"Ray" not so G-ray-te

I saw Ray this past weekend and Jamie Foxx is a force. The movie, however, falls much shorter. Yes, Ray Charles had a hard life. Yes, Ray Charles was an asshole to his family and everyone around him. Yes, Ray Charles had a nasty drug habit. And yes, Ray Charles finds redemption himself at the end. Predictable, predictable, predictable to the end. That's really how most movies are -- however it's the way the story is told that makes the difference between making the Oscar reel and the Razzie reel.

Make no mistake, Jamie Foxx is Ray Charles. He is the embodiment of the tortured entertainer and there are times during the movie when you forget you're watching Foxx as Charles and feel like you're watching Charles himself. Let that be the shining light that blinds you to the mediocrity of Taylor Hackford and James White's simplistic script and story. It seems people need reminding that the project was originally meant to go direct to television until the death of the man himself thrust "Ray" into the spotlight.

Why make a huge deal of Ray's "re-addmitance" to Georgia at the end of the film, while not playing up his distaste for the Jim Crowe south more during the body of the movie? Save for one scene in Georgia (when he refuses to perform) and a conversation with Quincy Jones, an uneducated viewer wouldn't even know he had problems with the state. Why, also, make it seem that his drug problems seemingly went away with just one visit to rehab? He essentially sleeps it off (albeit with a somewhat ridiculous scene in which a sight-ful Charles talks with his dead mother and dead younger brother).

Sometimes reviewers and members of the Academy get swept up in the good vibes that a movie emits, and gloss over some glaring mediocre qualities -- this certainly wasn't the first, nor will it be the last time.

Potpourri

It's been a while, so I thought I'd just spin off whatever's on my mind:

• Censoship run amok
  

It's been pretty disgusting lately. I think The Onion summed it up perfectly last week with it's headline, " U.S. Children Still Traumatized One Year After Seeing Partially Exposed Breast On TV". In the last month, we've seen censorship episodes from PBS, Ford Motor Company for a Superbowl Commercial, and even FOX's "The Family Guy". The most amazing thing about the Family Guy issue is that the episode in question (where we see an ANIMATED rear end) was broadcast years ago and was not censored then. Reading the plot of the Ford ad too -- it doesn't sound like that exciting or likeable a commerical anyway. Thank God we have a ton of Levitra and Viagra ads, as well as 60 regulation minutes of violence to look forward to this Sunday. "Why did Rodney Harrison hit Freddie Mitchell so hard, daddy?" "Why does daddy take medicine for his thingie, mommy?"

• Superbowl non-hype

This Sunday's game should be pretty exciting. Will it ever be here? Two weeks between conference championship games and the title game is just too much. If Terrell Owens opens up his mouth one more time, I will light myself on fire. The only people I wish ill-will upon in my life are Jason Biggs, Ashton Kutcher, Mo Rocca and Michael Ian Black, but TO is about to join the list. In fact, he deserves to have his career ended on Sunday by some unfortunate Rodney Harrison hit. The one person who seems to have his head on his shoulders about the whole thing is TO's doctor who is advising him NOT to play on Sunday (though I'm sure the insurance company behind TO's contract is also hoping he sits). When it comes down to God and medical science, I'm going to go with science 99.999% of the time.

• Oscar duds

I haven't seen all the films nominated in the major categories, but from what I have seen, nothing is Oscar-worthy. Sideways was a very good, enjoyable movie, but not a best picture. Same for the Aviator. Ray's coming in Netflix next week and I'll try to catch Million Dollar Baby in the theater sometime soon. Finding Neverland? Blip on the radar -- I doubt it could be that good. I'm disappointed that The Passion of The Christ didn't make it on the list and was snubbed in many of the categories. A stunning victory for liberal hollywood. Overall, 2004 was a pretty crappy year in the theathers.

• I love TV

Tony Almeda back on 24, lesbians on the OC, a full season order of Lost, Season 3 of the Apprentice more interesting than Season 2, Carnivale in full swing, Deadwood and The Shield both starting up again in March. You can find me on the couch.

• R.I.P. Star Trek

For the past 18 years, there has been at least one Star Trek series on television, starting with Star Trek: The Next Generation and ending this May with the series finale of the now-cancelled Star Trek: Enterprise. I am an unabashed Trek fan, and from 1987 to about 1999, every Saturday at 7pm was reserved for an episode of Star Trek in some incarnation. After '99, I guess I just lost interest. At it's absolute best, Star Trek was about the human exploration of both the extra-terrestrial galaxy and of humanity itself. It was exciting, thought-provoking and just plain fun to watch. Sadly, it didn't last and Star Trek turned into the NHL of dramatic programming -- overextended, dilluted, and just plain boring for its fanbase. Don't even get me started on the movies. Take a poll of people who call themselves Star Trek fans and I'm sure you'd find a number similar to the 77% of hockey fans who don't care about the impending cancellation of the 2004-05 hockey season and possibly more.

• Bond, ____ as James Bond

So the new James Bond film has a title and a director, but not an actor to actually play James Bond. The new film is going to be called Casino Royale after the first novel in the James Bond series, written by Ian Flemming in 1953. A movie adaptation of this title was already make before, in 1967 as a spoof film starring Peter Sellers, Woody Allen and David Niven to name a few. It was pretty damn awful. The plot of Casino Royale the novel is pretty simple (James Bond goes undercover as a championship card player in order to investigate a Russian Spy who uses his winnings to fund his organization and is a pretty enjoyable thriller-type novel. It would be interesting to see how this gets adapted into a modern-day Bond film. Lately it feels the movies have been uninspired and you would have to go back to the films of the 60s and 70s to find a director who translated the excitment from a book's pages to the screen. Martin Campbell is set to direct this time (he also directed the first Brosnan-Bond, Goldeneye, and The Mask of Zorro). He seems like he's decent, but not the kind of person "to get the James Bond franchise back on track" as the producers and critics have both been saying. Quentin Tarantino was rumored to have wanted to direct a Bond-film. That would have been cool, especially if he could have avoided profiling to his usual audience of ADD-inflicted viewers. I would have chosen Guy Ritchie.

So that's all I have for ramblings. February is upon us and it sucks. I'm officially tired of winter, which is something I never thought I'd say.