Jimi: All Is by My Side

2014
Jimi: All Is by My Side
5.7| 1h58m| R| en| More Info
Released: 31 May 2014 Released
Producted By: Darko Entertainment
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A drama based on Jimi Hendrix's life as he left New York City for London, where his career took off.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Darko Entertainment

Trailers & Images

Reviews

TheFunkyBass The movie missed the opportunity to dive deeper into the music, but decided to focus on the uninteresting relationships.Editing is weird and slow paced. Dialogue was layered on top of alternate dialogue and 40% of the movie is complete silence (people smoking or just staring at things). The movie is 2 hours long, so there is a A LOT of fillers due to the dullness of the script.The script is bull. Hendrix was not aggressive and disrespectful to Kathy, and Clapton was not jealous of Hendrix.As much as I love Hendrix, this film was nothing but and insult to Jimi's legacy. Honestly, the only scene worth watching is the band's performance of Sgt. Pepper's.5/10
Lee Eisenberg 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.
joker-scar 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.
philpriestley 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.