movies (namely Need For Speed), she gets a real role. Haley Atwell is fiery as Kathy Etchingham, another lover of Hendrix. Good to see her in something unrelated to Marvel. All in all, these actors are trying hard in their roles and they disappear into them to create believable characters. Some of the sound and filming technique in this movie could either be seen as clever or annoying. Your choice.The only glaring flaw I see in it is some of the changing of history. This movie is apparently mostly accurate and I understand that in films like this, history is often times altered. However I cannot stand when things are just made up. There is one scene when Hendrix beats Etchingham with a phone receiver that apparently never happened in real life. Just why? This scene has some purpose in the movie but depth that did not exist in real life should not be added to film.

Jimi: All is By My Side is odd yet strangely unique and engaging. John Ridley puts a tender, realistic, art-house on one of rock 'n' rolls biggest icons. The result is masterful in many ways. If you want to gain an interesting look into the man behind the legend or want to see a new kind of biopic, see this film. If you are looking for a energized mainstream biopic about Jimi Hendrix than wait for the Anthony Mackie biopic in 2016. Honestly this film is not for everyone and that is OK. It may not be the most fun film but it is an interesting one. Is that not why filmmakers make films? To take stories and put new and creative takes on them. Personally, I am just glad that we got a biopic about Jimi Hendrix, the human being.

I cannot explain it anymore even though I wish I could. If this your kind of movie, see it.

" Your people I do not understand, so to you I shall put an end, and you'll never hear surf music again" - Jimi Hendrix

P.S. I am very surprised at the lack of user reviews or ratings for this film on IMDb. This is a movie for movie-lovers and music-lovers and I know it will find it's audience. So why are there less than 20 reviews? Come on people.

Jimi Hendrix starts his career, with white men and women helping

[maurice_yacowar · 7/10 · 9 October 2014]

The original title of Jimi — All Is By My Side — is an ungrammatical summary of the film's approach to Jimi Hendrix. It details the number of people — almost all white — who helped Hendrix start his singing and his career.

Chief among them is Linda Keith, who at the time was Keith Richards' girlfriend. Talk about narcissism: Keith was drawn to a woman named Keith before Mick married his lookalike Bianca. Linda inspires Jimi to quit the Curtis Mayfield band, to play his own kind of music, to sing. She lands him gigs and finds him a (white) manager. She buys him his first guitar (which is as white as his helpers) which becomes a symbol of their off-again on-again relationship. His second white agent gives him his and his group's name and buys his freedom from his earlier US contracts. Candidly, this story about a black hero is about the white helpers who made him. The film details two kinds of power systems, race and gender. As the black genius depends on white help in the white system, the swaggering macho man depends on the women he inevitably abuses.

The film omits the climax to which it apparently builds: Jimi's magnificent Star Spangled Banner at Monterey. The film periodically advances an early Hendrix British TV interview, in which he finally declares his right to radically transform other songs, as we see him do with the title track of Sgt. Pepper. But the film stops on the verge of his career-making performance. That is, this is not the full story of the great guitarist but the story of his beginning, his origin. It assumes we know what Monterey did for him.

Lest we forget, the film also outlines his social context: Carnaby Street, the swinging sex life, the groupie culture, the division over Vietnam, the emergence of grass and acid, British and American forms of racism and the roots of Black Power. Hendrix's three women here successively stir him to speak, to think, to take a position. Though he resists Michael X's radicalizing attempt Hendrix at the end shows himself much matured and strengthened from the amorphous mute Linda Keith discovered. The open ending -- will she join him at Monterey or retain her dependence from the force she created -- keeps us focused on their power struggle, unresolved.

You can't do Jimi Hendrix justice without his music

[philpriestley · 3/10 · 26 July 2015]

Jimi Hendrix without the soundtrack is just bizarre and it's never going to work, is it? The generic efforts that have been made to simulate the sounds of some of the epic blues rock generation are just too poor to convey the excitement or innovation of the time.

Even if this was the greatest script in the world - with the best dialogue and characterisation - without the music you're never going to get over 5/10.

Sadly this film is short of having the greatest script in the world - or the best characterisation.

It's certain that the film makers have decided to take a darker slant on the great man - perhaps to grab a couple of headlines maybe - but the portrayal is inconsistent with just about every other contemporary source. Plenty have taken strong objection.

Compare, if you will, the truth and the reality between the image of John Lennon. Lennon was a genuinely abusive, misogynistic, violent guy. Just about every biography (and more importantly auto-biography) I have read accounts for Lennon as being caustic and up his own arse. I mean you can relay the number of people who queue up to tell the truth about John Lennon - the man who spoke about peace but contributed funds to a terrorist group. When someone gets round to telling the real story about Lennon there will be no shortage of corroboration.

Jimi Hendrix as a dark, violent, abuser just doesn't ring with any of the other sources out there. It's a deliberate mis-portrayal of a man who was genuinely a casualty of the scene.

So this is - at best - factually economical. It is also full of continuity errors. He is supposedly asked if he is better than 'The Who' (ok) and er, 'Queen'. Queen were never contemporaries of Jimi Hendrix. Even the least informed rock music fan is going to double take on that.

What can I say that is goo about the film? Well the lead portrayal of Hendrix is not bad - I'm talking about the acting, not the character as written. Andre 3000 has worked on his voice and tone quite successfully. He's worthy of a better Hendrix film. It's all that kept be on with it. To retain the criticism he sometimes slips into a snagglepuss type drawl sadly.

'A Film about Jimi Hendrix' is the 'go to' take on the man and the time. It makes this film completely redundant. Watch this for curiosity factor purely.

Performances are very good. Realistic? I have no clue. Not many of these are.....

[jpileggi · 6/10 · 18 January 2015]

The female leads do a very fine job with a tough script. Capturing anyone's essence in a two hour movie about a single year is, to state the obvious, not simple. Andre 3000 described his depiction of Hendrix as a bit like the cartoon character "Snagglepuss". Unfortunately, that is pretty much spot on.

I spent the entire viewing asking myself, "what is the filmmaker saying"? Was Hendrix self- destructive, damaged, tragically self-absorbed, unfeeling, a genius ahead of his time, all of the above? A single year in a life, with some poetic license to boot, makes it difficult to discern much about the totality of anyone.

But, I enjoyed the movie as a snapshot of a period and an era.

seriously?

[robert-115-845787 · 1/10 · 13 January 2015]

I'm a big fan of Jimi Hendrix and his music. I have read many books and watched about every film-bit I have found about him, so I had to really tell myself to take it for what it is, only a movie about a small part of his life.

But seriously? After about an hour into the movie it hit me that many people will maybe only see this film and think that this is how he was.

PLEASE do not take this film seriously. Please, go search for and watch documentaries and read books, this is just too bad to be taken seriously and I see it as a insult, not just to Jimi Hendrix, but to all of the involved artists and other people that was involved in his life.

Pretty weak movie

[zachvalencia · 6/10 · 6 May 2015]

I was very excited to watch a good movie about Jimi Hendrix's life and this was not the movie I was looking for. This movie wasn't terrible but it was pretty weak. I saw the doors movie and was hoping this movie would be a lot like that one but it was not. It was uneventful and boring. It was short and only showed like one year of Jimi's life. They didn't fully capture the true Jimi Hendrix experience 😉. They showed him starting up but never really showed him when he was on top of the rock world. They didn't even get to Woodstock or most importantly his mysterious death. They also barely highlighted his drug use which was a huge part of his life and is necessary to include for Jimi Hendrix's life. They should have added way more detail and made it much more exciting. Overall the movie gives you a good take on his early career but lacks full detail and excitement. I am still waiting for a good Jimi Hendrix film.

Voodoo Child (Shite Return)

[martinthered · 1/10 · 16 July 2014]

I agree with Kathy: This film is absolutely laughable... Not worthy of the man, his music, his life and his legacy... I hope that the Hendrix family/estate take whoever made this tripe to the cleaners. Not a story of Jimi the musical pioneer, or even Jimi the man. This is a crass caricature: A hatchet job that plays up to the cliché of the 'wild man of rock' as the 'Badass Troubleman' and all that crap. Wild man of rock he may have been (everybody liked to party in those days), but that doesn't make him a monster. Because Jimi certainly wasn't.

Also the idea that Linda Keith gave Jimi a guitar owned by Keith Richards: and that this 'started Jimi off' is absurd... Richards says himself in his autobiography that he and Linda split long before she met Hendrix (she didn't even leave Keef for Jimi. There were others before him). The guitar credit claim is ludicrous: Every Hendrix fan knows Jimi played guitar long before he came to England. Jimi played his guitar when he was in the army (ask Billy Cox!). Jimi was a guitarist before he knew Ms. Keith existed...

This pile of complete nonsense is disrespectful to Jimi and those who lived with him and loved him... This film about Jimi is similar to Albert Goldman'sbook about John Lennon: Cheap,nasty and attempting to make money out of flinging dirt around. For me this film gets nothing (and I mean nothing!). But seen as there is no zero mark, it will have to be a very reluctant 1...

As for Andre 3000 as Hendrix, It should have marketed as a comedy. What's next? Justin Bieber as Elvis Presley?

Two Thumbs Up for Andre's Performance

[cyorkgo · 8/10 · 16 December 2014]

As a Hendrix fan I have read most of his biographies. So I was excited to see this movie. Actually, as a fan I am excited about anything Jimi Hendrix.

I think most people reviewing the film take themselves as fans too serious. I respect those that are attempting to keep the integrity of Jimi Hendrix legacy intact, but some people are really going overboard.

So, focusing on film itself: Loved it! I think Andre really did a great job at playing Jimi. I also thought the acting was very good. The writers did a great job considering the estate wouldn't work with them. It may not have been 100% historically accurate but it definitely was NOT garbage. It is a very good movie.

So for those of you that have not seen the movie - watch it from a movie lover's stand point. Watch it from a fan's perspective. If you do so, you will appreciate the movie. It you approach it from a critics standpoint, because you "knew" Jimi or you have read every book or you are/where Jimi's biggest fan - you may not appreciate the art.

Sampling the Experience!

[spookyrat1 · 6/10 · 16 May 2019]

It's a gutsy call! Let's make a movie about Jimi Hendrix and then not include any of his music. I don't think many would attempt such a venture, but John Ridley, the Oscar - winning writer of 12 Years a Slave was prepared to give it a dig. Ultimately he has produced an interesting perspective of the master guitarist, though fans will miss the dynamic of listening to Hendrix's own playing and the film is arguably a good 15 minutes too long, given its limited subject content.

The film tells the story of Hendrix's career beginnings, through his arrival in London, the creation of The Jimi Hendrix Experience and the beginning of his fame after his performance at the Monterey Pop Festival. It's not a full biopic as it only covers about 15 months of his burgeoning career. But it does succeed in giving the audience a fairly god idea of why he is widely regarded as one of the most influential electric guitarists in the history of popular music, and one of the most celebrated musicians of the 20th century. He was also one of the first guitarists to make extensive use of tone-altering effects units, such as fuzz tone, Octavia, wah-wah, and Uni-Vibe in mainstream rock and we see him frequently tinkering with guitars and talking to others about imaginatively producing the sounds he wants to make.

André Benjamin gives a very convincing performance as Hendrix, both with guitar and without. There's a big cast and helpfully many real historical figures are identified with an onscreen printed credit, even if not introduced by the dialogue being spoken. I would have preferred less of the fairly extensive interactions between Hendrix and various girl friends in a movie of some 2 hours length. I guess this was necessary given the music restrictions imposed, but it seemed that the same ground was covered with a range of characters, rather than one significant person. Thankfully we are not overburdened with copious, cliched scenes of drunken and/or drugged excesses. But we are left in no doubt, that as a person, Jimi, whilst generally quite sociable, was still very much out there.

Have no idea why the Hendrix Estate would not give approval for his music to be used in what ends up being a pretty sympathetic look at the iconoclastic musician, but it does end up undeniably detracting from the value of the film as a life story. Waddy Wachtel does a pretty adequate job imitating Jimi on various covers, but as the film progresses one finds one's self thirsting to hear original Hendrix classics such as Purple Haze, or just The Man, Rolling Stone ranked as the greatest guitarist and the sixth greatest artist of all time, play or sing. But alas, that never eventuates.

Where's the music?

[lee_eisenberg · 4/10 · 7 May 2017]

John Ridley's "Jimi: All Is by My Side" is a worthy effort, but without Jimi Hendrix's music it comes across flat. And as happens with a lot of biopics, there seems to be an emphasis on the unpleasant parts of the subjects life (we can debate the authenticity, although Kathy Etchingham has criticized it). The point is that Jimi Hendrix might not be someone whose life story you can film. At least not without his songs. I'd say that "Purple Haze", "Hey Joe" and Hendrix's riff on "The Star-Spangled Banner" tell more about his life than any movie can. He was the greatest guitarist of all time, and this movie doesn't do him justice.

So remember what he said about the power of love overcoming the love of power.