Originally Posted by DaKarMaul

now Dave, next time I expect you to get 1st place and no less h:

Originally Posted by 94civicEX

Link to said articles . Congrats

Originally Posted by "Ray" Movie Review

David Moll 11.15.04 JOUN_122

Movie Review - Ray FINAL DRAFT

In early 2003, director Taylor Hackford took Jamie Foxx in to meet with Ray Charles. At the time, Foxx was being considered for the lead role in "Ray". This meeting proved the acid test for Foxxs abilities as a classically trained pianist. Charles and Foxx sat down and dueled -literally- with their pianos side-by-side. After two hours of unthinkable pressure auditioning for the legend himself, Foxx earned a resounding endorsement from Charles with the words, "This is it! The kids got it!"

Truer words have never been spoken.

Like a finely polished diamond, "Ray" simply radiates beauty. It is a product of immense depth & soul, and its beauty lies in its honesty.

"Ray" goes far beyond the Ray Charles that you think you know. In a refreshingly transparent way, "Ray" carefully examines the stock from which Charles deeply emotional music is made. It delves into the many facets of Charles life as a virtuoso musician. Without sensationalizing, "Ray" shines as it reveals the darker side of Charles addiction to heroin and his well-known womanizing.

The film opens as Charles makes his move to Seattle, where he meets a teenage Quincy Jones - a crucial event in his life that cements a lasting friendship between the two artists. From the Rocking Chair nightclub, we see Charles progress as an artist and hear his inimitable style take root.

As Charles career blossoms, we see him return to his hometown of Augusta, Georgia in 1961. Confronted with the issue of playing to a segregated audience, Charles makes history by canceling his performance in protest of segregation. In the ensuing legal fallout, the state of Georgia passes a resolution barring Charles from performing.

Many years later, when he is interviewed about the issue of segregation, Charles said, "I knew being blind was suddenly an aid. I never learned to stop at the skin. If I looked at a man or a woman, I wanted to see inside. Being distracted by shading or coloring is stupid. It gets in the way. It's something I just can't see."

A refreshing distinction in "Ray" is the portrayal of the producers at Atlantic, Ahmet Ertegun and Jerry Wexler, who gave Charles the space to develop as an artist. In a genre that usually depicts music execs as bloodsuckers, Ertegun and Wexler are presented in a positive light that accurately reflects their significant contributions to Charles career.

Every artist has his vices. Charles had two: drugs and women. He only beat drugs, but "Ray" doesnt gloss over either issue. Charles wife, Della Bea, is shown as the embodiment of insight, acceptance and sadly, resignation. When one of Charles mistresses dies of a drug overdose, Bea asks him "What about her baby?"
"You knew?" says Charles. She knew everything.

Heroin proves to be a formidable adversary, both for Charles and those around him. But the story doesnt bog down in hyperbole and sensationalism - and is all the more engrossing as a result. It provides an honest reflection of the reality of drug addiction.

The film runs for 2 & ? hours and remains rich and dynamic throughout.
To cut a single scene would rob this film of its richness and honesty. As the film concludes, Charles is clearly set for his glory years, hallmarked by a brief scene set in 1979 where he receives an official apology from his home state of Georgia over the Augusta concert incident; "Georgia on My Mind" is subsequently adopted as their state song.

Taking 17 years from concept to release, "Ray" is a product of immense effort.

And in every frame that effort shows- beautifully.

Originally Posted by "Alexander" Movie Review

"Alexander", Oliver Stone's $150 million film covering the life of Alexander the Great, is an epic Hollywood creation, hewn in much the same way as "Ben Hur". It chronicles the life story of Alexander the Great, a man who was the first empire builder, a brilliant military tactician and the man who set the model from which the Roman Empire arose. But while other epic films remained powerful, emotive and vibrant, "Alexander" starts off formula-driven and grows progressively weaker. The plot goes stale within minutes, and the star cast cannot save this film.

The chief problem, even for history buffs like myself, is the ability to connect with the story. Despite the elaborate costumes and vivid cinematography, it is very difficult to get past the point of seeing Alexander played by Colin Farrell, as opposed to seeing Farrell as Alexander. Likewise, Hopkins seems uninspiring as the elder Ptolemy. Jolie is ravishing as Olympias, but her character is overwrought and ultimately hollow. Kilmer puts in a decent performance as King Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's father, but the trite dialogue still drags the plot down.

One shining moment stands out - the battle of Gargamela, Persia. A lone visual and emotive high point, it's made vividly clear how intimate and visceral death was. Shown in all its gore and fury, a lifetime of such warfare was utterly hellish. In this battle, Stone pays proper respect to Alexander as the brilliant military tactician he was, vanquishing the numerically superior Persian Army through precise timing and fearless exploitation of his enemies missteps.

But following this horrific battle scene, the whole experience goes numb and ephemeral. All of a sudden, we find ourselves with Alexander as he gazes out over the Himalayas, with little appreciation of the sacrifice and hardship wrought upon his soul and mind - never mind the men whom he led into battle. All we see is a distant, icy gaze and few more scars on Alexander's face.
The failure of this film is not in historical errors or in blatant editorializing; it is the failure to examine what really made Alexander push so far, or what made his relationships to Hephastion and Olympias so passionate and contentious respectively.
Even in the pivotal event of Alexander's life, the assassination of his father, the dialogue fails to explore the involvement of Olympias in any measurable depth. Rather than delve into this contradictory rift between mother and son, the story line glosses over the issue with a thin varnish of stereotypical tragedy and ephemeral emotions.

Two hours into the film, when it is clear (at last) to Alexander that he can no longer push east, one expects the film to gather pace and find resolution in his return to Babylon. Instead, "Alexander" limps along for another 56 minutes. In this time span, the story depicts three events:

1) Alexander has clearly pushed his luck too far, nearly dying in battle in India. As his forces retreat across modern-day Afghanistan, it is clear they are on the brink of mutiny.

2) Hephastion, Alexander's lover, is stricken with typhus contracted in India and falls terribly ill soon after their return to Babylon. In their final scene together, Alexander gazes out the window, and dreams about conquering Europe as the love of his life passes on.

3) Heartbroken over the loss of his lover, Alexander drinks himself into a fatal stupor, dying at age 33 with no rightful heir named. As a result, Alexander's great empire is thrown into chaos and ultimately ruin.

Being charitable, "Alexander" is a vivid, bold epic in the classic Hollywood mold. See it - if you can feel satisfied seeing this film in that regard, and you can accept that it doesn't explore the soul of Alexander nor rationalize his personality. But given the influence and gravitas of a director like Stone, you would reasonably expect the film to go further.

If Stone meant to leave his mark on this genre, he's broken no new ground in this film.

Originally Posted by DaKarMaul

now Dave, next time I expect you to get 1st place and no less h: