Cool News
Reviews Of DREAMGIRLS And More From A Spy In Blighty!!
Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
It’s interesting the way our reviewer today approached DREAMGIRLS. It sounds like musicals like this one just aren’t his bag, but he talks about the reaction of the audience at the BAFTA screening he went to. Pay attention, because he’s not kidding when he talks about what a lovefest it seems to be at the screenings so far.
I just saw the film for the third time last night, and I’ve taken different people with me each time. Part of the fun is watching them react to it, and the audience at each of the screenings. People get into this film. They applaud, they cheer. And these are at stodgy industry screenings, so I can only imagine what the reaction will be like with a paying audience that’s really pumped up about seeing it.
This spy’s been a contributor on and off over the years, and even when I disagree with him, I know he’s a guy who sees everything:
DREAMGIRLS
I just don’t like R+B music. Perhaps I have no soul. But everyone else at the cinema loved it. I mean – really loved it!
The screening was at the Odeon West in London on Wednesday and was hosted by BAFTA.
The film immediately kicks off into a lengthy scene where we’re introduced to the Dreamgirls. Plucked from nowhere they end up as a supporting act for Eddie Murphy in 60’s Detroit and we follow them in their rags to riches
story to global success…
The film rarely gets a chance to breath – there’s just so much fucking singing in it. And every once in a while, when the singing stops and we get into what could be a decent and even meaty dramatic scene - everyone starts singing again. I was desperate to see some real dramatic scenes. I would have loved to have seen the backroom deals that Jamie Fox’s characters would have been forced to make to get the band where they end up. I would also have loved to see some of the sex and drugs that I imagine the era would have been full off. However this is a family film and coke fuelled orgies or even a blow job in a backstage toilet probably don’t make family viewing in America.
My problem was the film had no depth. Beyond the flashy visuals, there was no meat on the bones. The production values were slick. Solid photography, good editing, good design and great costumes. In fact Oscar winning costumes. But beyond that I didn’t see a great script. However I don’t know how loyal the filmmakers were trying to be to the stageshow and how the film suffers as a result?
The film touches on the 60’s and 70’s social politics but mostly misses the point. It never shows how challenging it was to be a black person or band breaking into “white” audiences in America. Martin Luther King and JFK are touched upon, mostly with set dressing and an occasional non singing line. In fact in one ludicrous scene one of the girls storms out of a recording studio and straight into the Detroit Riots.
I didn’t recognise Beyonce. I didn’t even realise she was in it. But damn she looks good.
Jamie Fox was the villain of the piece but perhaps my morals are a little off as I didn’t find him particularly bad. His characters sheppard’s the Dreamgirls from black segregation and past Danny Glovers down trodden manager of Eddie Murphy who believes its not possible for a black artist to go much further than the ethnic R+B charts of its time and takes them to global success. Just because he doesn’t let the band try new material or get political during the Vietnam War is hardly up there with a paedophile or some Hollywood villain trying to nuke the world. Ike Turner he aint.
Eddie Murphy was great. Especially his hair which clearly added an extra 6 inches to his height. After years of talking animal movies it was great seeing him act and he did it well.
Danny Glover was underused and the other dreamgirl I don’t even remember her name.
Jennifer Hudson played Effie White – the real star of the dreamgirls and its most tragic figure. However I didn’t find her character sympathetic especially when making the choices she makes and despite a voice tinged with greatness – she definitely has a face for radio. I don’t mean to be cruel – but its just business. Thin girls sell. Fat ones don’t. And when she gives up her place in the band I can completely understand the business opportunity that it presents itself with (check out The Gossip – “Standing in the Way of Control” for some contemporary greatness in a fat suit)
Dreamworks should be happy though. If they don’t fuck up the marketing they should have some Christmas box office booty. In the rest of the world – I don’t know. Guess it all depends on how well they market it and how many people like R+B.
There was a Q+A as well and it was a total lovefest. This was the first Bafta audience I’ve ever seen to ever get out of its chairs and give a standing ovation. I guess they had all seen the show!
Bill Condon was there, talking articulately about his process as was Lawrence Michaels who mentioned the rights were owned by David Geffen and only after Moulin Rouge did making it seem like a good idea.
However, most questions went to Jennifer Hudson who played Effie. Looking a little shy and unpolished the Bafta audience gave her a huge reception and the Q+A host often summarised the questions asked of her so to make it easy. I don’t know if she’s got a great film career ahead of her but she has got a GREAT stage career waiting to get going.
I’m probably the wrong man to appreciate this film but everyone else around me did and that’s what matters to a big release like this.
NOTES ON A SCANDAL
This was a film I was really looking forward to. 2 of the best actresses (Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett) on the planet supported by Bill Nighy in a plot about a teacher who has an affair with a pupil and written by the guy who wrote Closer and it has a fantastic title. Sound great. Really great. However – its not.
It starts promising but the story soon strays off the rails and ends with a very different story than I was expecting.
I don’t want to spoil the film by explaining where the plot goes – just the marketing I have seen portrays the film has a far more jagged and realistic story than it is. It turns into a geriatric version of “Oranges are the not the only Fruit” instead of some complex social study of our times that really wanted to see. We didn’t see the whole Judi Dench character. The story itself should stand tall without it.
It’s amazing how much love a British audience have for Judi Dench. Despite playing the villain of the piece the audience laughed and nodded knowingly for the first 30 minutes, despite the character being such a vile and ultimately lonely woman.
The film ticks many of the right. We have social justification. The boy is 15 and nearly 16 (legal age of consent in England) The charming and good looking Boy plays the man well chasing and pursuing Blanchett who has an older husband and a kid with Downs Syndrome just to complete to the urban portrait. However the film never captures a London school or even our times. I went to a London school, admittedly a long time ago but it didn’t seem real. The teachers seemed like charectertures and none of this was helped by the almost non stop voice over by Dench.
A noble but flawed film and ultimately a massive missed opportunity.
HISTORY BOYS
A paedophiles wet dream… Never saw the play. If you want some worldclass Alan Bennett – check out Madness of King George. THAT’S a great film!
THE FOUNTAIN
I saw it a month ago and still can’t figure it out. Hope Warner’s send me a screener so I can get my head around it. My friend I watched with thought it was the best film of 2006! Me – I’m not so sure and I’m a huge Aronofsky fan… Anyways – it’s an important film by important artist and will challenge you what ever way you think. Go see it.
If you can use these thoughts and opinions then call me
Tracy Emin’s Left Tit
-
+ Expand All
-
Strike THREE!!
-
What ever happend to him?
-
it is a bit better than Tracy Emin's vagina Errrrrrgghhhh!!!
-
'It never shows how challenging it was to be a black person or band breaking into “white” audiences in America.'
So.... what was that scene in the Las Vegas showroom all about, then? To say this movie had no dramatic flair is complete nonsense. I really enjoyed the film, along with 99% of the audience. Seems to me like this guy went in with a very closed mind and wouldn't crack it open a millimeter for anyone. A pre-judgement does not a review make. Get someone objective on the case. This idiot clearly didn't 'get' the movie.
Don't you have anyone with more than half a brain to review these things? -
..are the not the only Fruit” Ha! Actually that description suddenly has me interested in the film. Oranges was the best thing the BBC has done in ten years.
-
"The film rarely gets a chance to breath – there’s just so much fucking singing in it. And every once in a while, when the singing stops and we get into what could be a decent and even meaty dramatic scene - everyone starts singing again." Uh, the whole singing thing is kind of the idea of musicals. The vocals and drama are meant to fused together, not mutually exclusive.
-
I can't stand it when just because someone is honest enough to saw they didn't like a film they are accused of "not getting it" as if you are smarter than they are. Get a grip on yourself. I was at this screening too. I agree with the reviewer that I have never in hundreds of BAFTA q&a screening ever seen a film get a standing ovation. However, much as I general dislike musicals for the momst part Dreamgirls was pretty good, fun, entertaining, well acted, looked great, but he's right about there not being much to it under the surface. But then that's half the point: it is a musical (which are usually all just surface) about surviving in an industry that's all just surface. Though maybe I liked it more than this guy because I love this style of music. Love it or hate it you have to admire the look of it and the acting (even Beyonce wasn't bad!) and this reviewer highlights them so he is not an idiot by any means. Someone who levels the childish "he didn't get it" card though clearly is.
-
"I would also have loved to see some of the sex and drugs that I imagine the era would have been full off. However this is a family film and coke fuelled orgies or even a blow job in a backstage toilet probably don’t make family viewing in America." It's not set in the seventies, it's set in the early 1960's. The industry wasn't like that yet.
-
...and he's right. History Boys really did suck big time. Totally different from what I was expecting.
-
who cares whether Mark McGuire gets into the Hall of Fame? dude's so jacked on steroids, his nuts could double for tonsils.
-
"I just don't like R+B music." Wow.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts