| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Stalean |
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 06:47:02
Oh, my goodness gracious! Jennifer Hudson stole the film with her singing and acting. The audience actually thunderously clapped after her songs at the viewing I attended. And, who knew Eddie Murphy could act AND sing! What a comeback from tedious, inane comedy hell. I highly recommend seeing Dreamgirls. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 03:48:07
Oh, hey, yeah, this film.
Was awful. I have to say, I find musicals to be both bizarre and fascinating, but this one is simply no good at all. There are surface things wrong with it -- the non-performance musical numbers are awkward as all hell, the acting is uneven, particularly from Jennifer Hudson, who is neither a good singer or a good actress. Jamie Foxx, too, turned in a surprisingly halfass performance. I was more impressed with Eddie Murphy and, surprisingly, Beyonce, who does well with a role that hits close to home.
But moreover, the movie's perspective is more than problematic. Most movies about a specific music scene in time celebrate it -- Velvet Goldmine was in love with '70s glam rock, Almost Famous loves its classic rock. But Dreamgirls is only interested in throwing mud at Motown's legacy, and it scrambles key plot points to make its fictionalized Motown look worse than it actually was.
I mean, there's room to hate Motown, because it was in fact the smoothed-out version of black music to sell to white people, so you do have room to call it music for sellouts. But then why does this movie try so hard to sell itself, to make the music as good and the dance numbers as impressive as they can possibly can? The movie is like -- this music sucks, this music is awful, isn't it a shame what happened to black music, SPLENDOROUS MUSICAL NUMBER!
And it never really tells the stories of its characters either, they get shoved aside for musical numbers. So much important information gets shoved to us in shorthand. Not a good movie, not a good movie. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:38:23
I saw most of it again last night. (I went to see a film that I thought was at 7:00 but which was at 6:30, so I had to use up a couple of hours before the 9:00 showing.) I enjoyed it, but I didn't find it particularly moving this time, so it's gone down in my estimation a bit. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 09:30:26
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
This is all true too, and well considered, but finally for me I found her so unlikeable it was impossible to care too much about her. I know some very talented singers and actors, but if they were ever so loathsome and self-obsessed I would have no hesitation in avoiding them entirely. Perhaps I didn't see enough of that insecurity behind the bombast.
I think it comes down to personality preferences then. I like bad-tempered, difficult, stubborn people with good hearts and I think that's what the character is. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 09:27:51
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
You reminded me actually talking about the socio-political situation how poorly I thought they integrated the history, particularly the riots into the story - it was so tagged on that it didn't affect any of the characters and was never mentioned again.
This is true, although I think that the prejudice against black artists at the time is completely clear while rightly not needing to be as explicit as to show white radio station managers etc. rejecting them. Similarly, a possible explanation for the flimsy inclusion of the riots could be that the film-makers felt that everyone is already quite educated about the civil rights movement and does not need spoonfeeding about it. It might therefore have even been best to dispense with that scene altogether. |
| demonic |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 04:10:58
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
This is an interesting take, Demonic, but I wonder if you've concentrated a bit too much on too realistic an interpretation.
That's very possible. But also as a musical I took it at face value and tried to view it mainly as an entertainment but in many areas it let me down. You reminded me actually talking about the socio-political situation how poorly I thought they integrated the history, particularly the riots into the story - it was so tagged on that it didn't affect any of the characters and was never mentioned again.
quote:
Personally, I think Hollywood took too long to make Dreamgirls; I think its optimum moment was about 10-15 years ago. Because popular culture has moved on so far from Eyen's roots. And from his obsessions. Today we take his themes for granted, we don't actually ask those questions anymore.
I think you are spot on there; I knew about this musical and had heard many of its songs about ten years ago, so it seemed to me when I heard they were making the film when it hadn't even had a major production since the original Broadway a little bit like locking the stable door etc.
quote:
I disagree that her performance only hits one note. Her sass and bombast are her defense mechanism from the insecurity of a woman who first suspects then has confirmed that her lover's been cheating, that they both know she's the better singer but that her face and form don't fit the tv-age image. The scenes when she has to swallow her pride to provide for the child of that union prove she has range, especially in the way she handles the inability of the character to sell herself out even at her lowest point.
This is all true too, and well considered, but finally for me I found her so unlikeable it was impossible to care too much about her. I know some very talented singers and actors, but if they were ever so loathsome and self-obsessed I would have no hesitation in avoiding them entirely. Perhaps I didn't see enough of that insecurity behind the bombast.
quote:
The only way to judge fairly would be to have a play-off: give every actress the same role, let every violinist play the same piece.
That's not too far away from saying could the performers do as good a job if they switched roles, which is one way I look at it when trying to make those all but impossible qualitative decisions. Obviously Hudson has one up on every other nominee in her voice for her role, but I don't think Hudson would have the acting chops to handle a really complex character role sans vocals.
quote:
I'm going to shut up now.   
Why would anyone want that! Please don't shut up.   |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 09:32:20
I agree with demonic that the story is ordinary and the singing out of place is annoying, but I still loved it. What you say about Hudson seems like an accurate description, but nevertheless I found her extremely engaging and moving. Since I am not much into music, I don't think I was hugely swayed by that. Blanchett is good, but I really think that it is the story and Dench that are that film's strongest points. I can imagine that plenty of others could have taken on the Sheba role perfectly well.
B.B., I agree with everything you've said, except that the Chechen parallel has passed me by and I am glad the film came now. This is because I hope there is now a stronger contrast between what opportunities are like for black performers then and now. Beyonce's presence (and Hudson's for that matter) ensures that the audience is reminded of this. I agree that realism is not necessary (although I still dislike sung speech) - a particular example of this is the white version of Cadillac Car(?). I may be being naive, but I don't think that white rip-offs of black songs would have been quite that hyperbollically rubbish! |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 00:32:16
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Demonic advocate time! 
Interesting comments from all - but in the words of BB I feel a bit like one of those hard hearts having seen the film tonight and left totally unmoved and a little baffled at all the fuss. I know I'm standing pretty much alone on this one, but I thought it was a very ordinary, slightly embarrassing film with some great voices and some just about adequate acting.
For me the knock out performance is from Eddie Murphy, even though he has so little quality dialogue to work with (like everybody else) in this film. He was actually the only person I cared about at all from start to finish. Jennifer Hudson, wonderful voice, was a diva and a pain in the ass from start to finish, and unfortunately (and here I blame the director) after an hour of wonderful massive singing I tuned out completely, so by the time we reached the key number of the whole film "And I am telling you..." I had been over saturated by her vocal ability. Her performance seemed 150% too big, too consistently loud, and verging on hysteria which for my tastes isn't the mark of a well judged, well acted performance. Beyonce did a great job in keeping that balance and being slightly more sympathetic a character, but even in her case I felt terminally uninterested in her story, especially when she was miserable after she'd made her millions, was incredibly famous and was living in utter luxury. Poor her.
The singing out of direct musical context was truly horrible.  Especially the composer brother character (another great voice - maybe my favourite in the film) ensuring his sister than they were all family - could there have been a more saccharine moment? The audience I saw it with were openly laughing at its contrivance and nasty Hallmark emotions. No bursts of applause at any point from this hard hearted British audience.
It strikes me that the Academy and all the award giving institutions seem to wet themselves whenever an actor shows musical talent - how else did the least sexy version of "Chicago" you'll ever see get so highly regarded and awarded? Having seen most of the nominated performances now for this year I find it absurd that Jennifer Hudson is almost certainly going to win the Oscar over Cate Blanchett in "Notes on a Scandal" which is a superb acting performance and leagues more difficult from a pure acting perspective than what Hudson had to do, but I don't think an Oscar or Globe or whatever should go to someone just because they happen to be able to sing wonderfully. See Catherine Zeta Jones. And I don't even think she sings wonderfully, but that's another moan for another time. Many will probably argue now that Hudson goes way beyond just singing well in this film, putting her heart and soul, blood and guts into it - to that I'd say - too much. Far too much histrionics and sass. I'd credit her for her vocal power, no question, but take away the singing and what you actually have, I think, is a very standard performance based it seemed on being in a permanent bad mood.
I was far from hating it, but was very far from loving it as well - a rather boring musical dressed up with too much smoke and mirrors, which partly succeeded in covering up the utter lack of genuine drama, complex character and plot.
This is an interesting take, Demonic, but I wonder if you've concentrated a bit too much on too realistic an interpretation. It's interesting too that you mention Dreamgirls in context with Chicago, since both films deal with -- and I don't want to sound too lame here -- both films deal with socio-political themes. The original plays that each comes from were "of their time" and used a type of wisecracking comedy [in the case of Maurine Dallas Watkins's Chicago aka Play Ball] and the artifice of the Broadway musical [in the case of Dreamgirls] to make their various points. Both, in their way, are concerned with the commodification of human talent, the ways that a bevy of middle-men parasites manipulate and profit by the talent of others.
Chicago came out of the late 1920s, an era in America that was going through something akin to what the Chechans were doing in post Soviet Russia. The Flapper era shocked conservative American society in a way that no other social change ever had before, or should I say was ever able to before. Various factors contributed to this:
1. financial: this was a couple of years before the Crash of 1929 and there was the combo of post-war euphoria and a rise of disposable income.
2. technological: both the popularity of cars and of the movies got people out of the house which had hitherto been the seat of family-style entertainment such as singing around the piano or quilting bees.
3. the rise of popular culture: in America this was given a huge boost with the gradual incursion of what was then called Negro music and dances.
4. the emergence of the advertising industry as a potent economic force: this more than anything influenced the way that popular culture spread virally into every social class, lending a kind of homogenity that simply didn't exist before.
So Roxie Hart was a very early celebrity hunter who uses and is used by representatives of an industry that many writers then felt might be a threat to more solid social values. That was combined with a heavy-handed political situation which more people than ever were being informed about. And because these issues haven't gone away, the Roxie Hart phenomenon has been retold over the decades. The latest version, that film of Chicago you talk about, is only the latest, made, I suspect because the themes have become red hot over the past few years.
As to Dreamgirls, it was originally an off-off-Broadway concept by one of the La MaMa playwrights Tom Eyen [whom I had the pleasure to know when I was in the original La MaMa Troupe]. Tom was always fascinated by the way the popular culture of the 1960s forced people to repress their real natures, real values if they wanted to succeed, to inhabit their dreams. His early plays all deal with those themes, especially Why Hanna's Skirts Won't Stay Down, and The White Whore and the Bit Player. Dreamgirls may have used the Supreme's story but it was never about them. Tom was keen on making parallels between what was happening around him in the '60s and those musicals of the 1930s which dealt with the same themes; it was those 1930s shows that made him seek his own dreams in the Big Apple.
What both the recent film of Chicago and now the film of Dreamgirls tried to do [with varying degrees of success] is to stylize the presentation, to take it out of realism, to try to get to some social essence in an expressionistic way. The music in both films is used in that context.
Personally, I think Hollywood took too long to make Dreamgirls; I think its optimum moment was about 10-15 years ago. Because popular culture has moved on so far from Eyen's roots. And from his obsessions. Today we take his themes for granted, we don't actually ask those questions anymore.
And I think the recent Chicago musical borrowed a tad too much from Cabaret for it to have been as explosive as it might have been.
See, the point about Beyonce's character isn't "poor whiney little rich girl" ... it's what the hell is all that celebrity chasing and back-stabbing and betrayal and deception for?! And what is it about us as a society that feeds on watching the process, even if we don't partake ourselves, on idolizing people whom we elevate yet yearn to see trip and fall on their face in the garbage?
And while Knowles's character examines the vapidity of fame, Hudson's character epitomizes the dichotomy of the emotional choice. Resolutely she draws the lines over which she will not step, retaining her honor even if it means sacrificing her dream. I disagree that her performance only hits one note. Her sass and bombast are her defense mechanism from the insecurity of a woman who first suspects then has confirmed that her lover's been cheating, that they both know she's the better singer but that her face and form don't fit the tv-age image. The scenes when she has to swallow her pride to provide for the child of that union prove she has range, especially in the way she handles the inability of the character to sell herself out even at her lowest point.
To compare that with Blanchett is a bit spurious, but then I think all the Award ceremonies address a task that's all but impossible. They should just stop at the shortlist. That alone should be the honor. The whole notion of 'winning' if you're dealing with qualitative rather than quantitative elements is madness. You can tell who wins a race or scores the most goals or has the biggest marrow on the stall. But of a select, elite band of musicians or actors or writers ... what does "best" actually mean? The only way to judge fairly would be to have a play-off: give every actress the same role, let every violinist play the same piece.
Blanchett's acting tasks in NOAS are so different from Hudson's in Dreamgirls. It's like saying an apple is a priori better than a pear.
I'm going to shut up now.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 02/06/2007 : 23:20:36
Demonic advocate time!
Interesting comments from all - but in the words of BB I feel a bit like one of those hard hearts having seen the film tonight and left totally unmoved and a little baffled at all the fuss. I know I'm standing pretty much alone on this one, but I thought it was a very ordinary, slightly embarrassing film with some great voices and some just about adequate acting.
For me the knock out performance is from Eddie Murphy, even though he has so little quality dialogue to work with (like everybody else) in this film. He was actually the only person I cared about at all from start to finish. Jennifer Hudson, wonderful voice, was a diva and a pain in the ass from start to finish, and unfortunately (and here I blame the director) after an hour of wonderful massive singing I tuned out completely, so by the time we reached the key number of the whole film "And I am telling you..." I had been over saturated by her vocal ability. Her performance seemed 150% too big, too consistently loud, and verging on hysteria which for my tastes isn't the mark of a well judged, well acted performance. Beyonce did a great job in keeping that balance and being slightly more sympathetic a character, but even in her case I felt terminally uninterested in her story, especially when she was miserable after she'd made her millions, was incredibly famous and was living in utter luxury. Poor her.
The singing out of direct musical context was truly horrible. Especially the composer brother character (another great voice - maybe my favourite in the film) ensuring his sister than they were all family - could there have been a more saccharine moment? The audience I saw it with were openly laughing at its contrivance and nasty Hallmark emotions. No bursts of applause at any point from this hard hearted British audience.
It strikes me that the Academy and all the award giving institutions seem to wet themselves whenever an actor shows musical talent - how else did the least sexy version of "Chicago" you'll ever see get so highly regarded and awarded? Having seen most of the nominated performances now for this year I find it absurd that Jennifer Hudson is almost certainly going to win the Oscar over Cate Blanchett in "Notes on a Scandal" which is a superb acting performance and leagues more difficult from a pure acting perspective than what Hudson had to do, but I don't think an Oscar or Globe or whatever should go to someone just because they happen to be able to sing wonderfully. See Catherine Zeta Jones. And I don't even think she sings wonderfully, but that's another moan for another time. Many will probably argue now that Hudson goes way beyond just singing well in this film, putting her heart and soul, blood and guts into it - to that I'd say - too much. Far too much histrionics and sass. I'd credit her for her vocal power, no question, but take away the singing and what you actually have, I think, is a very standard performance based it seemed on being in a permanent bad mood.
I was far from hating it, but was very far from loving it as well - a rather boring musical dressed up with too much smoke and mirrors, which partly succeeded in covering up the utter lack of genuine drama, complex character and plot. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 23:05:27
quote:
Originally posted by Paddy C
BBabe, you definitely have a career beckoning in this review business...
I really enjoyed this one too.. it really surprised me how good it was, and Jennifer Hudson fully deserves the Oscar. I really hope Eddie Murphy wins as well, it's the best thing he's done since - and maybe even including - 'Trading Places'...
Here's my stab at a review
Why, thanks for the kind words, PC. 
Actually, I did have a career in that review biz: I was for 10 years the London Editor of Film Journal International! These days, it's just for fun ... and for you guys, of course
BTW: your stuff ain't half bad either, dude! 
|
| Paddy C |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 22:48:43
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by StaLean
Oh, my goodness gracious! Jennifer Hudson stole the film with her singing and acting. The audience actually thunderously clapped after her songs at the viewing I attended. And, who knew Eddie Murphy could act AND sing! What a comeback from tedious, inane comedy hell. I highly recommend seeing Dreamgirls.
Totally! See my review here!
BBabe, you definitely have a career beckoning in this review business...
I really enjoyed this one too.. it really surprised me how good it was, and Jennifer Hudson fully deserves the Oscar. I really hope Eddie Murphy wins as well, it's the best thing he's done since - and maybe even including - 'Trading Places'...
Here's my stab at a review |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 12:09:37
Dreamgirls
I saw this at the weekend and really loved it, whereas I had been expecting to be a bit disappointed due to all the hype. It is hard to say why it is so great, as the story is fairly ordinary - I suppose it comes down to all of the individual performances being so good and perhaps especially to it giving a happier ending to the Supremes story than happened. This sounds ridiculous, but I had tears running down my cheeks at the end.
I am not particularly into musicals and did not enjoy the sung speech as much as the rest of it; the instance of this when the three men are walking down the alley/street when they are promoting the first single was especially awkward.
I'm disappointed to have missed the credits. I should have waited. Perhaps I'll go and see it again.
I really hope that Hudson gets the Oscar. Apparently this film has the record for the most nominations (eight) without being nominated for Best Picture. |
| turrell |
Posted - 01/30/2007 : 21:38:45
quote:
Originally posted by silly
I don't watch American Idol - is that where Ms. Hudson is from?
Yes she was voted out quite early and somewhat controversially and in a bizarre twist the woman who won AI the year Hudson was on, Fantasia Barrino, was up for Effie in Dream Girls as well, so Hudson is getting the last laugh for sure.
I agree that her singing in the movie gives hger the film but she wore so much pain while singing that I think she is definitely deserving on the statuette. |
| damalc |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 23:09:18
quote:
Originally posted by R o � k G o 7 f
Have to disagree somewhat, damalc on your reference to "lack of acting". Acting isn't just the saying of lines but reacting to what others say. To me the best acting in the film is on the silent face of Jennifer Hudson in the song before her big number. The combination of shock, grief and love is palpable. If she didn't sing a note, she'd still be a nominee in my book.
of course, acting is about more than just dialogue. but it was difficult for me to get into any of the characters with a song breaking out every three minutes. i've been moved by plenty of actors - Murphy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Helen Mirren, Jessica Lange, Terrence Howard, Denzel Washington and, i'm embarrassed to say, Ben Affleck - without them saying a word.
btw, i was also disappointed about not seeing a Jay-Z cameo. |
| RockGolf |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 21:28:19
Have to disagree somewhat, damalc on your reference to "lack of acting". Acting isn't just the saying of lines but reacting to what others say. To me the best acting in the film is on the silent face of Jennifer Hudson in the song before her big number. The combination of shock, grief and love is palpable. If she didn't sing a note, she'd still be a nominee in my book. |
| damalc |
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 18:06:53
i saw it last night too. i liked it but musicals really aren't my thing. my girlfriend had been saying she wanted to see it since it was released. i wasn't interested until i saw the acting award nominations and i must admit i was disappointed, not by the acting, but by the lack of acting. murphy and hudson were indeed delightful but i didn't get to see enough of them acting. they'd give a line or two then a song would break out. i kept looking for the scene that they would show at the academy awards when they introduce the nominees and i didn't see a good one. like sinatra winning best supporting for "From Here to Eternity." i'm a sinatra fan but i just didn't think he was on screen enough to win.
i thought murphy's best scene was when he was completely silent. his speaking parts were good but a scene near the end when he says nothing conveyed so much for me.
i bet this project works a lot better on stage than on film. and people in the theater broke out in applause for hudson's singing and when her name rolled on the credits.
i also really liked when they rolled the end credits and showed examples of the crews' work at the same time, like showing costume drawings when the designers name was shown, and showing all the actors on a grid (a-la-Brady Bunch) when the casting director's name was shown. |
|
|
