Last week, about this time, I had alluded to the fact that, the last time my wife and I went to rent movies, we rented 4 films (of which, I watched 3). Since I've already reviewed Sideways, an activity that placed me in poor favor with at least one reader, I figured I'd give another one of the movies which we rented "the treatment," as it were, and see what else could be stirred up...Ready? I know you are. Here we go...
Today's review selection is the (critically acclaimed) Ray (2004) featuring Jamie Foxx

I'm often asked whether it's working as an oldies radio disc jockey that led me to love old music, or if it's my love for old music that led me to be an oldies disc jockey. The fact is, I've been enamored with the music of the 1950s for most of my life, I just ended up "lucking out" when it came to being hired by an oldies station...Anyhow, one of the artists that I've been a huge fan of for a long time is the late Ray Charles. Ironically enough, though, it's Ray Charles whom I probably knew the least about. Where was he from, how did he come to be a performer, etc. The fact that I knew so little about the man's life motivated me to want to see the movie Ray from the moment that it was released. Typical for me, though, I waited until it was released on DVD.

eh. Better late than never...

Since I didn't really know much about him, I had kind of an idealistic image of Ray Charles built up in my mind, somewhat of a kind person with a big heart who overcame not only his blindness, but the ugly obstacle of racism, to ultimately become a huge success. I expected THAT kind of Ray Charles to be portrayed in the film Ray.

Boy, was I wrong.

There is no question as to the fact that Ray Charles was a genius. His musical and vocal talent are legendary and his body of work stands as one of the most impressive, and diverse, of any artist, living or dead. That said, Ray Charles the man was pretty much an "asshole." It's true that Ray himself was the subject of ridicule and discrimination all throughout his life, especially while he was growing up in the south, but if we are to believe the portrayal of him in this movie, a portrayal which apparently received the blessing of Ray Charles himself prior to his death, Ol' Ray gave out abuse just as good as he got it. In Ray, Ray Charles is shown as a remorseless drug addict and womanizer who simply used people up and spat them out. It was Ray's way or the highway and once he became a successful commodity in the music industry, he played that card to his every advantage, even to the point of alienating his family and wrecking the lives of some of the people around him. The portrayal of Ray Charles in the movie made him so completely unlikeable that I felt compelled to seek out information that would tell me whether or not the movie had been accurate in it's portrayal of Ray Charles. In certain areas, the events were quite dramatized, but this was to be expected. After all, Ray is a movie, some creative license is going to be taken when putting together a feature film. One of the things that the movie suggests is that, following his stint in rehab (which occured after numerous heroin-related arrests), Ray Charles was totally reformed, a changed man who was off drugs, at peace with the world and easy to work with. This, apparently, is quite far from the truth. According to some sources which I found, including Ray's biographer, Ray's wife ultimately left him due to his abuse and indiscretions. In addition to that, even though he no longer abused heroin, Ray stayed high for the rest of his days courtesy of gin and marijuana. He was just as unapologetic about his drinking and smoking as he had been about shooting up, saying that it "never got in the way of his work."

Perhaps not, but his personal life surely suffered because of it...

Now, with all of that said, the movie Ray was truly spectacular. I've read reviews from people who say that this movie was nothing more than a "period piece," which is an interesting way to sum things up. Stupid, but interesting...Granted, as "period pieces" go, Ray is easily one of the best that I've ever seen, but the movie is significantly more than just that. The work done on the sets are some of the best I've seen in a long while. In addition to that, the characters in the film were exceptionally well cast, to the point that, after watching Ray, you kind of feel as if you were there, physically witnessing the shenanigans and "goings on," as opposed to merely watching them on a screen. Now, I know that I'll just be beating a dead horse here, but Jamie Foxx's performance as Ray Charles is easily one of the best bits of acting I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing. Foxx didn't merely portray Ray Charles, he BECAME Ray Charles. It was, in fact, so well executed that there were many times during the film in which my brain ceased to separate reality and film fantasy. This damn movie pulls you in and takes you on an emotional roller coaster ride for 2 and a half hours. It leaves you a bit shaken and kind of sad, mostly because you end up caring about the characters as if they were your own family, no matter how mad they made you. I think that's kind of a hallmark of a well made drama, you believe it to be real. You feel it. It seems as if you lived it, at least for a little while...This movie does that and does it well.

For the movie Ray, I present an A-. It could've earned a higher grade, but I'd just be lying to myself. I could've easily done without the corny flashbacks and hallucinations regarding his brother's drowning, the "absolution" which comes in the scene where Ray is talking to his long dead mother in a dream/vision/hallucination/manic episode AND he can see. In addition, the way the film ended was so abrupt, yet so tidy, that it made me wonder if the filmmakers actually made a 5 or 6 hour movie and then realized "shit, we'd better cut this down a bit," kind of like the Back to the Future sequels...Regardless, I may now have a lower opinion of the man after watching Ray, but my opinion of the film is high. Ray is awesome, if you haven't seen it yet, you must.

Labels: cinematic chatter, misguided rantings

When I was younger, I used to see a whole Hell of a lot of movies. Seriously, when my sister and I were growing up, my dad was the manager of the Cinema 70 here in town, which gave us access to (literally) a metric assload of movies over the course of however many years it was. After retiring from Westland Theatres, my dad became a pro golfer, which meant that, while we could no longer see free movies, we COULD play "golf" for free. Now, I'm better at watching movies than I am at playing golf, but free is free, right? Damn right...The golf thing stuck around for a while and, at one point, dad ran a restaurant. Guess what? We ate for free...See a theme developing here?

I'm a cheap frickin' bastard...I don't like to pay for things...

As such, I just haven't seen near the amount of movies that I've wanted to in the past 10 years (or so) MOSTLY due to my being a total cheapass quite frugal. Only recently did my wife and I acquire a membership at Hollywood Video and begin to once again view feature films on a (sort of) regular basis. Case in point, last week, we rented 4 films. 4 WHOLE FILMS! It's almost mindblowing, I know...I shall now review 1 of the aforementioned 4 films for you, not because I think that you would want to hear my thoughts on it, but mostly because it fills space on this blog and also because I REALLY LIKE the little "clicky" noises that my keyboard makes while I type...The clicking...It entrances me...

Anyhow...ON WITH THE REVIEWING!

the first film that I watched out of the four was this:

Sideways (2004)
So, as is normal for me, I had waffled back and forth about wanting to see this film. The commercials that I had seen for it kind of made it look funny, but kind of didn't. When I read (somewhere, probably on the DVD box) that it was "the best American comedy of the year," or some such bullshit, I figured that I could at least give it a whack. So's I did...

In retrospect, it would have been better to "give it a whack" with a large stick and send it to bed without supper. This movie is, at best, a redheaded sstepchild. I might even go so far as to call it "one of the worst films that I have ever witnessed." Sideways is so bad that I actually had to QUIT WATCHING because of it's eminent lameness. I decided to come back to it a couple days later after I had cooled down, so to speak, but (to my dismay) the last half was just as crappy as the first, especially since I kept expecting (after all of that jibber-jabber about it being a frickin' COMEDY) that it would get "funny" at some point. Sadly, the only truly humorous scene is when Jack, the self-absorbed actor character (played by Thomas Haden Church), has the living piss beaten out of him by Stephanie (played lovingly by Sandra Oh). That's it, kids...A guy gets the snot beaten out of him in a parking lot, there's some wine, some golf, some other crap, some other stuff and that's the movie...

Ok, fine. It's not as simple as THAT, but it's pretty damn simple (and not in a good way). The movie REALLY centers around the all-too-predictable neurosis of the recently divorced, hating life, struggling writer trapped in the body of a middle school teacher, I drink too Goddamned much pinot "Miles" character played by that Giamatti bastard. The fact that this wanker enjoys his (prized) '61 Chevaut Blanc (or whatever, I don't drink frickin' wine) near the end of the movie alone in a fast food joint instead of having the sack to drive up to "wherever the Hell in California" and share this piece of bottled heaven with the chick that he's obsessed with speaks to the fact that this movie is neither "ironic" or "witty" or (dare I say) "intelligent," but it just plain "sucks ass." I warn you now, if you watch Sideways, you WILL NOT be able to have those 123 precious minutes of your life back. They will, in fact, be dashed in front of you and then stomped on repeatedly as this slow chunk of shit plods along, never really delivering anything but heartbreak and reminding you that that you just totally wasted the few bucks that you spent on it...

Sideways grade: D- (Avoid it if you can).

Labels: cinematic chatter, lame stories, misguided rantings

On Saturday, before damn near all of Colorado's front range was shut down due to a blizzard, I (along with my wife, my sister, Collin, Collin's son, Collin's sister, Justin C. and Justin's wife) drove up to Denver to see this:


it was...ok...Here's a quick synopsis of the features:
Bunnies
This was the very quick opening/title sequence for the show. A shame, because I enjoyed the style very much. I'd like to see a full short of the Bunnies. Grade: B+

Guard Dog
Bill Plympton, whom I once found very funny, is finally back in that category. Guard Dog is ironic, enjoyable and (as per usual for a Plymptoon) very well drawn. I think this is the first Plymptoon I've laughed at since...like...1992. Grade: A-

F.E.D.S.
Concept: rip-off of Aardman's Creature Comforts. Animation style: fluid and strange. Hard to watch, really. Collin and Justin used the term "Rotoscope" when talking about this one afterward. I'll just call a spade a spade. term: Crap. Grade: D

Pan With Us
You know what? One of the easiest traps to fall into when doing animation is to get "married to the technique," so to speak, and forget to actually make what you're doing watchable. The technique used for Pan With Us was remarkable. I applaud the patience and planning that must've gone into making this completely lousy short film. Oh, yeah...The film itself? I hated it. Everything about this film, beyond the astonishing animation technique, makes it a giant stinking pile of dog crap. Grade: D-

Ward 13
Them wacky Australians! They have a knack for making very dark claymation films. This one is no exception. What I disliked about this particular film would be the textures of the characters. The action scenes, though, were very well animated and the audio for this film was quite well executed. My wife liked it. Grade: A-

Hello
This one wasn't bad. You pretty much have a grasp of the characters and the world they live in right away and the goal of the main character is pretty clear. The style of animation fit the story and the audio track was really well done. Everyone in our group loved this one, except for me. I merely "liked" it. Grade: B+

Rock Fish
Is 3-D computer animation really that amazing anymore? I mean, everyone's doin' it, right? That said, I'm still slightly impressed at the level of spatial realism that can be attained through this medium every time I see it used. I could've done without a number of aspects of THIS film, though, especially the "fish hunter's" little "sidekick" thing. Good action, though and good animation. Grade: B-

Fallen Art
More with the 3-D computer animation. This one, though, has more "cartoonishly stylized" characters and a very dark and evil side to it. In fact, it was so good, I was completely transfixed by this short film. I don't want to give away much, but if you get a chance to watch it, you really should. I'm going looking for a copy of the "Asphalt Tango" as soon as I finish this entry. Grade: A+

Fireworks
Just a real quick self-promotion ad for PES, basically. Still, PES is pretty God Damned brilliant. Grade: B

The Man With No Shadow
Wow, was this one hard to watch. Not because it was lame, or poorly drawn, but it's that damn Frenchy oil paint animation (you may have seen the ads for United Airlines in the 80s and early 90s done in the same style) where EVERY SCENE constantly moves and morphs into the next. The story is about a guy who sells his shadow to the devil for fun and profit and is then ostracized because (surprise) he has no shadow. Interesting technique, except for how it'd give most anyone a seizure. Grade: B-

When The Day Breaks
Canadian animation that presents a world in which we are all animals! ANIMALS! It's actually a very well-done piece, with a very well executed audio track. I did not dislike this one. Of course, references to hockey in the film didn't hurt it's chances, but overall I think that it was quite well done. Grade: A-

The Meaning of Life
This, supposedly, was Don Hertzfeldt's masterwork which he's been spending all his time completing. Seems to me that ol' Don forgot to write a script before starting, or something. See, I like Don's other stuff (Rejected, Billy's Balloon, etc.) but this particular short film fell into the same trap as Pan With Us in the sense that, because Don does everything by hand without the assistance of a computer, he seemed to become totally transfixed with the fact that, even though it was pointless and boring, IT WAS ALL DONE BY HAND! Well, whoop-de-shit. Unfortunately, appreciation of hard work and patience only goes so far. Don failed miserably in the sense that The Meaning of Life is completely and totally boring. I was so disappointed in it, it damn near ruined my day. Grade: F.

Overall Animation Show 2005 grade: C-. Last year's was better. Hopefully next year will be better as well.

Labels: cinematic chatter, get outta town, misguided rantings

Labels: audio, cinematic chatter, get outta town, I eat food, lame stories