“Ray” and “Alexander” represent the Best and The Worst of the movies opening up in time for the holiday season. Put simply, each aims in its own way to do the same thing - dramatize the lives of men who lived by their own set of rules. Historically, Ray Charles’ accomplishments may seem trivial compared to those of Alexander the Great but we’re not talking about the length and breadth of history. Each film is not only a representation of a particular person at a particular point in time - the recent past and antiquity - but the personalities of the directors who made them. They are respectively Taylor Hackford and Oliver Stone.

RAY - Taylor Hackford’s best films seem to have no agenda other than telling great stories with characters who go through a personal transformation by taking control of their destinies when forces seemingly outside their control threaten to destroy them. His best movies are about self preservation and the thirst for life. Think of title figure “Dolores Claiborne” taking a stand against her abusive husband, or Richard Gere overcoming his arrogance and personal demons as a trainee in “An Officer and a Gentleman.” And now “Ray” with the blind Ray Charles relying on his mother’s guidance to overcome his handicap and using his intuitive survival instinct to crawl his way up the ladder of success in the music industry.

Jamie Fox is Ray Charles in director Taylor Hackford’s superb bio of the late Great Ray Charles. He gives a career defining performance that has Oscar contender written all over it. His heartfelt performance is more than just mimicry. Foxx captures the spirit of Ray Charles’ soul from the inside out. It is a complete physical and mental make over. Foxx makes you feel every pulsating moment of Ray’s extraordinary life from his first gig on the chitlin’ circuit to the musical palaces of the world; from his addiction to drugs and passion for the touch of a woman, to his fights with the law and his resurgence as an iconic cultural figure. But the success of “Ray” does not rest on Foxx’s performance alone. Foxx is surrounded by some other extraordinary performers: Curtis Armstrong is the pioneering record magnate Ahmet Ertegun, Kerry Washington is his long suffering wife and Regina King is a knock down, drag out, back up singer who falls for Ray too fast and too hard. Ray has only one true love - music. With a seamless script co-written by James L.White, writer/director Taylor Hackford saturates the screen with the sights and sounds of the eras that shaped the character of the Genius of Soul in steam rolling succession. He takes us through Ray’s dirt poor beginnings, the death of his younger brother, and the loss of his sight. Hackford then charts the developments of Ray’s charm. His gift for gab, flattery, and chicanery help him hoodwink bigots and convince the people at the top of the corporate music world that he is the real deal. They also helped him win the heart of any woman within earshot. The only sentimentality on display in “Ray” appears at the end of the movie. An homage to Ray’s mother, shown in flashback, seems to say - look what your little boy has accomplished with your help - rather than - look at the man I have become because of your sacrifice. It’s a small point to be sure but one, I think, that weakens the end of the film. Otherwise, “Ray” is an uncompromising look at a life lived to the fullest, a capsule look at the music industry that nurtured him, and the world at large that embraced his music. I think “Ray” will stand as one of the great musical bios of all time.

ALEXANDER - The best of Oliver Stone’s films attempt to expose the underbelly of society or reveal the dark side of man’s nature. “JFK” had a political agenda that treated theory as fact, while “Wall Street” was an indictment of the capitalist system. Its Gecko “Greed is Good” speech was over the top but compelling. So much so that it has become part of out cinematic lexicon. It depicted a social ill that persists to this day as witness the Enron Scandal. “Platoon” and “Born on the 4th of July” - which are rooted in Stone’s Viet Nam war experiences - the latter based on the memoir of author and friend Ron Kovic - are my personal favorites. All these films are marked by strong performances and memorable dialogue. I wish I could say the same for “Alexander.”

Anthony Hopkins is historian, Ptolemy, the point man drawing us into Alexander’s story with his commanding voice while others put pen to page recording his words about Alexander’s deeds for posterity. Like a good student I listened with an attentive ear. But once the story overtook the narrator, I began staring at my watch and fidgeting in my seat.

Oliver Stone’s martial epic moves in a series of fits and starts full of mundane dialogue and performances that seem too small to fit the scope of Stone’s ambition. First let me say I liked Colin Farrell in “Tigerland,” “Minority Report,” and “The Recruit” among others. But as Alexander, I wouldn’t follow him to the toilet much less into battle. He lacked the commanding presence one has come to associate with cinematic versions of bigger than life historic figures like Mel Gibson’s William Wallace in “Braveheart” or “Patton” with George C. Scott. The then unknown Peter O’Toole exhibited more charisma blowing out a match in “Lawrence of Arabia” than in any one scene with Farrel as Alexander. And with the film built around him, my hopes for a great film evaporated rapidly. Likewise I couldn’t buy Val Kilmer as Alexander’s father, Philip of Macedonia However, there are a few performers who miraculously escape unscathed. I thought Jared Leto, who earned my respect for an amazing performance as a drug addict in “Requiem for a Dream,” stood out with his low key manner and piercing eyes as Alexander’s male lover and fellow warrior, Hephaistion. With a blond mane, he could’ve have made a great Alexander. On paper, I couldn’t believe that Angelina Jolie could be playing Farrel’s mother - they’re so close in age - but AS Alexander’s mother - who may have given birth to her son as a teenager - Ms Jolie made me believe.

With all due respect to Oliver Stone’s creative team, the combat scenes in the Battle of Gaugamela are nothing short of spectacular, carefully delineating tactics used to defeat the superior numbers of the Persian Army. The fight with the elephants in India three quarters of the way into the film were equally thrilling. In between, Stone fills the spaces between the battle scenes with opulent sets and special effects to create lost civilizations. Alexander’s triumphant march into Babylon is as colorful as anything ever put on screen. Stone, in one of the few brilliant strokes in “Alexander” gives the illusion of what a heady experience it must’ve been for a young man from a mountain kingdom in Macedonia to conquer one of the great civilizations of his time with its riches, history, and source of manpower. He put the men from his conquered nations into his army to make them citizens of his ever expanding world. As awesome and wonderful as these few moments are, “Alexander” once again falters and takes on the appearance of a history lesson with re-enactors instead of the Grand Epic I had hoped it would be.

Copyright 2004

For an Alexander that has more drama than spectacle, check out “Alexander the Great” from 1956. Richard Burton gives a thrilling performance as Alexander and Frederic March makes a more believable Philip of Macedonia. A simple scene of Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot is a gem.