Ray

RAY is pretty much Hollywood Formula; The story of one man's struggle and ultimate success... There are the cursory scenes showing the struggles, temptations, successes, and heartbreaks. What makes this film stand out above it all are the performances, and the fact that Ray Charles Robinson's story, no matter how formulaic, is pretty dog-gone interesting...

Jamie Foxx turns in one of the great performances of this or any year - His Ray is real in the sense that we just accept the fact that yes, we are watching Ray Charles. This is acting at its best. Those in supporting roles are equally strong - conveying all the emotion, support, and deceit that surrounded a man like Ray. The key components of Ray's childhood, which affect his choices, both good and bad as a man, are told hauntingly through flashback; the Florida landscape looks beautiful through the eye of the lens (Great cinematography!)...The screenplay is faithful to RAY's life; there is no sugarcoating - RAY looks unflinchingly in the mirror and makes no apologies.

My wife was not eager to see Ray...When I pulled the DVD and fired it up in our room, her first reaction was "Ahh Gee...do we have to?" She got up and did a few things while the opening sequence rolled with credits. When she came back in, I put the film to the beginning and told her, "If you're not interested by the time the opening credits end, we'll turn it off." Needless to say, we both sat through the whole thing riveted, with my wife saying Ray is now one of her favorites... Strongly Recommended!

... and the crafters of this film got that. Ray Charles was a flawed human being. Actually the words "flawed" and "human" are redundant, so don't think I'm judging him. But his life was very complex. He had a drug problem. He had twelve children by ten women over a period of 35 years. He had repressed guilt over the accidental death of his baby brother. And he was one of the great musical geniuses of the 20th century. He started out crafting and performing great tunes in the early 50s before rock and roll arrived and managed to be relevant into the 1970s. When the likes of Bloodrock and DOA edged him out of the pop charts. No, seriously. But history has proven that his music has lasting appeal.

So this film stars Jamie Fox in the title role and manages to blend all aspects of the artist's life into a cohesive whole - his impoverished childhood, his life as a musician and artist, his private life at home, and his private life on the road. And Ray's delusional belief that he can keep all these different parts of his life from having a head on collision. It runs back and forth between all of these phases of Ray Charles' life and kept me very engaged. And the music will give you a soul attack.

Jamie Foxx disappears into the role of Charles and reflects the complexity of the man while still leaving him enough of an enigma to keep you intrigued. Kerry Washington plays Bea, the long suffering wife of Charles. When it comes to Charles' life on the road she doesn't know and she doesn't want to know. And yet she knows. Margie and Mary Ann are the two women who represent all of the other women in Charles' life. If you had the actual number of women involved with Charles in this bio pic, the traffic direction would become so complex that you wouldn't see the forest for the trees.

Special kudos to Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun, Atlantic record producer and friend of Ray. If not for this film I would only remember him from the 80s TV show Moonlighting where he was the (at least initially) unwilling object of oddball Agnes Depesto's affection.

This film has great acting, obviously a great soundtrack, is a shining example of expert editing, and has a screenplay that I just don't get bored of even though the story of Ray is pretty well known. Great for repeat viewing. Highly recommended.

Let's get the flaw out of the way right off the top - the movie should have been much longer. Ray Charles was a brilliant, fascinating man who lead a complex, challenging life. There was simply no way to fit it all - or even touch on it all - in a standard length movie. Given that, the makers of this film did an admirable (and I'm sure quite agonizing) job of putting together a film that could not tell the whole story yet managed to set forth a representative sampling of the man and his music. Ray Charles' strengths were evident throughout the film and his weaknesses were neither amplified nor sugar-coated. We could have wished for another hour chronicling his life after 1980, but I suppose that would have tended to turn the film into an homage and, while it would have also allowed for the resolution of several things that were left hanging at the end, on balance I guess it was better as presented.

Now for the big question: what are the criteria for an Oscar? The wife and I have seen untold numbers of films in our years, but we immediately agreed that we have never seen a performance the equal of Jamie Foxx's. The line between actor and character was not blurred - but rather it disappeared completely. We had heard much of the hype before seeing the movie, but this was uncanny. Foxx WAS Ray Charles. You didn't watch the movie with the feeling that you were watching Foxx do an outstanding job of portraying Ray Charles - you watched it somehow believing or understanding that you were watching Ray Charles himself. I don't know how else to put it. We were completely blown away. I'll admit that we haven't seen all of the other performances up for an Oscar this year, but that really doesn't matter. Foxx took this to a whole nuther level, one which we've never witnessed before and doubt that we may ever see again. I can think of no other movie I've ever seen in which a person playing a part so completely and convincingly became the person portrayed. We salute you, Mr. Foxx. We understand that the awarding of an Oscar has to do with much more than the performance, but whether or not you win, we want you to know that you have done something that is in a class absolutely by itself and you should take enormous pride in your unparalleled achievement.

P.S. The music was naturally great. I remarked to the wife that if there is one moment in the history of music to which I wish I could have been witness, it would have been the genesis (in Kansas City, wasn't it?) of What'd I Say? The film did a wonderful job with it - just wish I could've been there!

My wife wanted to see this movie and I grudgingly went along. I have never been a big fan of the biopic - believing that cinema is more exciting when it isn't structured in non-fiction. Beyond that, although I like Ray Charles' music just fine, I don't consider myself a fan of him or his music.

I expected to either suffer or coast through this movie.

I was wrong.

This is an engaging story told in a classic cinematic style. The realism is in the nuances - the tilt of a character's head after a dramatic moment or the look in their eyes while they sing. I literally discovered myself involved in this movie during the course of viewing it.

Jaime Foxx, of which much has been said, heads a cast of immaculate re-creators of not just a time, but an ERA, a LIFE that never really existed to those of us under forty. This movie sinks the audience into time without the gimmicks and grand sweeping panoramas of Titanic or other period pieces of that ilk. This movie doesn't present you with the 50's and 60's music scene, it takes you there.

This is a movie about Ray Charles, but your appreciate of it should not be limited to the story of his life. This is the kind of movie, like Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List, that does what a movie should do - bring you to another place, another time.

"Ray" is an excellent movie. Jamie Foxx did a great job in the film and earned the Oscar for Best Actor--and he was excellent in the title role. The film also showed many of the warts in Ray Charles' life--such as affairs and drug abuse. However, as a history teacher, I should also point out that the film ignores just how dark and nasty a person Ray Charles was. In the film you hear about one failed marriage and one illegitimate child, but the truth was much darker--with 12 children by 9 different mothers and an additional marriage. I really think talking about this would have improved the film--showing the extreme contrast between a man who could sing songs that delight millions and yet, personally, he was a mess. It also would have been more truthful--a serious problem with most bio-pics. But I should at least admire that the film is not a total white-wash but addresses some of his dark past. Plus, the production values were great and the film was never dull. Excellent and well worth seeing.

By the way, you'll probably notice that my review is pretty short considering how big a hit the film was and what an epic film it was. Well, there are already TONS of reviews for the movie and so I chose just to focus on the historical aspects of the film.