Ray* (2004)

When I watched this film with my wife, it was the first biopic I watched in over a year (no, Magic Mike doesn’t count) and the first good biopic I had seen in almost two years. Watching Ray reminded me that biopics can be more than just Oscar bait. The filmmakers certainly sugarcoat Ray Charles’s life toward the end of the film but they do not shy away from dragging us through the mud and muck that Charles endured. Disability, racism, womanizing, and addiction haunted Ray Charles through much of his life but his ability to overcome most of his personal demons is every bit as inspiring as the talent he possessed.

The film starts out when Ray Charles is a young boy growing up on a sharecropping plantation. As if growing up in poverty and watching his brother drown in freak accident weren’t enough, Ray started losing his sight at just seven years old. Determined to prevent her son from accepting a life of helplessness, Ray’s mother forces him to adapt to his new world and trains him to listen and feel his way around a space. Upon discovering a knack for the piano, Ray surprises many on his way to the top of the music business. Blindness may not hold him back but other demons haunt him every step of the way.

Like most biopics, Ray is almost always focused exclusively on its titular character. We learn and see very little that does not take place within the immediate vicinity of Ray Charles. It’s a limiting perspective but also a necessary one when a film tries to cover as much time as Ray does. What the film lacks in introspection from its supporting cast is made up for in Jamie Foxx’s performance.

One of the biggest gripes against biopics comes when the lead actor or actress doesn’t look enough like the film’s subject. It can be even more trouble for musical biopics when characters cannot bring the stage presence or signing ability of the film’s subject. Neither is the case here, as Jamie Foxx looks, moves, sings, and howls like the late Ray Charles. Foxx benefits by having half of his face covered by Ray’s signature dark sunglasses most of the time but looking the part is only part of making a biopic work. Foxx is believable and infuses his character with humanity, both the good and bad parts.

If you know little about Ray Charles’s life beyond his music, this movie will probably leave you thinking a little less of him. Yes, it shows how Charles overcame a number of obstacles in his life but it also shows his stubborn unwillingness to give up a few too. This is not the squeaky-clean, Diet Pepsi-hawking Ray Charles you know from TV but biopics are all about showing a little dirt and a few rough edges. Had the whole film had been as hagiographic as the on-screen epilogue (basically saying he was a wonderful man the rest of his life), audiences would have revolted and the film would have been a disaster.

Overall, Ray is a very strong film built on Jamie Foxx’s exceptional performance. There are a few odd, almost trippy visions that Charles has that don’t make a lot of sense and are never fully explained. Most of them are designed to send us into a flashback but it’s a very weird way to segue through an otherwise normal dramatic film. Foxx alone makes the film worth seeing but tidying up a few of the other pieces would have nudged this film into my ‘great’ category.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Finding Nemo (2003)

This is one of those films that everyone assumes you saw. Dozens of jaws dropped over the years when friends and acquaintances found out I had not, in fact, seen this yet. Go ahead and tell me that it’s about time so you get it out of your system. I’ll wait. Ready? Okay. While a decade of hype might normally leave me feeling underwhelmed, Finding Nemo actually lives up to its reputation as a beloved and entertaining film.

After losing his wife, Marlin (Albert Brooks) grows exceedingly protective of their son Nemo (Alexander Gould). After an act of rebellion results in Nemo being taken away by humans, Marlin takes what few clues he has and sets off on a journey to rescue his son. While Nemo gets to know his new tankmates in Sidney, Australia, Marlin enlists the help of Dori (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful fish with short-term memory issues.

The animation in this film is just gorgeous. Pixar’s artists go to great length to capture the subtleties of aquatic environments, not to mention their mesmerizing color palettes. Very little of the underwater action looks like it defies physics. Rather than hold the various sea creatures in static positions, you see their fins moving to keep them relatively still or they bob up and down as they shift their bodies to navigate the ebb and flow of underwater currents. This attention to detail does not go unnoticed by the subconscious mind or to those of us who pay attention to that sort of thing.

Storywise, Finding Nemo is pretty simple but effective. A father’s unfailing love causes him to risk it all to find and rescue his child. What good, loving parent wouldn’t do the same? While working out father-son issues on film can easily turn cheesy, schmaltzy, and/or preachy, the writers find a way to avoid most of the pitfalls. The split storylines of Marlin’s determination and Nemo developing self-confidence show each character growing individually, which makes their relationship at the end of the film work. There’s no one-sided revelation to the resolution and that is appreciable.

Since Pixar films are not musicals, it really forces the animation, story, and characters to be that much better. Marlin starts out overprotective to the extreme, which is wince-inducing but also comical. Dori’s memory issues help jazz up her archetypal sidekick role. Marlin appreciates her eagerness (which is usually the annoying thing about sidekicks) but her constant amnesia frustrates him to no end. His loyalty and conscience prevent him from abandoning her. Nemo, on the other hand, is just a kid trying to cut the apron strings, so both father and son work really well. The misfits Nemo meets in Sidney are all very entertaining which prevents Nemo’s side of the story from growing too depressing.

I had a very difficult time rating this film. The story is very strong and the characters are all very engaging but there are a few minor quibbles with content that goes way over the heads of children. Reformed sharks holding an intervention to prevent a peer from falling off the wagon and eating a fish? That’s a bit much. Also, while it blows my mind how Pixar manages to improve their animation quality film after film, I felt as though I couldn’t rate this film higher than Toy Story. Sure, Nemo looks better and nails all the other ingredients but should Toy Story hold a higher place for coming first? It’s a similar struggle that I have with Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps additional viewings will help me sort it out.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Little Fockers (2010)

Call me crazy, but I’ve always enjoyed Meet the Fockers over Meet the Parents. Some try to argue that the sequel brought down the quality of the series but I think it holds its own just fine. This poorly conceived dud, however, deserves all the criticism thrown at it.

Greg and Pam Focker (Ben Stiller and Teri Polo) are preparing for their twins’ fifth birthday party while also nearing the completion of building a new home. When Greg’s father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) approaches him about becoming the heir of the Byrnes-Focker family throne, Greg reluctantly accepts. This leads to even more scrutiny and opinion from Jack about how Greg’s children should be raised. As if brochures for private schools and delayed construction schedules aren’t enough, Jack inadvertently uncovers aspects of Greg’s secret promotional work for an erectile dysfunction medication. Rather than question Greg about the few pieces of evidence he finds, Jack assumes Greg is having an affair and sets off on a mission to bring down his son-in-law.

A chief problem in this film is that Greg’s children (the titular little Fockers) aren’t featured enough. The humor in the Meet films is largely situational and it works best when Greg is trying to impress his father-in-law. In Meet the Parents, Greg was trying to make a good first impression on his future in-laws. In Meet the Fockers, Greg is trying to give Jack a good first impression of his parents. This time around? It feels more like Jack is trying to cement his legacy rather than Greg trying to do anything impressive.

There are only a few scenes where Greg has humorous moments with his kids. The rest of the time he’s arguing with Jack or sneaking around to do his promotional work. I can see Greg finally being at the point of sticking up for himself and dishing it right back at Jack but sometimes these moments feel a little too mean-spirited for a goofy comedy. When, at long last, the two come to blows, the fight scene alternates between being too corny and too serious.

Greg is a nice guy and means well. Jack should know this by now, so his jump to the conclusion that Greg his a cheating scoundrel is unrealistic. What we really need from this film is Jack to make a few choice comments about parenting styles, Greg to try to impress Jack and fail, and conclude with Greg being himself and showing Jack that that results in a loving bond with his children. Instead, we get more cheesy post-CIA paranoia antics, a lot of crude humor stemming from the nature of Greg’s side work, and not enough of what made the first two installments work.

Astounding as it may seem, Little Fockers came just $20 million short of matching the box office haul of Meet the Parents. Ordinarily that may suggest an additional sequel but I highly doubt one will surface given the terrible reviews it got from critics and audiences alike. Maybe it was the change in director or a change on the writing team. Or maybe the concept and characters were milked for all they were worth after two films. Whatever the case, the well seems to be mostly dry and what little is brought up in the bucket is tolerable at best but leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5