Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

pdgrzybowski The film portraits Hendrix as domestic abuser while in real life supposedly beaten woman denies that and sues filmmakers. There are no evidence that Jimi battered a woman. Also filmmakers did not get permission form artist's family and couldn't use Jimi's music and this is just ridiculous. I really hope that John Ridley will have to pay loads of cash for slandering Hendrix and that he will be laugh at for inaccuracy of biopic and inability to put the right music into a movie.It is sad that performance of Andre 3000 was wasted like that. What a shame. Paying for that movie in any shape or form will mean that basically you gave cash to guy who offended memory of Jimi Hendrix. Please don't do that!

SnoopyStyle 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.

grantss Had heaps of potential but squanders most of it.The story of Jimi Hendrix's rise to fame, from playing in other people's bands in the US in 1966 to making a name for himself in London in 1966/7. Stops just short of his famous Monterey Pop Festival performance.Interesting from an historical and biographical perspective and had a lot of potential in that regard. However, much of this is wasted through silly, pointless sub-plots and lame, pretentious directing and editing. Instead of just telling the story, writer-director John Ridley throws in random cuts and scenes that go nowhere and add nothing to the movie.All this unnecessary stuff ruins not only the focus of the movie, but also the pacing. The movie starts stutteringly enough but at a point seems to get into a groove. At this point you think it is about to get better, but soon you have one of the random distractions, wrecking the flow. And so it goes for the entire movie. As soon as you have a meaty, interesting passage of play it is derailed by something frivolous. Makes it incredibly difficult to get into the movie, and is very frustrating.On the upside, the performances are pretty good. Andrew Benjamin (Andre 3000) does a good job as Hendrix, capturing his mannerisms, speech and general outlook quite well. Good support from Hayley Atwell as his psycho girlfriend and Imogen Poots as Linda Keith.

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.