Jamie Foxx takes on Mike Tyson Biopic

Foxx surprised the movie watching world when he upgraded goofball comedy for a serious biopic nailing the very essence of Ray Charles.

Well he is returning to the biopic format, this time trading a piano for boxing gloves.

Dark Horizons offers:

Jamie Foxx is keen on re-teaming with “Ray” director Taylor Hackford on a biopic of former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson

I had my doubts when I heard he was Ray, but he resloved that just fine, and I have confidence he can do Tyson justice.

Comment with Facebook

30 thoughts on “Jamie Foxx takes on Mike Tyson Biopic

  1. Dude, I hated Foxx in RAY. The most overrated performance in history! He was doing a bad impression the whole time. A friggin caricature! It’s like the media said it was amazing, so everyone that watched it just assumed it was good. I heard teh hype, was looking forward to this breathtaking transformative performance, and nearly couldn’t stop laughing the minute I heard his RAY voice. What J Phoenix did in Walk the Line was a million times better, and he got no where near the hype that Foxx got for doing basically what he did on In Living Color. I can only imagine how comical his Tyson voice is going to be.
    There are good comedic actors that are alson good dramatic actors. Jamie Foxx is not one of them.

      1. I may have been exaggerating by saying th emost overrated in history. But maybe I’m right. Name one Oscar winner that had a more mediocre performance? And don’t say Cuba Gooding Jr., that one is a gimme, plus he never got the hype Foxx got.

      2. Has NOTHING to do with winning an oscar or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with him giving a shitty performance, and making The Joker a cartoon. Oh, and I wasn’t comparing him to Ledger’s performance.

      3. Roberto Benigni – Life is Beautiful
        Al Pacino – Scent of a Woman
        Jennifer Connelley – A Beautiful mind
        Kim Basinger – LA Confidential
        Judi Dench – Shakespeare in Love

        Should I go on?

      4. Because up until Ledger’s Joker… even in the comics, the Joker has been a jovial prankster clown who also happens to be a sadistic murderer.

        Even Ledger went to Nicholson to get advice on how to play the character for fear he wouldn’t live up to Jack’s performance.

        But now the Clown Prince of Crime can’t be a cartoon? That’s exactly what the character was recognized as for decades until Nolan’s Joker.

      5. “Because up until Ledger’s Joker… even in the comics, the Joker has been a jovial prankster clown who also happens to be a sadistic murderer.”

        Well, then I guess its a good thing I don’t give a fuck about comic books. It doesn’t matter how it is in the comics, this is the live action film series.

      6. The point wasn’t your personal feelings or neglect of the source material but rather that Jack Nicholson’s performance was spot on to the source material, which you regard as him “making Joker a Cartoon” It was not “making” as much as it was a faithful adaptation for which he was praised. Jack was as the character was. He didn’t make it anything else.

        If anything Ledger/Nolan made the character something more than it already was to adapt it more accurately to the feel of their film.

        That you prefer that interpretation is irrelevant to Jack’s performance.

      7. “That you prefer that interpretation is irrelevant to Jack’s performance.”

        So, are you saying that my OPINION that he sucked as The Joker is wrong? Do you expect me to take you seriously after that?

      8. You said yourself that his “cartoon” performance was the quality you disliked. It is your preference that is guaging his performance.

        In his time and up until Dark Knight came out Jack was considered to be the Ultimate portrayal of the Joker.

        I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, but because you prefer a different interpretation of the character has no bearing on Jack’s performance or how well he played the character. You will find yourself in the minority to say that Nicholson didn’t do a fabulous job playing that Joker in that movie.

        Jack always plays crazy very well.

  2. I have to admit, Jamie Foxx always surprises me – he’s had some great performances and is an underrated actor. I have absolutely NO IDEA if he’ll be good as Tyson, but he definitely has the skill to pull it off..

  3. Before ‘Ray’ came out Foxx had appeared in Any Given Sunday, Collateral and had a supporting role in Ali– so while Foxx was great in Ray, he didn’t really “surprise the moviegoing world” with Ray. That’s not taking anything away from his Oscar winning role, but I’m pointing out he had been in other non-comedy films before.

    I’m not too eager to see a Mike Tyson biopic, but after fiving it some thought, Jamie Foxx could pull it off.

  4. It’s kinda soon for a Tyson biopic, seems I already experienced the whole Mike Tyson saga once and to be honest the younger generation doesnt even care about boxing, its a failing sport.

    MMA, Ultimate fighting and World Extreme Cage fighting are the new rage, hell I don’t even care about boxing anymore. I would much rather watch MMA. So please tell me why is the younger generation gonna care about a Mike Tyson biopic? That fool had the world in his hands and pissed it away.

    On the other side of the coin, Jamie Foxx spent a great deal of time as a young comedian impersonating famous celebrities such as Ray Charles, Mike Tyson, etc. So I cannot see any reason why he wouldn’t be able to pull this off.

      1. Five more years and Boxing will be replaced by MMA, its all but a dying genre’ There are still purists who watch it, but the newer generation is clearly MMA driven.

        Besides, todays boxer’s are much different then the past greats. Marvin Haggler, Ali, Tommy Hearns, Smokin Joe Frazier, etc. These guys didnt duck fights like boxers do today. They were real men who would fight all competitors. That is why boxing was great back then, Boxing has really fallen.

      2. That all doesn’t matter when making a movie. Just because boxing is a “dying sport” doesn’t mean there’s no interest for a movie based on one of it’s biggest icons.

  5. I think he could do the performance fine, but I’m not sure he’s big enough. Also, I’m not sure Taylor Hackford’s the right person to be doing this, Tyson is a much more difficult subject than Ray.

      1. Ray charles was way more challenging to get right on film. the man was private about his personal life and his drug problems. mike tyson on the other hand was the complete opposite, i think this might be a cake-walk for hackford.

Leave a Reply