This comment is not on the film, but rather on the pricing. Does anybody else feel how unjust the price of the Limited Edition set is? I mean, how can Universal do this, this is legal crime, and it never ceases to amaze me. Take this into consideration: The Schindler's List Limited Gift Set (Also A Universal Title) has the dvd, soundtrack, photo book, book style DVD case, film cell framed in printed cardboard, certificate of authenticity (even though they are meaningless), and a hard plastic sleeve that sits in a giant plexiglass box with metal support rods. Retail price = $34.98. Ray Limted Edition has the DVD, pretty standard extras given comparison to DVD's like LOTR, Gone With The Wind, Panic Room, and many others, a book style DVD case with photo album attached within it. Retail Price = $44.98. At Best Buy, I paid $36.99 for my Ray Limited Edition, Schindler's List Gift Set sells there for $32.98. Return of the King Extended Edition, I paid $22.99 during the first week of release when it was on sale. WHERE IS THE JUSTIFICATION IN THE PRICING?? Film Distributors are out of line, and will stay that way. You know why? Because we the consumer don't have a choice. Only Universal can sell Ray. So if I want a decent set of extras I have to pay, and I will fork over the cash, because it is the only way to get it. I wish there was a way for consumers to fight back without having to sacrifice our love for our favorite films, films that we want to own. Also may I add that the video quality of this DVD is atrocious, very dull and grainy. No justice for the consumer, and none for the artists of the film and artist portrayed in the film.

Ray This has to be one of the best movies I've ever seen. Jamie Foxx did surprisingly well as the title character. I'll probably buy this one. Maybe even the limited edtion.

I don't even think this has reached the cinemas here but the shorts I have seen look great and those covers look good as well.

Quote: Originally posted by Aaron Schneiderman
"Ray" Limited Edition coming soon to a DVD collection near me.

lol...good one.

I'll see it first, then make up my mind. If its as good as people say then ditto goes for me too.

It took me awhile to actually become absorbed into the movie, which really bothered me.  At the end of the movie I was indeed delighted, but I think that this is definitely NOT the best movie of the year, and I do not know why everyone is thinking it will get Oscars (except for Jamie Foxx and Regina King).  It seemed rushed and the pacing was terrible, I don't feel as if I still really know who Ray Charles is and this was the biggest dissappointment!

couldn't agree more Quote: Originally posted by Stephen Etherton
Nice classy cover to the DVD box.  If I heard a year or so ago, the term, Jamie Foxx, and acadamy award in the same sentence, I would laugh, but after seeing this... he deserves it.  As a lifetime fan of Ray Charles. This movie was a joy to watch.  

I couldn't agree with you more...about twenty minutes or so into the movie I honestly forgot that I was watching an actor, Jamie Foxx, play Ray Charles.  He completely channeled the personality of Ray Charles onto the screen as if we were watching the Genius himself.

I can't see myself watching a film of this context more than once. So irrespectable of how good it is, or Jamie Foxx's portrayal of ray Charles, I think I'll rent this one.

Sorry, I just have films in my collection that are, well just there, for the sake of it.
"Nixon" - Oliver Stone...great pic, but I just know that I probably won't ever watch it again.
"Ali" is another...good performance by Will, but I've only ever watched that once.

This was an awesome film. Jamie Foxx's portrayal is mesmerizing. It is incredible how he literally becomes Ray Charles. His performance should lock up an Academy Award for best acting honors. I loved this film.

Quote: Originally posted by Toad Laguma
[quote] Originally posted by Adam Linder
[b]Isnt the quote incorrect english?

"One of the best films I have ever seen" Quote:

YAAAAYYY!!!!!! i was hoping someone else would catch this, "joel siegel" needs to brush up on his grammar

Well actually, it all depends on the context of how he said it.  It is correct English, no matter how awkward it sounds.

Great movie, nice cover as well.

I believe that was the quote he used for Saw.  

[Rimshot]

I could do without the quote, though.  It's a little too big and bold.

I saw it. Very good, but it's a little bit long and slow in a few parts. Still worth seeing.

I've heard a lot of people who loved this movie.  I want to see it.  I like the cover too but the quote is a massive eyesore.

Some people like quotes although I don't know anyone who pays attention to them really.

Maybe they're promoting the upcoming Adam Sandler movie "Spanglish"?

Just kidding. Jokes aside, I hate the quote and the name @ the top. NO ONE CARES IF SOME REVIEWER LIKED IT!

Like the art... I really like that art.  Take away the quote and its near perfect.  Not gonna happen though, so I can hpe that they make it smaller or use a less intrusive font or color.