I like Jamie Foxx a lot, and this is impressive work, especially the singing; he’s getting the Oscar for sure. But the movie pointed up the problem with all bio-pics, which is that the movie is always going to come second to the mimicry, no matter how you cast it — you cast on looks, you cast on acting skills, it doesn’t matter, because if it’s a bad job it’s distracting, but if it’s a good job it’s distracting too. The audience spends the entire movie comparing. Not to take anything away from Foxx by saying this; he worked outrageously hard in this role, he’s wonderful in it, and if he gets an Oscar, he’ll deserve it. But I’d almost rather see him win it for Collateral, because he was great in that role as well (although it’s not exactly a supporting role, but whatever), and that seemed like it came from a more strictly creative place than the Ray Charles role, which inevitably is going to be at least in part about technique and muscle memory. That has its worth, of course, but it reminds me of the Rain Man nominations, in a way — was Hoffman good? Yes, he was very good. Cruise was probably better. Cruise had the harder job, playing straight man to all that tic-y business, and Cruise was also, for Cruise, doing particularly strong work — a little screechy in spots, but better than he usually does and better than I think he got credit for at the time. I’m not an actor, so it’s hard for me to explain this and I’m not even sure there’s really a difference in the process, but with certain roles, it does seem like it’s more about muscle memory than about “creating” the role, and like muscle memory sometimes gets more praise than it should. Anyway…the movie is a bit long, the montage at the end is tacked-on and limp, and I don’t think Kerry Washington or Regina King got enough credit for their work, but it’s good; I grew up with these albums on in the house, too, so I liked listening to it as much as watching it. (2/21/05)

Share!