Jimi: All Is by My Side (2014)

Really Surprised!

Great Film overall

Captivating movie !

The first must-see film of the year.

I really wanted to like this movie, being a huge Hendrix fan and looking at the cast. Its pretty obvious the director dropped the ball on this film. He had everything to make it great but it just came out confusing boring and just irrelevant. Only scene made any sense was when he moved to the UK and performed with Clapton. I was expecting this movie to be like the doors movie with Val Kilmer directed by Oliver Stone, but it didn't have any of the magic that film had even though the director had all the resources to make this film great except he couldn't get any Hendrix songs on the film. It felt like the director gave up on the film and I'm surprised Andre agreed to the script. I could tell he was trying his best to be like Hendrix but the directors script, interactions, background research and just the overall flow of the film was boring lacking substance. Something you wouldn't expect from a Jimi Hendrix film he is quite a "flashy" musician its hard to believe just how bad this film turned out. I'm not one to even write reviews on this site. But I just felt robbed at the end of the film. Ill give it a 4 just for Andre's portrait of jimi and his acting that's it. The director really lacked vision in this film. One more thing to see one of the actress's go on this site and actually say they made scenes up especially of violence with Jimi just makes it even more cringe worthy. No wonder he couldn't get Jimi's music approved made him look bad, Jimi was a gentle guy and filming assumptions during a biopic just isn't right. Whoever put the money up for this film should have got Gus Van Sant or Oliver Stone to direct it obviously there was a bad judgement call on the director or just lack of funds for this film.

Truly dreadful. It said on the DVD box "Benjamin is electrifying", what they meant was, Benjamin is shocking. Maybe not his fault, he's just out of his depth. Yes, he's black, but there the similarity ends. He sounds like Michael Jackson, not Jimi Hendrix and look at his hands! This is not the person to play the great man. The narrative is deeply flawed, as noted by other reviewers, including those who were there. Perhaps this film might work in 50 years time as a Sunday night costume drama of the 20th Century, but as a biopic it fails miserably, and is certainly not "one of the best biopics ever"as trumpeted in the promo material. Don't believe it, just leave it.

It's 1966. Jimi Hendrix (André Benjamin) plays in anonymity before his debut "Are You Experienced" in 1967. Kathy Etchingham (Hayley Atwell) is in love and pushes to get interest. Soon, various people support him and he goes to London.I don't think André Benjamin acted as much as he tries to take on the persona of Jimi Hendrix. There have been some backlash with the accuracy of the portrayal. I don't mind some dramatization if it actually leads to some drama except the plot (such as it is) meanders aimlessly. The drama comes with the introduction of Ida later in the second half but the violence seems to come out of nowhere. When the movie is "Based on a True Story", accuracy becomes secondary. Also the problems with the estate means his iconic music isn't in this movie. There is an interesting performance but not much else.

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.