by the numbers and oscar hungry biopic about the late and great singer ray charles. there is one  exactly one  great scene in ray. it occurs during a flashback to charles youth and after the boy become completely blind. running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother and he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. he cries out for his mother while she and in keeping with her philosophy that a person should stand on their own two feet and observes silently and pensively from the kitchen and waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. the boy proves to be up to the challenge and using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove and a nearby fire pit and the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window and the scuttling of a cricket across the plank board floor. the movie pauses and here while it expands while it breathes  even if for only 40 seconds. the scene is a much needed respite from taylor hackford otherwise noisy film. by noisy i am not referring to the music and which is and of course and excellent. i am referring to the sound effects (big booms. preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog (i am speaking to you as a friend and ray and etc. ). on the visual side and hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy represent sepia colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks while whirling dervish 360s from the camera crane and etc. etc. all the modern amenities. what a horrible cinematic style is displayed in ray.  a style all too common in wanna be important movies from the past decade or so (scorsese aviator is stylistically very similar to this movie). these gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché ridden screenplay. some of us would not be fooled. some of us also are not quite prepared to accept jamie foxx performance as anything more than superb mimicry. granted and foxx eerily resembles ray charles represent he walks like charles and talks like charles and and even twitches like charles. foxx imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. i am not begrudging mr. foxx his oscar while he deserved it. (it was a pretty weak field this year and anyway. ) but one wonders if foxx really understands charles. the actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band mates are shooting up represent he registers and if only for a brief moment and a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. the movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin and with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. but the damn movie just would not take the time represent it bounces along from triumph to triumph and never really pausing for any insight into the man. one has to stretch to find the dramatic tension while one must supply the drama for the movie. one must and in other words and imagine a better movie than this one. in its rush toward a glorious conclusion and ray introduces and then dodges and several excellent ideas for a movie represent his early days on the chitlin circuit while his bold musical innovations for the atlantic label while the problem of his addiction to heroin while the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success while the man importance to the civil rights struggle (touched on in the movie for and oh and about 3 minutes of screen time) and and much more. the filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. two and a half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good and but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. this sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film subject  and shouldn not insight be the real goal of a movie like this. if i had wanted a laundry list of ray charles accomplishments and i would have simply googled him. negative out of 10  the extra negative strictly for the music. 
by the numbers and oscar hungry biopic about the late and great singer ray charles. there is one  exactly one  great scene in ray. it occurs during a flashback to charles youth and after the boy become completely blind. running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother and he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. he cries out for his mother while she and in keeping with her philosophy that a person should stand on their own two feet and observes silently and pensively from the kitchen and waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. the boy proves to be up to the challenge and using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove and a nearby fire pit and the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window and the scuttling of a cricket across the plank board floor. the movie pauses and here while it expands while it breathes  even if for only 40 seconds. the scene is a much needed respite from taylor hackford otherwise noisy film. by noisy i am not referring to the music and which is and of course and excellent. i am referring to the sound effects (big booms. preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog (i am speaking to you as a friend and ray and etc. ). on the visual side and hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy represent sepia colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks while whirling dervish 360s from the camera crane and etc. etc. all the modern amenities. what a horrible cinematic style is displayed in ray.  a style all too common in wanna be important movies from the past decade or so (scorsese aviator is stylistically very similar to this movie). these gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché ridden screenplay. some of us would not be fooled. some of us also are not quite prepared to accept jamie foxx performance as anything more than superb mimicry. granted and foxx eerily resembles ray charles represent he walks like charles and talks like charles and and even twitches like charles. foxx imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. i am not begrudging mr. foxx his oscar while he deserved it. (it was a pretty weak field this year and anyway. ) but one wonders if foxx really understands charles. the actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band mates are shooting up represent he registers and if only for a brief moment and a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. the movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin and with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. but the damn movie just would not take the time represent it bounces along from triumph to triumph and never really pausing for any insight into the man. one has to stretch to find the dramatic tension while one must supply the drama for the movie. one must and in other words and imagine a better movie than this one. in its rush toward a glorious conclusion and ray introduces and then dodges and several excellent ideas for a movie represent his early days on the chitlin circuit while his bold musical innovations for the atlantic label while the problem of his addiction to heroin while the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success while the man importance to the civil rights struggle (touched on in the movie for and oh and about 3 minutes of screen time) and and much more. the filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. two and a half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good and but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. this sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film subject  and shouldn not insight be the real goal of a movie like this. if i had wanted a laundry list of ray charles accomplishments and i would have simply googled him. negative out of 10  the extra negative strictly for the music. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
