Dreamgirls (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

IMO, the role of Effie has always been the center and most important role in this production from Broadway to this film adaptation. I can't believe it's been about 25 years already since the original production.

 

[pitchman]

My wife and I took in a matinee screening yesterday and I must say that this is one very entertaining film! Jennifer Hudson's show-stopping number midway through the film brought about much the same reaction that you experienced, Mikel. A few times during the song in a very genuine display of encouragement and affection, audience members blurted out things like, "Sing it, girl!" Then, at the end of her song, the theater literally erupted into applause! Quite remarkable!

 

[pitchman]

This may be a blessing in disguise for Hudson. The academy has a long history of recognizing breakout performances by upcoming stars making their major screen debut in the supporting category. If Hudson gets the nomination, she will be very tough to beat IMO. Beyonce, on the other hand, stands little to no chance of getting a lead actress nomination.

You and Robert are exactly right. Hudson's portrayal of "Effie White" is the heart and soul of this production.

 

[Sylvia*ST]

I saw this film at an industry screening last night and the packed house erupted into cheers several times--rare at an Academy screening.

I never saw the musical because I didn't care for Jennifer Holliday or the score. But 25 years has been kind to this score--it now sounds fresh--I don't know why, but it does. And the casting is extraordinary. All singers--in a musical--what a concept!

From the first moment, I knew I would love this movie. The beat, the music, the characters, and Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy and, well, everyone. The book for the musical was opened up well, the songs which were "characters bursting into song" were placed in a recording studio at first, getting audiences not used to musical idioms accustomed before putting a song into a scene.

This all sounds dry and formulaic, but the movie was not. It was exciting, gorgeous to look at (cinematography, costumes and Broadway vet Jules Fisher lighting the "stage" scenes fabulously) and it felt the whole audience was swaying and bubbling with the effervescence of the whole thing. This is pretty much a flawless movie and I urge everyone to see it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I thought this film was okay, but not all that memorable (except for Jennifer Hudson's show-stopping "You're gonna love me" number), with average acting performances all-around except for Eddie Murphy, who commanded every scene he was in. I'm more convinced that Beyonce's voice is simply average and non-distinctive, but she's got the marketing machine working for her benefit these days. Hudson's got a powerhouse voice, but her acting wasn't as strong as her singing. Jamie Foxx was saddled with a 2-dimensional character, and never quite got in the groove for his role.

I think the adaptation from play to film never quite gelled, and it came off awkward to my eyes. I just wasn't as immersed in the film as I had hoped I would be. Some of that was because these characters just didn't give me a solid reason to root for them.

I give it 2.75 stars or a B- (mainly for the show-stopper number by Hudson)

 

[Kirk Tsai]

A breathless movie, racing non-stop from scene to scene. It succeeded in razzle and dazzle, but doesn't generate much feeling or good scenes outside of the singing. Condon really wants to push the pace. The much talked about Hudson solo is an example. Here it is, the high point of the movie, both emotionally and musically. Once the song ends, the film immediately flashes to another musical scene, one which isn't necessary for the film, nor nearly as memorable. Worse, we don't get any time to appreciate or reflect from Hudson's number.

Editing choices such as those are numerous. Conversations seem rarely to exceed a few lines. Behind the scene happenings are not shown, but spoken in the lines. Initial success for the team? Shown in a quickie montage, which doesn't show the thrill of rising stardom. All these elements make the storytelling lesser than other recent musical biographies.

Still, the musical scenes, with the flashy costumes, editing, lighting, camera moves, etc., make for a very entertaining show. They just keep on coming. Sometimes that's enough, and I think that's the case here.

Btw, regarding the lead vs. supporting role, at most, Beyonce and Hudson are tied for the lead actress of the movie. Their screen time can't have too much of a difference, and as others have pointed out, it's easily arguable that Effie was the heart of the movie.

 

[ScottR]

I loved Dreamgirls, but I have a question...

SPOILER

On one of the talk shows, I recall seeing a scene with Jennifer Hudson and Jamie Foxx in bed together. The host (could have been Oprah) asked Hudson if she was nervous doing her first love scene. But that scene wasn't in the print that I saw today.

 

[Erik_H]

About the quick cut from "And I Am Telling You..." to the next scene. That's not Condon's idea---it was taken from the original Broadway staging by Michael Bennett. Check out the video of Jennifer Holliday's performance of the song from the 1982 Tony awards on YouTube and you will see what I mean---no more than several seconds after Holliday finishes the song and the audience goes wild, a curtain drops to conceal her and in front of that curtain the newly reconstituted Dreams perform a brief number. My recollection is that Bennett was criticized for that abrupt shift as well, but he did this to sharpen the dramatic impact of Effie's firing from the Dreams.

 

[David (C)]

A friend of mine who saw an early test screening of the film says the scene was intact during the version he saw. I told him I’m sure what he saw was a ‘work print’.

 

[Dennis]

I remember seeing all of the commercials for the Broadway musical when I was a kid, I didn't get to see it though, and watching this film brought me back to that time. This was a fantastic film! I would certainly encourage those that like the whole Motown period and old school R&B to go see it. I really would encourage any movie fan to see it. I enjoyed every minute of it.

The performances were excellent, there wasn't a bad one in the entire film. I have to give it to Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy, they both should be getting Oscar nominations with Murphy long overdue. The musical numbers were well edited and choreographed. I saw it in an almost empty theater and there was more applause than the last few films I saw in a packed theater put together. I haven't felt that emotion in a theater since I don't know when.

 

[Claire Panke]

I saw Dreamgirls twice in its heyday - once on Broadway and once in a touring production - and Erik is right about the quick cuts. In fact, the hallmark of this musical on stage was its "cinematic" qualities, the way Bennett used stagecraft to mimic jump cuts and dissolves for dramatic impact (remember Bennett was also a movie director). Those startling juxtapositions were intentional and added to the energy of the show. It's the chief thing (besides Holliday's performance) I remember about Dreamgirls.

Oddly enough, on an actual film, that style doesn't seem to work as well for this musical, and I'm not really sure why. Dreamgirls the movie is high energy and has terrific moments, but it strikes me as...well, flat. I'm not sure Condon's changes, especially the reductionist tendencies to pontificate on "the history of black popular music", are an improvement - and I say that as someone who loves Condon (I adore Gods & Monsters and even Kinsey) and grew up on R&B, Motown, Stax soul etc. I just don't feel the emotional weight that's clearly intended here either. As terrific as Hudson is, her musical chops far surpass her acting abilities at this point.

Eddie Murphy, however, gives off sparks ike a firecracker. This is his best role and he makes the most of it - pulleaze, give this man some more quality dramatic roles.

 

[GerardoHP]

I don't think Beyonce stands a chance for a nomination, although she looks fantastic in the movie. And Jennifer Hudson wouldn't stand a chance to win in the Best Actress category. The studios know this, that's why they're pushing her in a "lesser" category and hyping the heck out of her performance in hopes of getting her nominated and thus sell more tickets. Who can blame them? Now, be careful what you believe.

I tend to agree with those who found the film rather unimpressive.

I thought the production was great looking and the music good but not memorable, with the exception of a couple of real standout songs which we all knew from the original show. Jennifer Hudson has a phenomenal voice, clearly, and her acting is adequate but she certainly does not give that Oscar-caliber performance she's being hyped for. But her own story of rejection and triumph is exactly what Hollywood loves, especially since it kind of mirrors the story in the movie, and you can bet they're going to work it until they bring your dinner up.

I think the unfavorable comparison to CHICAGO is appropriate, since they are both musicals about the entertainment business that originated on Broadway, with similar themes of "becoming a star at all costs". CHICAGO is a far superior film adaptation of a stage musical, with a more memorable score and a leaner/meaner approach to the subject. It's especially the mean factor, I think, that makes it more interesting.

I saw it at the Cinerama Dome, a theater that has the clearest sound in the world. However, that curved screen distorts the picture so much sometimes Effie looked skinnier than all the other characters (if you know the story, you know this is not how it's supposed to be). I know this is off topic but, if they're going to create digital prints for showing at Cinerama-type theaters, couldn't they at least correct them to compensate for the distortions like they used to do with Super Cinerama prints in the 60's?

 

[Robert Crawford]

From my perspective, as a black person that grew up in the early 1960s, that portion of the film served me very well. I was discussing this film with some younger guys at work and none of them knew about those issues and the differences between the R&B music being produced in Detroit/LA versus what was coming out of Memphis.

I enjoyed this film more than "Chicago", probably because the cast members in "Dreamgirls" had displayed better singing talent, excluding the given of such singing talent of Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson. Hudson has acting potential, but any acting awards she wins for this role will be due to her singing ability moreso than her acting skills. Eddie Murphy was very good.

Also, it was nice to seeing one of the original dreamgirls have a cameo in this film adaptation.

 

[Vlad D]

Saw this yesterday with my wife and we were both blown away. We thought Eddie Murphy was great and Jennifer Hudson was excellent. They were both deserving of their Golden Globe win. What I don't understand is why Beyonce was nominated for Best Actress and Jennifer for Best Supporting Actress. To me Jennifer's role was much bigger than Beyonce's and also her acting was much better.

Anyway, loved the movie, can't wait for the DVD. Going out to buy the soundtrack in the meantime.

 

[MikeRS]

Jennifer Hudson made me cry.

That is all.

 

[Quentin]

I finally saw this.

I don't like musicals. They are far too easy (for me, anyway) to find the faults and the cracks and the problems.

I've never seen the stage production of Dreamgirls and I've never heard a soundtrack.

All I know is that the film was SO much better than I expected. Condon nails it so bad it hurts. I DESPISE Chicago on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin. It is OFF. But, this film is exactly how a movie musical for the time period should be. Condon's cuts, his composure, the pacing, EVERYTHING works.

Beyonce is beautiful and perfect, but Hudson is amazing. My wife and I sort of stared, open mouthed, at each other after "I'm telling you." It was like we saw a star born. Just screen commanding, powerful stuff. I wish her well.

Murphy did exactly what I thought he could. He is strong, but I wasn't blown away. I know he can act.

And, boy, Foxx plays a real bastard.

I'm pretty shocked now at the BP snub. Maybe the voters thought the stage production was better. I have no comparison. This film seemed like typical Oscar material all the way. I'd root for it just to wash out the bad taste of Chicago.

Now, I'm stuck rooting for Departed because it's Scorsese. I liked this film more.

 

[MikeMO]

I have a question for people though...actually two...

I remember when similar films came out...whether it was Ray or Chicago or Moulin Rouge, they were huge. Now, everyone maybe had mixed opinions on them all, but it seemed like advertisements were everyone. You'd go to message boards and threads would be ten plus pages long. You'd see the stars promoting the movie everywhere, etc.

Is it me, or is this not the case with Dreamgirls? I feel like no one has seen it--at least if I were to go by the internet. Hell, this thread JUST now hit two pages. Why is this?

And secondly, I am curious, how many people who saw this film grew up enjoying the Supremes? Or have a love for Motown? I ask because I am 23, and while I liked the film, I think there's a lot of value from the movie that I cannot appreciate. My mother, on the other hand, LOVED the Supremes growing up. She was in love with Diana Ross. So she told me that Beyonce's mannerisms were very similar to Diana Ross's in the movie. So she was better able to appreciate the re-creation of the sets, clothing, etc. The album covers and photos were apparently spot on, etc. I had no knowledge of Florence from the Supremes and how unhappy she was. That Jamie Foxx was supposed to be Barry Gordy and how he really had a relationship with Diana Ross. How Gordy truly did, supposedly, have connections with the mob to help finance his goals. How Gordy soured on the the idea of Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On" song (like how Foxx put down Murphy's idea for the song 'Patience'.). Tons of things like this.

So I'm just wondering about those two things. Thanks.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Regarding your second question as someone that was a teenager during the 1960s and was very familiar with Motown and the Supremes, there are some major differences and similarities between Dreamgirls and Supremes. First off, the Supremes formed as a four girl group in 1959, when they were only 15 years of age. By the time they signed with Motown and changed their name from the Primettes to the Supremes, they were still in high school while becoming a three member group in the 1960/1961 timeframe. By the time, they had their first hit in 1963, Ross became the lead singer with Florence Ballard and Mary Wilson singing background. Furthermore, the group as a whole were background singers for Motown acts like Marvin Gaye.

They had three number one records in 1964, when two of the girls were 20 years old and the other being 21 years old. Ballard left the group in 1967, and died in poverty in 1976 at the age of 32 years old. A very sad case since many early observers of the group have stated that Ballard was the best singer of the group, but Ross had such a distinctive voice and on-stage personality that it helped push the Supremes to the big-time. Of course, having an early romantic relationship with the record company's owner and the songs from one of the most successful writing teams in pop music didn't hurt.

By the way, Marvin Gaye had to fight his brother-in-law Barry Gordy to release the "What's Going On" abum which IMO, is one of the best albums ever released by any artist.



Crawdaddy

 

[Tim Glover]

Good film. Especially the first hour or so. That first hour of musical performances were simply fantastic. I didn't think the film held up as well the rest of the way but I still enjoyed it.

I also want to add that I thought Eddie Murphy, hands down, was the best thing about Dreamgirls. Jennifer Hudson was terrific but Murphy owned every scene he was in and his music performances were major highlights.

I know he got some awards and was the expected winner for the Oscar until Alan Arkin won. Arkin was very good but compared to EM's stuff in Dreamgirls....no comparison.

8/10.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Mostly agree with Tim, but I give it a 9/10. My only criticisms are that it sometimes lacked emotional depth (largely, I think, due to the fact that Condon insisted on rushing from scene to scene with little time left for the audience to reflect on the characters) and the fact that "breaking out into song" wasn't handled quite as well as it could have been.

Otherwise it's fantastic, though not quite up to the level of Chicago.