Dreamgirls

A dream date-movie, Dreamgirls offers to fulfil your fantasies and, if this is the type of movie you dream about, maybe it will.

A film version based on a stage musical's original book, Dreamgirls scales the octaves of anonymity to eminence for an African-American girl group amid 1960s racial turmoil.

Just looking at the publicity photos may have persuaded you that Dreamgirls is a sight for sore eyes. Lavish sets and costumes, fabulous choreography, and the lighting and razzamatazz associated with the best stage musicals, all exploding onto the big screen with a grandeur that can banish thoughts of anything else. Watch it as you melt into the arms of your lover. Two very powerful lead singers (Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson) to amaze you with their vocal ranges, and the sort of blockbuster publicity that makes going to see it almost an obligatory cultural event.

Dreamgirls is intense, emotion-laden eye-candy, but will it satisfy your every wish? Curtis Taylor Jr (Jamie Foxx) is a car salesman bursting to get into the music business as a forward-looking manager at a time when the industry is about to change. At a local talent show, he hears the Dreamettes - young, full of ability, but not getting the breaks. He gets them a deal as backing singers for James 'Thunder' Early. Thunder's blend of soul and rock 'n' roll is at its height, but times are a-changin' and soon the girls are re-launched as The Dreams - at the same time as Thunder's career fades. A few jealousies and heave-hoes later, and they rocket to success.

Dreamgirls relies on well-established techniques seen in MTV and director-writer Condon's earlier success, Chicago, to ratchet up emotional intensity. A song will start low key in an ordinary setting and modest musical backing, and then segue visually through more extravagant sets until it reaches an emotional climax with full orchestra and bright lights. At times it feels like watching a stage show. The devices are effective but formulaic to the point of being hackneyed. Many of the songs also feel like standard written-for-Broadway numbers, contorted lyrics being used to tell the story and the emotions that the players expect us to share.

The story has little substance beyond the songs (and the posturing that goes with them), but this matters little if you want to be entertained in a way that demands no long/deep attention span, or if you want to nip out for more popcorn, or even turn away for a canoodle until the volume tells you to come up for air. The inclusion of many set stage productions as the girl-group tours enables ample opportunity for show-stopping dance sequences, fabulous lighting and costumes to die for.

The film showcases two discoveries: one is that Eddie Murphy can work outside of comedy. The other is the remarkable talent of Jennifer Hudson (a competitor from the TV singing contest, American Idol) who demonstrates that she can stop you in your tracks as an actor as well as a singer.

But having Hudson and Beyonce together has its problems as well as benefits. Both are remarkable singing divas. This has some relevance to the story since there is a certain rivalry between their characters, but in a movie about a girl-band that is meant to evoke images of groups like the Supremes, they are vocally two divas too many. The large proportion of songs show off their incredible individual vocal talents - but as leads rather than as harmonies. At times, it is maybe like having two high-intensity Aretha Franklins advertising the Dolby-Digital sound dynamics rather than having Ronettes, Stylistics or Supremes soothe the eardrums. The film is about a girl group, yet focuses almost entirely on its two strongest singers. In the absence of a story with depth, characters with substance, or a worthier tribute to an era that had more originality than this big budget production, I longed for a gentle, all-girl ballad.

Dreamgirls contains all the talent that money can buy and more. It has more Academy nominations in its year than any other movie, but none of them in the major categories. So sad, but it lacks true greatness.

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.

The legendary Broadway musical hit the screen, resurrecting the thrill of the original. That, in itself, is a miracle. I suspect that the miracle worker is Bill Condon. The story is told as if it revealed something we've never seen before and his winning innocence triumphs. The casting of Eddie Murphy was a stroke of genius. He unfolds a new inedited face and I predict a new career. The predictability of the tale becomes rewarding rather than annoying and I was surprised and moved all the way through. Jammie Foxx's unsympathetic turn manages to deliver a punch of humanity. Byonce Knowles, Danny Glover and the rest of the cast are a perfect foil for Jennifer Hudson's Cinderella Story. Bravo Mr Condon!

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.

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!