| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Stalean 
"Back...OMG"
|
 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. |
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 09:39:07
|
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!
|
 |
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 16:36:52
|
| It was fantastic and I agree with you about Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy as well as the whole cast who were superb. Edddie Murphy used to do a spot on James Brown on Saturday Night Live and I think he channeled him here. |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 20:32:36
|
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.
Same thing happened at my screening in Universal City last week. I loved the film too. |
|
|
|
Catuli 
"Loves Film and Fun"
|
Posted - 12/30/2006 : 21:34:39
|
For a chick flick it wasn't half bad. My wife dragged me to see it, and I've been forced to endure worse. I thought Eddie Murphy's performance was the best, and I'm not the least surprised. If you can do comedy you can do anything.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/31/2006 : 21:50:26
|
We liked it very much, although we were not floored as we expected to be. If Jennifer Hudson doesn't receive an Oscar nom [maybe even the statue itself?], there may be riots at the Kodak to match her AMERICAN IDOL ones. But that famous "10:00 number" also made a sensation out of the stage-version Jennifer, Ms. Holliday, 25 years ago. You have to walk the walk, sure, but the song itself talks the talk. Beyonce pretty much kicks ass near the end with her "Listen" number as well, the one in the recording studio, which if memory serves is a brand new tune.
My reservations are: (1) This goes back to the original show, but the score isn't Motown, it's a Catskills Motown impression through a Broadway filter. [HAIR isn't rock & roll either; same deal.] Eddie Murphy donning a knit hat doth not Marvin Gaye make, it doth Michael Bennett make. I never, ever heard the "new sound" that was promised several times. (2) The rehearsal-cutting-directly-into-the-performance-for-an-audience shtick is overdone. It works the first couple of times, then it quits working. (3) The picture isn't even as "opened up" as was CHICAGO, which was, by the way, not frickin much: for a movie, this one's awfully stagebound. I'm not saying that's not a deliberate choice. But for me, some opportunities were wasted.
However.
I don't think I saw a wrong casting note, and the costumes and design are nothing short of incredible. All players and singers are superb, and Murphy is indeed a revelation. [But should we really be surprised? Didn't everybody enjoy "Party All The Time"? ] If you're gonna preserve DREAMGIRLS for all time, you can do a far, far worse job. This movie absolutely deserves your money. But it's a long way from the best picture of the year.
EDIT: I also enjoyed and appreciated the end main-card credits, which show you exactly what each department head does for a living. A very nice touch. |
Edited by - randall on 01/01/2007 06:49:54 |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 01/29/2007 : 14:21:47
|
I'm late to the party, but I finally saw this yesterday, and yes, it rocked.
I don't watch American Idol - is that where Ms. Hudson is from?
I liked seeing Jamie do his bit, too, but for me Eddy Murphy stole it. Well, him and Jennifer.
(indecision may or may not be my problem)  |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
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. |
Edited by - damalc on 01/29/2007 18:16:36 |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
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
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
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.  |
Edited by - damalc on 03/06/2007 01:17:29 |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
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. |
Edited by - turrell on 02/05/2007 16:35:25 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
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. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/05/2007 12:11:13 |
|
|
|
Paddy C
"Does not compute! Lame!"
|
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 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
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!
|
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
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
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
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.   
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 02/07/2007 00:36:39 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dreamgirls
