User Reviews

The year 2004 was the year of the biopic with no less than four pictures tackling real events, real people, with varying degrees of critical praise. Of the four pictures to make it to the race to the Oscars in early 2005 (KINSEY, THE AVIATOR, HOTEL RWANDA, and, RAY), RAY became the big winner of the night as the acting award went to Jamie Foxx for his portrayal of R & B genius Ray Charles.

And it was well-deserved despite that Leonardo diCaprio came close and Liam Neeson wasn't even nominated. What made Foxx the winner was that the other two were playing relatively obscure eccentrics, Ray Charles was still making music right up until his death in 2004 and by then there wasn't a soul who didn't know at least one song that Charles' had penned. It did help that Jamie Foxx rose well above the movie -- itself as a whole somewhat weak and often looking like it wouldn't be out of place as a TV biopic -- and his portrayal is detailed as it's ferocious. He has the delicate assignment which is to embody a person down to nuances, and once the crisis of Ray's addiction to heroin hits a head, Foxx pulls out all the stops and it isn't hard to imagine the real Ray actually going through such a painful ordeal.

The low point of the film is how it spends a little too much time in detailing Ray's relationship with women. Like THE AVIATOR, Taylor Hackford wishes to establish that Ray had this turbulent life, a product of his own demons and his entry into success at a time when being black and successful brought a huge amount of baggage. Of the women, the only one to succeed bringing real life is Sharen Warren as Ray's mother. Hers is a difficult role since she is alone on screen with the child actor playing young Ray but her facial and body language is gut-wrenching, especially at the moment she must relinquish her maternity to have Ray find his way around the house. Such intensity of emotion, to stand there and watch your blind son crawl across a room and having to force him to have this rude awakening into independence. A beautiful performance, and one which should have been acknowledged.

A fantastic counterpoint to RAY is the featured music. Anyone who knows R & B will enjoy the early recordings of Ray's radio hits as much as his later ones which would bring him to the forefront of popular music, and Jamie Foxx virtually steals the show as he performs the songs as Ray. That alone will live on even when the movie in itself is little more than a stiff biopic. I would have, though, loved it if they would have used his last Adult Contemporary hit from 1993, "Sing my Song for You" in the closing credits. After all, it is Ray Charles, a performer who had a fierce dedication to his art.

Jamie Foxx does a fine job of impersonating the famous blues/soul/country singer Ray Charles. To the film's credit, it shows both the good and the bad regarding Charles' character and the choices he made, both personally and professionally.

This is a slick-looking film that provides you with a rich feel of the periods in which the story takes place. Not only does it look good, it sounds good. I only wish there was more music in here. When it's inserted, it's fabulous but there isn't enough of it.

Assuming, at least for review purposes, that the story was true, I was impressed and disappointed with Charles, meaning the story left some memorable impressions since I'm writing this 16 months after viewing it. Main impressions include:

GOOD - Re-living Ray's immense talent and his foresight to step out and take chances musically, such as going "country" for awhile. The man had supreme confidence in himself but didn't come across as arrogant about it. Also memorable was showing him beating his heroin addiction - with no help! That's just amazing.

BAD - I also remember through this film how easily hooked Ray got in the first place and disappointed he was so unfaithful to his wife. A really sad comment was that his wife was more upset with him for missing his kid's Little League games than she was for all the cheating he was doing on her, even fathering a child with a member of his singing group.

The only negative I had with the filmmakers was the overemphasis of his problems being blamed on one early childhood event, the accidental death of his brother. That tragedy was used as cop-out for all Ray's misdoings as an adult, which is another example of a culture in which people refuse to take responsibility for their actions.

Note: There is an extended version with the DVD but word has it that it is so poorly edited that it's not worth watching, so stick with the "theatrical version."

By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.

The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.

Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.

In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.

3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music.