Dreamgirls

I was excited about seeing Dreamgirls, especially after seeing the Oscar nods it got. But I still wasn't too sure about Jennifer Hudson's win, after all, before I saw this film, I saw Babel, and the Hispanic actress who was nominated I felt totally deserved the award. But how can you judge before seeing what Jennifer Hudson's raved about performance was all about. Now I have to start off with that actually this was a good film, but you know what? It was average, nothing thrilling or original came out of it. It's your typical rise and fall story that had nothing special or had no spark. Jennifer's performance was good for a first time, but I still wasn't too thrown over it. The story is just so abused and too used by so many writers.

Curtis is looking for a backup group for his famous singer, James Early. He finds the Dreamettes, three beautiful and strong black women, he also becomes involved with one of them. Slowly they rise to the top, but Effie, the girl is involved with is not exactly "thin" or that "appealing" to a younger crowd, so with her girlfriends in the group, her brother, and her new boyfriend, Curtis, they vote her out of the group and the Dreamettes become huge, but the joke is on Curtis when Effie gets a second chance.

The performances were the key that got raved about most in the film, now I have to say that they were good, but honestly, it was nothing beyond good. I don't have anything against Jennifer Hudson, but I am very upset with all the publicity she is getting now for one film and an Oscar that I believe doesn't belong to her, but I know there are some that wouldn't agree with me. Eddie didn't thrill me either, I've actually seen him in better, but I have to admit the only performance I was actually, and surprisingly, impressed with was Beyonce Knowles, she has come a long way. So, I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, if you wanna watch it, go ahead, but don't expect too much.

6/10

Screened overnite in Australia for critics and industry.

Ten minutes into director Bill Condon's adaptation of the hit musical, I whispered to my friend "There's no way the film can go at this pace for two hours!" Because up to that point, we had been utterly dazzled by breathtaking staging, impassioned performances and a display of film-making craftsmanship in all its forms (direction, editing, design) that had the packed audience stunned.

Well, two hours later, I'd been proved wrong. Condon has created a vivid, emotional spectacle that will dominate the 06/07 Oscar nominations. Dreamgirls is one of the five best movie musicals ever made.

There is really nothing new about the storyline - smalltown singers make it big and ride the roller-coaster of fame. But thats what works so well for the film - the great cinematic clichés are embraced and played to the hilt by a creative team, both behind and in front of the camera, that knows what makes a great Hollywood musical.

There's not one weak link in the cast. Condon's camera is in love with Beyonce Knowles and she handles the journey from the innocence of the groups early years to the staggering success and fortune of the group at its peak with surprising range. While most singer/actress attempts are failures (Madonna, Whitney, Britney, k.d. lang), Beyonce proves to have genuine talent.

Jamie Foxx centres and grounds the film in a less-flashy role but one that is crucial to the films credibility.

But there are two standouts. Eddie Murphy as fading star Early has never done better work. And Jennifer Hudson delivers an absolute tour-de-force performance in a role that sees her dominate every scene she is in. Her belting solo number was applauded by the audience (a rare enough occurrence during an industry screening but a moment that was repeated a few times thru the film). Hudson is a lock for the supporting actress Oscar, even this far from the ceremony.

Dreamgirls is a better movie in every way than recent award winning musicals Chicago and Moulin Rouge (both of which I am a huge fan). It is a film that tells a classic rags-to-riches story utilising great cinematic technique and bravado. 2006 has offered up some great movie-going experiences for me (Thank You For Smoking, Children Of Men, V For Vendetta, Little Miss Sunshine); for the sheer cinematic thrill it provides, however, Dreamgirls proves to be the best two hours I've spent in a cinema this year.

It's a crowd-pleaser all right, and I usually object to those. But I have to say, this member of the crowd was rather pleased with the film. It's nothing deep, I'll say right off the bat. It's no cinematic masterpiece that will be a beacon for films to come. What it is, however, is an absolute ball. It's the only film I think I've ever seen that really captures the experience of seeing a great musical in the theater. It's fun, it's rousing, and it just made me feel good. The music is outstanding and surprisingly comes off as stuff that might really have been recorded during the eras depicted, with maybe just the right tinge of Broadway to them. The vocal performances are just outstanding. Of course by now everyone knows the standout is Jennifer Hudson, who will be unstoppable at the Oscars this year. Her acting is quite good, but she'll win it for the singing. I would also be perfectly happy to see Eddie Murphy take home a statuette. He's excellent in both comedic and dramatic moments. Much of the rest of the cast is good, too, including Beyoncé Knowles and Anika Noni Rose. The story is of course based on that of the Supremes, and in that way, I felt a little Susan Alexander Kane / Marion Davies situation going on with Deena Jones / Diana Ross. While the Dreams are supposed to be only like the Supremes, the film kind of does imply that Ross was not an extremely talented singer, which is of course patently false. Anyway, small quibble. No, Dreamgirls is no masterpiece, but I like it about as much as I liked Chicago, probably a tad more, and I wouldn't be too ticked off if the Academy went with it for Best Picture. I do prefer it slightly to The Departed. I just don't think Scorsese's fourth best movie about organized crime should be crowned. Definitely recommended, as long as you know what you're getting into.

You have to put this movie into perspective! I enjoyed it but it was not until later that I realized that it was not that good! It entertains and that is about it! Well some people may say what more do you expect! Well I suppose I wanted the film to be more than it really is. Then again I also wanted the score to be bigger and better than what it was! The story line is OK and does refer to the Supremes story as we all know... However, the music apart from the "BIG" number is boring. I bought the CD and played it twice and got bored! I immediately listen to Wicked and what a major difference! Now that is what you call a great score! The greatest thing about this movie is Jennifer Hudson! She is perfect for the part and she does a great job with her acting. Also she gives a great performance of a really great song. Everyone knows she was under pressure to reach the levels of Jennifer Holiday and I think she did a good job. However, its was her acting ability that pulled it off.

The other star of this show was Eddie Murphy. He was quite outstanding in this film and his role was almost believable. The problem he had was that he was not given enough time to develop the role...

The other huge gap in this film was the relationship that was supposed to exist between Foxx and Hudson. Where was it? I think they could have cut the terrible slushy scenes with Foxx and Knowles and concentrated on the relationship with the other two. Now that would have made the film much more interesting.

Ah but we have to have our eye candy Beyonce to sell the film. What a pity any time was spent on her as I must be the only person around who is not bothered if I never saw her again! However, I am certainly going to follow the career of the brilliant Jennifer Hudson! You go girl!

You have only two first choices in making a movie musical; you can preserve its stage nature, or decide at the first to make a movie, something that has a cinematic sense. I like musical presentation and all; I like theater and the contact of performance. Its all fine, but what really transports me is what I think of as opera in the modern sense. Its that multiple delivery of sense, primarily through sweeping enveloping visual grammar, supplemented by coordinated threads: text, narrative, music, emotional and intellectual.

"Moulin Rouge" is my gold standard, born as a child of film, deeply reflexive. Chicago was less coherent — some of its cinematic collage really was just chop, but even then they eye needs rhythm and "Chicago" delivered. That film also had something this has only in certain places: sweat if not blood. We knew that Zellweger and Zeta-Jones are uninteresting people, and the songs manufactured emotionally (as opposed to say, blues songs from someone blue). But we saw them work their guts out.

This is an odd, odd thing musically. Start with genuine R&B, sung in Detroit basements and school auditoriums. Now transform that for the market, initially black showgoers. Now transform it again for a similar record-buying public. Again for white recordbuyers (where, incidentally I found myself in the late sixties), and then again for TeeVee watchers (and with added glamor, Las Vegas).

Let that steep for fifteen years, all becoming a joke, then transform it again for the Broadway stage. By this time, any performance related to this collection of genres cannot be genuine in any way, merely a commentary. The performers may be black, but its as far removed from what it pretends to be as a scene in this film depicts: a white teen along the lines of Johnny Vee covering a black song. Its not a matter of how good the singer is, even the earnest Hudson who gets the applause here. Its a matter of market forces: art is brought to us by market forces and those forces bend, filter, bleach.

Now take that stage show, based on a story about just this: how mass music MUST be untrue — take that stage musical and transform it one more time, and you'll have this. That's six generations from where this music meant something to what it is before it hits our ears. The only thing that can justify this is the full bore experience.

The stage show delivered it in spades, because it used extraordinary stagecraft. It was to the stage musical what "Moulin Rouge" was to the film musical: the vocabulary stretched to its most colorful (read: moving) excess. Where's that excess here? There are three (three?) moments where a rehearsal sweeps around and you find yourself on stage. Once done well would have been enough, these aren't.

One character in this needs to be the white space, the root of the thing in terms of values. Maybe it could have been the avuncular manager (Glover) or the silent Dad, or the child. But no one is given the nail. One song at least needs to be performed as genuine. Yes, Hudson's number brings down the house. But it is so overproduced and overstaged its clear it is merely — dare I say it? — a show by a woman trying hard to have a career, not a woman who actually lives in her song.

At least "Hustle and Flow" was obviously dishonest.

Oh well. Seeing Eddie Murphy do James Brown just before the man is buried meant something to me. Its an homage of sorts.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.