from Hollywood-Elsewhere.com:
Full Version: Ray
| QUOTE |
| "September is way too early to declare an Academy Award winner," admits N.Y. Daily News critic-columnist Jack Matthews, "but the Oscar engraver would do well to remember the spelling of Taylor Hackford's star in the biographical drama Ray -- it's Jamie Foxx, with two Xs." Foxx, he says, was "the talk of the town over the first half of the [Toronto Film Festival]. He gives such a complete performance as the late Ray Charles that you almost immediately forget you're watching a performance by anyone other than Charles himself." |
Wasn't too keen on Foxx doing this until seeing Collateral ... now I'll probably check it out depending on my trusted reviewers.
I'm not sure what to expect of the film, since I'm not a big Taylor Hackford fan, but the trailer for Ray does make me want to see it just for Foxx.
I want to see this for the music, if nothing else. But based on the trailer, I also think Foxx will do a fine job as Ray Charles.
At the very least, he'll be able to play Ray's music on-screen.
Mark Steyn writes Ray Charles's obituary for the Atlantic Monthly:
Ray was 16 when he cut his first songs, on a friend's wire recorder, and he's already good at being himself. The trio's in conventional style for the late Forties, but the 16-year old voice is moaning the blues like a 60-year old.
By then, young Ray had gone through more in his brief life than most of us would want to bear in our three-score-and-ten. He was born in Albany, Georgia in 1930, the same year "Georgia On My Mind" was published. His father was gone, and his mother eventually moved her children across the state line to Florida. One day five-year old Ray was playing outside in the wash tub with his little brother, when the younger boy's clothes got waterlogged and he drowned. Instead of running inside immediately and getting his mom, Ray struggled to pull his brother out, and, by the time he realized he couldn't and went for help, it was too late. At seven, he went blind. At 14, his mother, barely 30 herself, died suddenly in her sleep. She had raised her children in poverty so extreme that, as Charles once told me, "even the blacks looked down on us. Going down the ladder, you had rich whites, poor blacks, then us. And there weren't nothing between us and the bottom."
On the other hand, even singing hillbilly with the Florida Players, the teenage Ray Charles already seemed liked a man who transcended the facts of his life. When he'd lost his sight, his mom sent him to the state school for the blind in St Augustine. It had a white section and a colored section, and even at the time Ray thought it "kinda weird" that white kids and colored kids who couldn't see which was which nevertheless had to be segregated on that basis. "Ain't that a bitch," he said.
You wonder what other segregations make less sense to those who can't see it. Almost as soon as he hit the big time, critics complained he'd sold out -- when he left Atlantic Records, when he got a string section, sang country, went Hollywood, did showtunes. But isn't a lot of that prejudice to do with the externals -- the orchestra's tuxedos, the Nashville cowboy get-ups, a suburban concert hall filled with middle-class white folks? If you can't see any of that, all you can hear, as Ray Charles heard growing up, is the music. "Take Artie Shaw," he said. "I didn't even know he was white."
Ray was 16 when he cut his first songs, on a friend's wire recorder, and he's already good at being himself. The trio's in conventional style for the late Forties, but the 16-year old voice is moaning the blues like a 60-year old.
By then, young Ray had gone through more in his brief life than most of us would want to bear in our three-score-and-ten. He was born in Albany, Georgia in 1930, the same year "Georgia On My Mind" was published. His father was gone, and his mother eventually moved her children across the state line to Florida. One day five-year old Ray was playing outside in the wash tub with his little brother, when the younger boy's clothes got waterlogged and he drowned. Instead of running inside immediately and getting his mom, Ray struggled to pull his brother out, and, by the time he realized he couldn't and went for help, it was too late. At seven, he went blind. At 14, his mother, barely 30 herself, died suddenly in her sleep. She had raised her children in poverty so extreme that, as Charles once told me, "even the blacks looked down on us. Going down the ladder, you had rich whites, poor blacks, then us. And there weren't nothing between us and the bottom."
On the other hand, even singing hillbilly with the Florida Players, the teenage Ray Charles already seemed liked a man who transcended the facts of his life. When he'd lost his sight, his mom sent him to the state school for the blind in St Augustine. It had a white section and a colored section, and even at the time Ray thought it "kinda weird" that white kids and colored kids who couldn't see which was which nevertheless had to be segregated on that basis. "Ain't that a bitch," he said.
You wonder what other segregations make less sense to those who can't see it. Almost as soon as he hit the big time, critics complained he'd sold out -- when he left Atlantic Records, when he got a string section, sang country, went Hollywood, did showtunes. But isn't a lot of that prejudice to do with the externals -- the orchestra's tuxedos, the Nashville cowboy get-ups, a suburban concert hall filled with middle-class white folks? If you can't see any of that, all you can hear, as Ray Charles heard growing up, is the music. "Take Artie Shaw," he said. "I didn't even know he was white."
So far, Ray is getting great critical reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.
Has anyone on the board seen it yet?
Has anyone on the board seen it yet?
This review will be posted at Looking Closer next week. It's by J. Robert Parks.
| QUOTE |
by J. Robert Parks Ray Charles, who died earlier this year at the age of 73, was certainly one of the most significant musical artists of the 20th century. Blind from the age of seven, he never let his disability get in the way of his startling talent. He left his Georgia home for the clubs of Seattle when he was still a teenager, progressing through local bands to touring the chitlin' circuit to headlining his own ensemble and playing around the world. Of course, if you know much about music, you probably already know this. The same will be true for the movie _Ray_, a film which doesn't try to tell us anything new about Charles but succeeds in reminding us of why he was so important. The movie, which stars Jamie Foxx, wisely doesn't try to cover all of Ray's life. Instead, it focuses on the 18 years from 1948-1966, from when he first went out on his own to his final battle with heroin addiction. There are the early years when he played the piano in another man's band and was taken advantage of by those around him. There are his first stints traveling around the country and his big break when he struck out on his own. There are his early days with Atlantic Records, where he made many of his landmark recordings. And there's his defection from Atlantic to ABC Records, which gave him a much greater financial freedom. Through all of these events, we see Charles relating to his co-musicians, his future wife, and his many mistresses, but the focus is always on Ray. There's been a lot of talk about Jamie Foxx's portrayal receiving an Oscar, but I don't see it. I'd argue his performance in Collateral is more award-worthy, as it reveals the real depths of his character. In Ray, Foxx does a fantastic _imitation_ of Charles, but when he actually has to act--a maudlin redemption scene, for example--he's not terribly convincing. To his credit, though, Foxx's lip-synching and piano playing are seamless, and his imitation never distracts us from the story. The real star of _Ray_, though, is the music. Director Taylor Hackford makes the wise choice to showcase as many of Charles's big numbers as possible. Furthermore, he doesn't just give us short clips of a verse and chorus, but often the entire song. The movie re-creates the recording session for "Mess Around," Ray's first big hit with Atlantic Records, revealing the joy of collaborative songwriting. The call-and-response number "What I'd Say" is exhilarating, and there's of course a lovely version of "Georgia On My Mind." One of the film's primary themes is Charles's exploration and combination of various musical genres: his scandalous (at the time) mixing of gospel and r&b early in his career and his daring foray into country music when he was at his peak. By showing full versions of many of these songs, the movie helps the audience make those connections and see Ray's development better than any written description could. We don't need a voice-over telling us how influential Charles was. We can hear it for ourselves. And while the movie follows a traditional narrative arc, this is no simple hagiography. It's honest about Ray's heroin addiction and also about how he treated the important people in his life. It's clear that he put his wife (played by the lovely and under-utilized Kerry Washington) through hell with his numerous infidelities and distance from their children, but he also abandoned others who were close to him, including his long-time personal assistant Jeff Brown (Clifton Powell). The movie neither glosses over those relationships nor tries to excuse the singer's behavior. The movie might end with a predictable standing ovation, but we're not asked to celebrate every part of Charles's life. The one part of the story that continually falls flat is the series of flashbacks to his childhood. Filmed in over-saturated color, these depictions of the death of Ray's brother (for which he felt responsible) and his subsequent blindness are obviously designed to pull on our heartstrings and lead to the film's syrupy climax. But the child actors simply aren't very good, and the scenes merely interrupt the movie's momentum. Still, those are easy to overlook, as are some of Hackford's other odd choices. All you have to do is close your eyes and listen to the music. three 1/2, out of five |
I agree with much of jrobert's review, though I liked Foxx's performance more than he did, I think. Foxx does indeed immerse himself so thoroughly into the character that it was not until a very, very, very late scene -- those who see it will know which scene I'm talking about -- that I was suddenly rudely reminded that, oh yeah, that's not actually Ray Charles on the screen, it's Jamie Foxx.
The acting is great, and the music is great ... but the film is not great, and I think this is partly because the film trundles out many of the sorts of things we see in music biopics all the time (drug problems, infidelities, etc.), and also partly because the filmmakers really didn't have a clue how to structure their story. The film is something like 2 hours and 40 minutes long (so it really does begin to feel like you're re-living 16 years of the man's life!), and the film keeps moving into those maudlin flashbacks at the most awkward moments, which, as jrobert says, just interrupts the film's momentum. And the ending, in particular, is really badly done -- the film doesn't END so much as just STOP at a certain point in the '60s, except that it THEN gives us a subtitle that begins "over the next 40 years..." and THEN it lurches ahead to a re-enactment of something that happened in 1979 (in which neither Foxx nor especially the actress playing Ray's wife seem all that much older) and THEN it gives us a glimpse of the real Ray later in life, shortly before he died.
What's also interesting is how the film makes the heroin addiction and the multiple mistresses so central to Ray's problems with his wife. The closing titles tell us that Ray kicked his heroin habit for good in the '60s, but they don't say anything about the infidelities ... and then, near the end of the end credits, there is a statement to the effect that Ray is survived by 12 children, I forget how many grandchildren, and 5 great-grandchildren. Um, well, okay, the film alerts us to the existence of two or three children by his wife and one child by a mistress, but, um, twelve, hmmm. Were all of these children sired prior to the end of the film, or were some of them sired afterwards?
The acting is great, and the music is great ... but the film is not great, and I think this is partly because the film trundles out many of the sorts of things we see in music biopics all the time (drug problems, infidelities, etc.), and also partly because the filmmakers really didn't have a clue how to structure their story. The film is something like 2 hours and 40 minutes long (so it really does begin to feel like you're re-living 16 years of the man's life!), and the film keeps moving into those maudlin flashbacks at the most awkward moments, which, as jrobert says, just interrupts the film's momentum. And the ending, in particular, is really badly done -- the film doesn't END so much as just STOP at a certain point in the '60s, except that it THEN gives us a subtitle that begins "over the next 40 years..." and THEN it lurches ahead to a re-enactment of something that happened in 1979 (in which neither Foxx nor especially the actress playing Ray's wife seem all that much older) and THEN it gives us a glimpse of the real Ray later in life, shortly before he died.
What's also interesting is how the film makes the heroin addiction and the multiple mistresses so central to Ray's problems with his wife. The closing titles tell us that Ray kicked his heroin habit for good in the '60s, but they don't say anything about the infidelities ... and then, near the end of the end credits, there is a statement to the effect that Ray is survived by 12 children, I forget how many grandchildren, and 5 great-grandchildren. Um, well, okay, the film alerts us to the existence of two or three children by his wife and one child by a mistress, but, um, twelve, hmmm. Were all of these children sired prior to the end of the film, or were some of them sired afterwards?
I'm giving it a B+.
Foxx ... just give him the Oscar now.
The rest of the cast is impressive as well. C.J. Sanders does a fine job as the young Ray Charles Robinson, and he's asked to shoulder some heavy scenes. Ray's mother, played by Sharon Warren, seems a bit idealized, but she too delivers in some big, dramatic moments.
Kerri Washington became the character who drew my sympathies the most; as Ray's wife, she does a wonderful job of avoiding any kind of shrill tone, so we end up on her side in every conflict between her and Ray, and that, I think, is the saving grace of the film. He's mistreating her, taking advantage of her, betraying her, and instead of giving him excuses, the film holds him responsible.
Sorta. The film holds him responsible for ONE illegitemate child, but in a film that gives the appearance of telling the WHOLE story (at 160+ minutes), I can't help but wonder what Charles' other ten children are thinking, watching this film with nary a mention of their existence (unless you count that nod in the end credits, which most people will miss because they've left the theatre).
Ray is one of those biopics that is so eager to tell the WHOLE story that only occasionally does it penetrate the surface of the famous chapters to reveal anything thoughtful or insightful about the man.
Some sequences are really wonderful... I was especially moved by a scene in which the young Ray, having only recently lost his sight, learns to get up and find his way around without his mother's help. Man, I teared up so badly I couldn't read my notes. The performance scenes are fantastic. I've always enjoyed Charles' music, but now, consider me a big fan. Hackford does a great job of capturing the contagious enthusiasm, toeing the line of chaos, at Charles' concerts. I'd never realized what a ROCK STAR this guy was.
Another of the highlights for me was seeing Warwick Davis... YES, WARWICK DAVIS... in a role where he actually gets to play an interesting character. And the legendary CURTIS ARMSTRONG... yes, that's right, the guy famous for saying, 'THIS IS PURE SNOW!!!!"... turns up as an agent for Atlantic Records.
But yeah, there are some scenes that really fall flat. When Hackford explains the origin of a particular chart-topping hit, referenced late in the film, it's so absurd that it doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. And at the end, Hackford seems uncomfortable with the raw, open wound of Charles' life, and so he tries cleaning it up with a gratuitous dream sequence that is more about sending us out of the theatre with a warm glow than it is about being honest to Charles' experience (unless Charles DID have a dream sequence like that.)
It's too long, it belabors the point of his struggle with drugs, and it presents the matter of his infidelities too lightly. The audience seemed to think it was pretty funny when he kept "messing around."
But it honors the music that he gave us. And for those who don't know his story (I didn't), it proves a compelling, worthwhile Cook's tour of the main points of Charles' life.
Foxx ... just give him the Oscar now.
The rest of the cast is impressive as well. C.J. Sanders does a fine job as the young Ray Charles Robinson, and he's asked to shoulder some heavy scenes. Ray's mother, played by Sharon Warren, seems a bit idealized, but she too delivers in some big, dramatic moments.
Kerri Washington became the character who drew my sympathies the most; as Ray's wife, she does a wonderful job of avoiding any kind of shrill tone, so we end up on her side in every conflict between her and Ray, and that, I think, is the saving grace of the film. He's mistreating her, taking advantage of her, betraying her, and instead of giving him excuses, the film holds him responsible.
Sorta. The film holds him responsible for ONE illegitemate child, but in a film that gives the appearance of telling the WHOLE story (at 160+ minutes), I can't help but wonder what Charles' other ten children are thinking, watching this film with nary a mention of their existence (unless you count that nod in the end credits, which most people will miss because they've left the theatre).
Ray is one of those biopics that is so eager to tell the WHOLE story that only occasionally does it penetrate the surface of the famous chapters to reveal anything thoughtful or insightful about the man.
Some sequences are really wonderful... I was especially moved by a scene in which the young Ray, having only recently lost his sight, learns to get up and find his way around without his mother's help. Man, I teared up so badly I couldn't read my notes. The performance scenes are fantastic. I've always enjoyed Charles' music, but now, consider me a big fan. Hackford does a great job of capturing the contagious enthusiasm, toeing the line of chaos, at Charles' concerts. I'd never realized what a ROCK STAR this guy was.
Another of the highlights for me was seeing Warwick Davis... YES, WARWICK DAVIS... in a role where he actually gets to play an interesting character. And the legendary CURTIS ARMSTRONG... yes, that's right, the guy famous for saying, 'THIS IS PURE SNOW!!!!"... turns up as an agent for Atlantic Records.
But yeah, there are some scenes that really fall flat. When Hackford explains the origin of a particular chart-topping hit, referenced late in the film, it's so absurd that it doesn't fit in with the rest of the film. And at the end, Hackford seems uncomfortable with the raw, open wound of Charles' life, and so he tries cleaning it up with a gratuitous dream sequence that is more about sending us out of the theatre with a warm glow than it is about being honest to Charles' experience (unless Charles DID have a dream sequence like that.)
It's too long, it belabors the point of his struggle with drugs, and it presents the matter of his infidelities too lightly. The audience seemed to think it was pretty funny when he kept "messing around."
But it honors the music that he gave us. And for those who don't know his story (I didn't), it proves a compelling, worthwhile Cook's tour of the main points of Charles' life.
I was listening to a film critic on the radio this morning and it looks like the Oscar buzz has begun. He says Jamie will win the Oscar this year.
I don't think that the film glorifies Charles' misbehaviors. But that's Movieguide has ruled, marking this film with a RED warning level as "EXCESSIVE."
That's quite debatable.
The movie makes plenty of room for us to the see the consequences of Charles using drugs. It NEVER glorifies them. Further, I don't see any reason to believe that the suggestion of police racism is an indulgence of the storyteller. Seems the Movieguide reviewer is intent on making sure the white cops are portrayed as entirely honorable and the black musician is portrayed as entirely guilty.
And? So? Seemed like a smart business move to me. He hadn't promised his manager he'd stick with him to the end. And his manager couldn't provide the deal that ABC/Paramount could. So in the end, even his former manager conceded that he was making a smart business move. This was, after all, a BUSINESS. I didn't get the sense he had made lifelong commitments to Atlantic.
Well, CHARLES attributes it to that, but I don't think the film does. I think the film makes Charles' exuses ring hollow and he looks weak and selfish.
On this, we are agreed.
The film DOES portray quite a few "warts," actually.
I do agree with this. The film really should have included that. This isn't The Return of the King where we can cut corners with the romance story. This film claims to be THE LIFE OF RAY CHARLES and as such, it shouldn't consolidate two wives into one.
Still, when it comes to historical inaccuracies, this film is no Beautiful Mind, which grossly smudged up the truth in order to provide a feel-good ending.
QUOTE
RAY refuses to indict the musician of doing much wrong. Even as he constantly cheats on his wife and disrespects the women with whom he cheats, Charles is presented as being burdened by them. The audience is supposed to laugh when he dishes out sharp retorts at women, even though he is the adulterer and even though he is the disloyal and dishonorable one. Charles acts in a pattern of disloyalty, not only with his wife but with his bandmates and business partners. Self-interest is clearly a larger priority to him than people.
The above are problems with Charles’s life, but the movie is at fault, too. It glorifies these loathsome behaviors.
The above are problems with Charles’s life, but the movie is at fault, too. It glorifies these loathsome behaviors.
That's quite debatable.
QUOTE
When Charles is arrested the first time, the movie quietly suggests that racism was a factor, as if any factor is important other than that Charles was indeed using the illegal drugs.
The movie makes plenty of room for us to the see the consequences of Charles using drugs. It NEVER glorifies them. Further, I don't see any reason to believe that the suggestion of police racism is an indulgence of the storyteller. Seems the Movieguide reviewer is intent on making sure the white cops are portrayed as entirely honorable and the black musician is portrayed as entirely guilty.
QUOTE
When Charles abandons his long-time tour manager, the movie suggests that it is because of Ray’s business savvy.
And? So? Seemed like a smart business move to me. He hadn't promised his manager he'd stick with him to the end. And his manager couldn't provide the deal that ABC/Paramount could. So in the end, even his former manager conceded that he was making a smart business move. This was, after all, a BUSINESS. I didn't get the sense he had made lifelong commitments to Atlantic.
QUOTE
When he cheats with his singers, it is attributed to his overwhelming artistic passion.
Well, CHARLES attributes it to that, but I don't think the film does. I think the film makes Charles' exuses ring hollow and he looks weak and selfish.
QUOTE
Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles is terrific. The women around him, including his mother, wife, and on-the-road girlfriend, put in similarly believable performances. It’s too bad that the script relies on so many clichés, like flashbacks of the mother telling Charles to make something of himself and neon marquees flying across the screen.
On this, we are agreed.
QUOTE
RAY has some ingredients for success but is too interested in glorifying its subject to tell an accurate story. If the story had been told truthfully, warts and all, it would probably have been more engaging.
The film DOES portray quite a few "warts," actually.
QUOTE
For instance, Ray Charles was married twice, whereas the movie combines them into one marriage, and had at least nine children, when the movie mentions only three of them. At best, RAY is a mixed success.
I do agree with this. The film really should have included that. This isn't The Return of the King where we can cut corners with the romance story. This film claims to be THE LIFE OF RAY CHARLES and as such, it shouldn't consolidate two wives into one.
Still, when it comes to historical inaccuracies, this film is no Beautiful Mind, which grossly smudged up the truth in order to provide a feel-good ending.
Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: The movie makes plenty of room for us to the see the consequences of Charles
: using drugs. It NEVER glorifies them.
No kidding. And not just the consequences of HIM using them, but of OTHERS following his example -- despite his warnings not to. People did what he did, and not what he said. And so, the film ends at the point in his life when he decided to kick the habit.
: Movieguide wrote:
: : When Charles abandons his long-time tour manager, the movie suggests that it
: : is because of Ray’s business savvy.
:
: And? So? Seemed like a smart business move to me. He hadn't promised his
: manager he'd stick with him to the end. And his manager couldn't provide the
: deal that ABC/Paramount could. So in the end, even his former manager
: conceded that he was making a smart business move. This was, after all, a
: BUSINESS. I didn't get the sense he had made lifelong commitments to Atlantic.
I don't think the Atlantic honcho was a "tour manager"; methinks Movieguide is referring to the guy that Ray ditches after he (or his new manager) has moved into a swanky office and begun to treat his bandmates like corporate slaves.
: : When he cheats with his singers, it is attributed to his overwhelming artistic
: : passion.
:
: Well, CHARLES attributes it to that, but I don't think the film does. I think the film
: makes Charles' exuses ring hollow and he looks weak and selfish.
It's certainly open to that reading. And I appreciate what you said about the wife not being "shrill". But I think this sort of thing has become such a standard trope of the music-biopic genre -- kind of like how SDG is not too miffed by James Bond's promiscuity because it's all part of the spy-genre shtick -- that audiences might not react all that much to it either way, here. Though I think they WILL pick up on the fact that Ray was equally disloyal to friends and lovers.
: : For instance, Ray Charles was married twice, whereas the movie combines
: : them into one marriage . . .
Oh, that IS interesting.
: : . . . and had at least nine children, when the movie mentions only three of them.
As I say above, if you stick around through the end credits, you will see that it mentions that Ray is survived by TWELVE children. So, in a sense, the movie DOES mention them ... but only in the fine print.
: The movie makes plenty of room for us to the see the consequences of Charles
: using drugs. It NEVER glorifies them.
No kidding. And not just the consequences of HIM using them, but of OTHERS following his example -- despite his warnings not to. People did what he did, and not what he said. And so, the film ends at the point in his life when he decided to kick the habit.
: Movieguide wrote:
: : When Charles abandons his long-time tour manager, the movie suggests that it
: : is because of Ray’s business savvy.
:
: And? So? Seemed like a smart business move to me. He hadn't promised his
: manager he'd stick with him to the end. And his manager couldn't provide the
: deal that ABC/Paramount could. So in the end, even his former manager
: conceded that he was making a smart business move. This was, after all, a
: BUSINESS. I didn't get the sense he had made lifelong commitments to Atlantic.
I don't think the Atlantic honcho was a "tour manager"; methinks Movieguide is referring to the guy that Ray ditches after he (or his new manager) has moved into a swanky office and begun to treat his bandmates like corporate slaves.
: : When he cheats with his singers, it is attributed to his overwhelming artistic
: : passion.
:
: Well, CHARLES attributes it to that, but I don't think the film does. I think the film
: makes Charles' exuses ring hollow and he looks weak and selfish.
It's certainly open to that reading. And I appreciate what you said about the wife not being "shrill". But I think this sort of thing has become such a standard trope of the music-biopic genre -- kind of like how SDG is not too miffed by James Bond's promiscuity because it's all part of the spy-genre shtick -- that audiences might not react all that much to it either way, here. Though I think they WILL pick up on the fact that Ray was equally disloyal to friends and lovers.
: : For instance, Ray Charles was married twice, whereas the movie combines
: : them into one marriage . . .
Oh, that IS interesting.
: : . . . and had at least nine children, when the movie mentions only three of them.
As I say above, if you stick around through the end credits, you will see that it mentions that Ray is survived by TWELVE children. So, in a sense, the movie DOES mention them ... but only in the fine print.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the good folks at MovieGuide were passing judgment on the LIFE of Ray Charles rather than the FILM about Ray Charles. Reading that review, they're insinuating that the film glorifies his heroin addiction. That makes me wonder if we were watching the same film!
Eeek!
Eeek!
Interesting. I just ran across this old thread that reminded me of Crusader Entertainment's involvement in RAY (their working title had been Unchain My Heart). Crusader is the company that produced Joshua, and a sister organization, Walden, is involved in the Chronicles of Narnia project, I am David, and the proposed Wilberforce movie.
I also just put together that Crusader has a new corporate identity: Bristol Bay Productions. (Both names are listed in the credits at IMDB.)
I also just put together that Crusader has a new corporate identity: Bristol Bay Productions. (Both names are listed in the credits at IMDB.)
My "Ray" reviews are now online at 3 Black Chicks and Hollywood Jesus
Tim Willson wrote:
: Interesting. I just ran across this old thread that reminded me of Crusader
: Entertainment's involvement in RAY . . .
Ah, right, I think I remember spotting Anschutz's name in the Ray credits ...
: Interesting. I just ran across this old thread that reminded me of Crusader
: Entertainment's involvement in RAY . . .
Ah, right, I think I remember spotting Anschutz's name in the Ray credits ...
I saw the film and I really enjoyed it. Everything everyone has said about Jamie's Foxx is indeed true, he becomes Ray Charles, and the musical performances are exhilarating! I thought the story was structured pretty well, and the flashbacks were well done, though I thought some of the symbolism regarding water was a little awkward.
I think the movie would have done well to add another ten or fiteen minutes and bring the story to a proper ending, in showing a glimpse of Ray's later years, instead of ending the story as abruptly as it did. All in all, though, the film was a worthy achievement, showing the innovation and joy Ray brought to popular music, while acknowledging his personal shortcomings.
I think the movie would have done well to add another ten or fiteen minutes and bring the story to a proper ending, in showing a glimpse of Ray's later years, instead of ending the story as abruptly as it did. All in all, though, the film was a worthy achievement, showing the innovation and joy Ray brought to popular music, while acknowledging his personal shortcomings.
Still in the box office top ten as of last weekend, and yet the DVD is coming out in 8 weeks....
QUOTE(IMDb)
Fast DVD Release Set for 'Ray'
Universal's Ray, starring Jamie Foxx and Regina King, remained in the box office top ten last weekend, making Universal's announcement that it plans to release a DVD version of the movie in just eight weeks all the more surprising. Trade reports indicated that the studio was rushing the release of the DVD to put it into the hands of Oscar voters. The single-disc DVD will carry a price tag of $29.98, while a two-disc special edition will sell for $44.98. The studio gave no indication what the special edition will contain.
Universal's Ray, starring Jamie Foxx and Regina King, remained in the box office top ten last weekend, making Universal's announcement that it plans to release a DVD version of the movie in just eight weeks all the more surprising. Trade reports indicated that the studio was rushing the release of the DVD to put it into the hands of Oscar voters. The single-disc DVD will carry a price tag of $29.98, while a two-disc special edition will sell for $44.98. The studio gave no indication what the special edition will contain.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.