Hendrix

Really torn between the positive and negative aspects of 'Hendrix'. There was very little attempt at trying even remotely to look like Wood Harris could play guitar. At least they had him playing left handed on a right handed Stratocaster. Obviously very low budget, and not Jimi Hendrix's original recordings. That being said, the covers were better than most I've heard (I'm trying to find out who played guitar on the covers) and Harris at times seems to channel Jimi quite well. The rest of the cast was uninspiring, and Billy Zane's glued on mustache was laughable. I made it to the end so I have to give a minimum 5 stars

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.

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.

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.

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.