Went and saw this over the weekend. I would give it a C.

The best performance of course is Jamie Foxx, who keeps this picture together despite being surrounded by weaker performances. Almost everything and one in this movie seems like a stereotype.

Foxx does a great job of bringing Ray to life and it certainly peeked my intrest in the man and his music which is what most bio pic should aim for. From the way he talked to the way he figeted and moved about Foxx gives a great performance and deserves the Oscar talk. The music as well is great to listen too.

The only thing is they had way to many music numbers and not enough story telling/ character building, especially with the other characters. The supporting players, other than his two lovers get scant development. For instance why did Jeff cheat him given he had seemed loyal for so long? And what about his wife, did she really just sit there and live with the fact her husband was having affairs while on the road? I realize it's about Ray but the people around him help make who he became and a little more time in between the music numbers to fill out the story would have been nice. It was like every five minutes a music number would start and any story development quickly went to the wayside.

This could use a sticky. The DVD is coming out Tuesday, and it's up for best picture. Looking for Finding Neverland now...

B. Jamie Foxx gives an amazing performance as Ray Charles, something he will probably never top. The movie as a whole, though, wasn't too spectacular to me. It was good, but not deserving of Best Picture. It did deserve the technical nods it got.

Gonna see it tomorrow well, today, but i have to sleep first, hehe! lol

Ray is very well-done, but it's not an incredible movie.

However, "incredible" describes the performance of Jamie Foxx.

B+

Ray - A

Superb film-making. I loved it, probably the best biopic ive ever seen. The first half of the film was better than the latter, but overall it was a very well made production. Jamie Foxx was amazing, quite literally, he should win the Oscar for Best Actor without a doubt. It is also emotional, very sad to see some of the flashbacks of him as a boy, but very much needed in the film.

It is on-par with something like The Incredibles (in my list anyway) in terms of grade, however they are completely different films, i mean, they earn they're grades in different ways, Ray was superb film-making, a learning experience for me and an Oscar worthy film, whereas Incredibles was pure fun entertainment, but they gave me the same level of enjoyment.

Im pleased ive seen Ray. Im seeing Meet the Fockers tomorrow, so im buzzed to see that now....

I finally saw Ray, and I'll try to keep this short and sweet.

From the opening of the movie, I knew that no matter how bad the movie sucked, I would be enjoying the soundtrack, as 'What'd I Say' was one of the first 10 riffs that I ever learened how to play. I was not disappointed in that regard, and even though the movie had a few parts that seemed to plod along, and the jumping back in forth from his childhood to adulthood wasn't necessary at all, I did enjoy the film.

Jamie Foxx was BRILLIANT as the charismatic Ray Charles. The last bio pic that I saw, left me disappointed in the movie, although the performance of Will Smith as Ali was equally well done, but Ray delivers a much more interesting film than Ali did in it's execution, so that was much to my delight.

The drug addiction and the treatment of the black Charles in less equal times, was very well handled. I did have one issue, and it's not anything that needed to be included, it just should have. When doing a film about a musician that was prominent before the British Invasion, there really is no excuse for not acknowledging how that so dramatically effected the music industry. Ray Charles' career was hurt , just like Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, and anybody else who was big before the Beatles, but you'd never know it from Ray, as if they felt it would be best to pretend like his recording career went on fine.

The few issues that I had with it aside, Ray is an enjoyable film, and Foxx does Ray Charles almost better than Ray Charles did Ray Charles. B

I was very surprised with this film, I loved it. Jamie Foxx... If he wins the Oscar, I wouldn't mind at all, an amazing performance. (though I would prefer that Eastwood would win...) - A

It's a great film, but it's not a "Best Picture" winner, in my opinion. It's the best biopic, but that's not saying much, since I haven't seen very many. The story was good (of course), and the execution was even better. I enjoyed the first half more than the second, but the whole movie was great. Very sad at times, very fun at times. It had a bit of everything. Though the movie isn't "Best Picture" material, Jamie Foxx's performance was. I'd say the best performance in 2004, hands down. And, I know who I will be nominating for Best Actor for the KJMA's.

B+

Also, I'm going to watch it again, because the middle of the movie kept skippin'. Damn Blockbuster Online. ](*,)

Just saw Ray. Mah. I can't say it was, bad, and I think Foxx did an excellent job. It had ok cinematography and a great soundtrack. For some reason, I was just, bored.

B-


might change when I think about it more.

Very much agreed, only that I gave it a B. I think the movie will get better on repeat viewings, though.

See, I think it'll get worse. it had no content really. Big screen it was nice, good visuals, I could sing along with all the songs. But can I suggest that maybe it was a bit too biographic. It really doesn't transcend the literal story of his life. no insight into creative processes, no real exploration of music consumption and transcending cultural boundries, pretty predictable dialogue, and not much on the music business. Just a pretty simple biography. Spiced up visually and audio so fun one time in the theatres. I'm not sad I saw it, and don't think its a waste of ten bucks, it just doesn't really leave you with much to take away from it. Meh.

I'm glad you noticed it too Lecter.

I agree. The movie by itself was average (and that's proven by the lack of a Best Screenplay nomination at the Oscars). It was Jamie Foxx who lifted it above average. His performance was hands down the best I have seen in any 2004 movie. The song bits were very well made and incorporated into the movie, some even gave me goosebumps. The whole story overall wasn't too involving, though. I also thought that Sharon Warren did a great job as Ray's mother, the rest of the characters seriously lacked development, though. I haven't also seen anything exceptional in the direction of this movie that deserved a Best Director nomination. I also have no idea why it got a Best Editing nomination as editing seemed to be one of the film's weaker points. It was honestly too overlong at 150+ minutes.

Pretty lame movie. About 70% of the movie were music numbers. Jamie Foxx was good yeah, but not as good as DiCaprio. I found myself bored very often. C+

That was my biggest complaint about it. The film seemed to lag in too many places, and some quick editing cuts could have made a lot of difference in the pacing of the film. There were parts that really didn't need to be told. They didn't make any difference to the story, and cutting them would have made the film a lot tighter. I liked it, though, but I didn't love it or anything.

There is a director's cut of the movie by the way and that is 178 minuts long I don't think, I could have handled that.

The film is a great learning experience too, i never knew about Ray Charles until this movie, i never knew he was a womaniser, drug addict and so poorly treated. Great film, will definately be purchasing!!!!

Amazing biopic. Jamie Foxx is great, but some of the supporting players are overlooked, and it's a shame because they give fantastic performances (Regina King, Kerry Washington, and Sharon Warren). The movie had a really cool 50's/60's feel to it, and I loved the flashbacks and the way the story was told. In my opinion, it was much better than The Aviator, and is more deserving for Best Picture (although that's not to say The Aviator is bad, because it's not).

A

I was so bored, it seemed like the movie lasted 8 hours. Jamie Foxx is good, but the movie was terrible. It was just too boring. C

I really liked it.

Turned out to be better than I expected. Of course Jamie steals the show and completely disappears into the character of Ray Charles, but there's more going on in the movie that is worthy of praise. I didn't think the direction was as pedestrian as some were making it out to be and I enjoyed the flashy transitions that the film used to move from scene to scene. Bokeem Woodbine, Kerry Washington, Sharon Warren and Regina King were all excellent in their roles, proving that it's not just the Jamie Foxx show (though it's pretty close ). The movie got me emotional a few times, especially the moment where Ray asks his wife if his newly born son can see, and I welcomed the flashbacks and thought they were nicely integrated into the narrative. My biggest complaint would be the overabundance of musical performances that began to feel a little stale and sapped a little energy out of the film.

B+

I though i was going to be very bored, but im surprised at how good it is, i was never bored! Great performences by all the cast, not only Jamie Foxx.
My only complaint, yes it was too long, but still great movie!

A

Good movie, but not really worthy of a best picture nomination. Foxx was great of course, and so was the soundtrack. B+.

A

An incredible movie, one of my favorites from 2004. The performances, the music, the pace, everything was pitch perfect. I'd say it's almost under-rated. If I had any one complaint, it's that I think it didn't focus enough on the positive sides of Ray, it ends right after he finally gets off the drug, but that's nitpicky at best. Overall, extremely solid and emotionally moving.

I thought it was overrated but it was still good, I didn't think Jamie Foxx had the best performance of the movie but oh well.

7/10 (B)