Foxx? Excellent performance. Best Picture? How did it get nominated?

Rating: 6/10 (2 February 2005)

While the life of Ray Charles was an interesting subject for a film, and no doubt a good choice in this "era of biopics" (quite a bit more interesting than Spacey's Bobby Darin flick or Kline's "De-Lovely"), it felt more like an A&E biography at times than a true feature film.
Most of this owes to the fact that Jamie Foxx was PERFECT. So far my favorite for Best Actor, Foxx not only LOOKS exactly like Ray Charles, he moves and talks like him, too. It's almost like someone was rolling a camera on Ray Charles as he was going through all of this stuff. That is a truly commendable feat for Mr. Foxx.
SPOILER However, the picture on the whole lacks the power and drive, especially in the ending. Charles declines through a period of drugs and hears about his "on-the-road" lover's untimely death from a drug overdose, and subsequently decides to go into rehab. Hackford and his editors start "hacking" the rest of the story together with slow fades and short sequences. It changes the whole feel of the film and loses the immersive quality that it had up until that point. I particularly felt that the inter-titles were unnecessary in the last few cut sequences: "He continued to make hit records..." etc. A better choice would have been to transition through with images alone - Charles singing, record covers fading in and out, audiences cheering, etc. because that's the way the rest of the movie was made. Overall, the ending lacks the power and emotion required of an Academy Best Picture, and may have received overzealous praise for the film (aside from Foxx) due to Mr. Charles' death just before release.
Foxx is fantastic. Hackford puts together an "OK" film.
6/10