Hendrix (TV Movie 2000) Poster

(2000 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Very well done movie
Pete Davis18 November 2001
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.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good acting, otherwise awful
dreichert-110 October 2004
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.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
terrible movie, but a great performance by Wood Harris
tanjadr19 February 2005
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....
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yojimbo_Jones20 October 2004
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.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's better to be assumed a fool than open your mouth and confirm it.
tom scruggs28 February 2008
who ever reviewed this should first know something about the subject. Could I Imagine Jimi saying dig it? are you insane have you ever recordings of the man. The interview sequence was almost verbatim to the actual interview.

Wood Harris did an excellent job as Jimi he was so believable I forgot he wasn't him. Thats called acting.

He must have spent weeks studying the moves mannerisms and speech of jimi.

And as far as the strumming being off. He is actually playing the right parts on Hey Joe and some other lead guitar jams. The only thing that was not copied exact is the Monterey guitar was the wrong color I feel this was due to licensing thing with Fender guitars as the headstock's also did not have a Fender Logo.

The performance of Wild Thing and the Star spangled Banner were spot on right down to the exact movements and stage clothes.

Whoever did the vocals did an excellent job also

The script may have been weak but for Hendrix fans it was magical to watch Wood Harris recreate the most revered guitar player of all time who was actually as much visual as he was musical.

My son and I played the actual Monterey performance right behind the Wood Harris performance and they are almost identical.

More movies should pay attention to detail and continuity.

I own the DVD and watch it a couple of times a year.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
How many guitarists does it take to sit through a movie about Hendrix?
rooprect23 September 2014
As the joke goes...

Q. How many guitarists does it take to change a light bulb?

A. Five. One to screw it in, and 4 to say, "You suck."

Now as anyone could predict, when someone dares to portray the deservedly deified Jimi Hendrix, you're going to get the equivalent of the light bulb joke multiplied by thousands.

I'm not a guitarist, I'm a keyboard player. And while I have been known to hurl candelabras at TV screens when the actors don't play the piano right (like Ed Harris in "Copying Beethoven" yelling "B-flat! B-flat!" as he hits an F), I've mostly come to realize what most movie fans already know: actors are actors & musicians are musicians. Each should be respected for his or her particular craft being showcased.

Wood Harris does a fantastic job of staying true to the personality, quirks & mannerisms of the eccentric genius Jimi Hendrix. Jimi's gentle tone of voice, his boyish shyness in social situations, his signature laugh (a baritone "huh!") and even a lot of his stage moves, like the rapid fire over-the-neck pick slide, were recreated with an authenticity that tells me Wood must've studied as many old Hendrix clips as I have.

The story itself? Of course no one can encapsulate Hendrix in 90 minutes. What this biopic does is it avoids trying to be a narrative, and instead it gives us vignettes of who Hendrix was as a human being. In other words, you don't get a typical linear biography but rather, a series of short, almost disorienting scenes of Jimi giving an interview, interspersed with scenes of his life. With this presentation, we don't always get the whole picture of--for example, Jimi opening for the Monkees and getting drowned out by 16-year-old girls shouting "We want Davy!" and subsequently quitting the tour while, as a joke, a newspaper reporter floated the rumor that he was banned by the Daughters of the American Revolution for being too erotic--that's not in there. Instead we just catch a glimpse of his frustration at being marketed so poorly for the sake of a buck. And that's what the meat of this film is about: Jimi's constant struggle with managers & big money who kept undermining his growth as an artist.

If you watch this film, realize that that's the biggest conflict that Jimi had, and perhaps that's what ate him up. A rare musical visionary, he was never truly appreciated for what he wanted to do because the pop powers kept telling him to play shows and write 3 minute radio-friendly songs. Jimi wanted the opposite, and as the film notes, he sunk gobs of his profits into building Ladyland studios where he could indulge in 14-minute poetic masterpieces like "A Merman I should turn to be". This movie, I think, faithfully depicts that all-too-common battle between art & life. Few artists fought it as rebelliously as Mr. Hendrix.

While I enjoyed this film & the performance by Wood Harris, I have to dock it a bunch of points for a glaring oversight: it doesn't feature any of Jimi's music!! When I say "Jimi's music" I'm not talking about the great songs "Hey Joe", "All Along the Watchtower" & "Wild Thing" which are indeed in the film. But Jimi didn't write those songs. Since this movie focuses on Jimi the creative visionary, shouldn't they have featured a few of the songs he actually wrote? The only way we can hope to get into Jimi's mind is through his brooding masterpieces "The Wind Cries Mary", "Manic Depression", "Merman" ...what about "Little Wing"?

My guess is that it may have been some licensing problem, because really there's not a single songwriting credit to Jimi. So because of that, I drop this film from a solid 8 or 9 down to 7 stars. It's still very much worth watching, but it may leave you a bit unfulfilled. No worries, the best education is to listen to a Hendrix album.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"cliff notes" movie
Jae-121 April 2003
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?
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
mw156129 January 2010
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.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Definitely disappointing
skysandstars9 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.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good movie for the average viewer, but not for the dedicated Hendrix fan
midnight_lamp15 December 2002
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 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Avoid this at all costs
bobkurtz-124 July 2005
Perhaps the worst rock 'n' roll movie ever. It doesn't matter if you liked Hendrix or not, this is a first class stinker.

The theme seems to be good boy goes bad, at least a bad ass American rock icon. I don't buy it. OK he is a rock icon, but never as goody, goody as this movie paints his early life. There is no explanation for the changes, the metaphorsis just happens.

The script is bad, especially in the beginning and the acting not much better.

The movie picks up a little speed, as the counter cultural Hendrix emerges, but the horrible script just takes it down again.

The music that is used is OK with me, at least it has the Hendrix flavor, but of course Hendrix originals would helped.

The flash back technique of story telling is annoying, but not as annoying as the lousy script. The supposed last day interview, used as the flash back vehicle, doesn't work. Hate to harp on it, but I can't see Hendrix ever behaving or talking this way.

How he changed and influenced rock music, is simply being disrespected by this piece of low budget garbage.

Having little budget is no excuse, great films have been made for peanuts. "My Own Private Idaho" cost 2 1/2 million and works because Van Sant paid attention to details. This "epic" not only misses the details, but many important major points. His song writing is ignored, his innovative technique with guitar not recognized or explained, there are simply no insights of any kind here.

The constant zooming of the camera is pointless, we're not watching a porno here.

I haven't even mentioned that the handling of his death is so incomplete, that all I can figure is that they ran out of money and had to stop, and bring off the conclusion as cheaply as possible.

Wood Harris tries to over come this embarrassing situation and shows talent, but he needs the talent to recognize trash. Can you ever image Hendrix saying the words "dig it". If I were Harris, I would have demanded all clichés be eliminate before I say the words. The rewrite would have taken years and we would have all been spared.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ambitious effort, but falls short of greatness
imapoa11 December 2004
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.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
"You're the monster guitar that can pull it off, right?"
classicsoncall30 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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".
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Say What?
jenfrees30 April 2012
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Jimi's songs
pinballwizard78223 February 2008
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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
That song from the club..
jamiegilhen14 January 2008
Does anyone know the song that Jimi is playing when Chas Chandler first hears him in this movie? "I'm so glad my baby's back at home... etc"

Just a unidentified jam?

junk text... "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"
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poor, couldve been better since it was the story of JIMI HENDRIX
gunatilakes16 August 2002
I dont like how Jimi Hendrix was portrayed in this music, showed him as a druggo with all these naked women, doesnt show his real passion for music. Couldve showed more on his bringing up, like showing him pretending to play guitar or a broom stick, because he was too poor to afford one at that time (which really did happen). It was all going too quick as well,showing the business side of things more than the actual emotion. He also only took drugs because in those days it was normal to take drugs, especially for rock stars at that time. The acting was great though,by Wood Harris, the only good thing in this movie

Overall very poor,

If u want to know something bout Jimi Hendrix was like, dont watch this, rent a documentary or something, there are quiet a few good documentaries out there. Itll be more entertaining than this movie, with more varing music and more of an insight to what he was really like.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Um, what the heck was that?
RatCat6 April 2001
Well if the question was "How do you make a Jimi Hendrix movie without using ANY Jimi Hendrix music?" this movie is the answer. I could over look the fact that the production value is quite poor (Like the fact that the close ups of Jimi's fingers you can totally tell they are not Wood's) I can over look the fact that I can point out most of the locations from my backyard (I live in Toronto where this was filmed) I can even overlook the fact that there is no real insight into Jimi Hendrix the man. However I could not believe that not one Jimi Hendrix song was used. If they could not get permission to use his music why do the movie at all? Sure you get Along the watch tower and Hey Joe (song's Jimi didn't write) but they almost seem to be played over and over again. Having recently purchased the new Doors DVD and then seeing this one, I was really disappointed. Imagine if Oliver Stone wasn't allowed to use Door music in that one...

Anyways. If there is a reason to watch this movie it is because of the lead. Wood Harris is OUTSTANDING. His portrayal of Jimi showed a sensitive, talented, tired man. He captures Jimi in a way that makes you want to know more about him. Throughout the movie I really felt bad for him, I would love to see him in the same role where they actually spent some money.

MGM, what were you thinking???
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
good, but not great
deadsenator12 October 2000
Wood Harris is the best part of this film. His relaxed style makes you actually think he's the real McCoy. The story is entertaining, but not exceptional and we don't get to see enough into the deeper side(s) of Hendrix. 5 of 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Avoid this and read the excellent book- Hendrix: Off The Record instead
Oak2621 May 2001
I didnt` have very high hopes for this film when I first heard it was being made, and it was exactly what I thought it would be.

That is to say it`s very poorly written, sensationalistic and completely devoid of any kind of insight into what made Jimi Hendrix, the person, tick. It glosses over (or omits entirely) several of the more crucial events (particularly those that played a significant role in his downfall) of his brief-but-briliant career.

I will say that Wood Harris did manage to capture some of Jimi`s essence, but it simply isn`t enough to make this worth sitting through.

But hey, it`s a made-for-TV movie, and you get what you pay for.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not for the Hendrix enthusiast
tuwelcook6 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie without any expectations...and I was glad not to have had any...one point which especially disappointed me was the conflict behind the scenes Hendrix experienced with Chas Chandler and Michael Jeffry...Chas, in the movie, was more like Michael Jeffry was in real life and the other way around. The movie however shows very well what the business aspect of the whole music-industry did to Jimi and his ideas and how it destroyed him. Furthermore it was a shame they did not show what the Band of Gypsies actually achieved and how good Hendrix played with those guys...as it is well known that the 1970 new years eve concert at the Filmore East was one of the best Hendrix ever did. Besides that...what a shame shame shame that not one single original recording was used. The acting was pretty OK...besides the concerts and the guitar imitations. I only had some interest going throughout the movie due to my pre-handknowledge to Hendrix and thats about it...not a movie it would see once more. 3 out out of 10 but only because it good that his memory it's kept alive.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's all about the money
Fritz_Gerlich27 March 2007
What happens when a production team has no money? They make something like 'hendrix'.

There is no quality in this movie, its a cheap knockoff designed to get viewers merely because 'hendrix' is in the titled. It's a pretty good example of bait and switch. And the greatest travesty is the lack of hendrix material in the movie, anything requiring additional royalties was off limits. So you get cheap imitations of hendrix songs, oh but none that he actually wrote, just the covers. A hendrix movie without 'purple haze', 'foxy lady', 'all along the watchtower', ...', etc.

The only saving grace is the lead. He does a great job in capturing the sound and mannerisms of hendrix, right down to that nervous laugh. It's too bad he is acting in a pool of low-cost sh1t.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awful; a disservice to Hendrix's memory
Moviezmaniac31 January 2007
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
kssmith0025 February 2004
I found the movie to be very good! I have been a causal admirer of Hendrix for a while, but the movie really gave me real interest for him. I really like Wood Harris in the roll...he looked and acted much like the Jimi that I have seen. The story seemed accurate from additional reading/research that I have since done. But keep in mind it is a movie and subject to someone's interpretation, just as all stories are.

As far as the comment about the money hunger family...Because they have been duped for so long I think they have a right to do as they please. However, no one really knows any of those details! It really would be par for the course if no one even bothered to ask them.

I recommend this movie.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Worth it for the Sound Track-Awesome and Well Done!
mammamoon4 July 2003
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.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews