Does anyone else think Dreamgirls is a bad movie?- Page 3

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:08am

I saw it on Saturday night and loved it. I was thunderstruck by Jennifer Hudson's voice and performance. She has a lot to be proud of. Eddie Murphy was as wonderful as I'd hoped!

I was underwhelmed by Jamie Foxx, but thought that Beyonce did quite well (hated how they made Deena out to be SO naive, but that's hardly her fault). Most of the time Beyonce was onscreen I just stared in awe...she may be one of THE most gorgeous creatures on the planet.

"Family" was lame. I can't believe they cut Lorell's "Ain't No Party" in favor of that cheese. I adored Anika and would have loved for her to have had her shining moment.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:31am

blueroses---Just to be clear, "Family" didn't replace "Ain't No Party." They're in two different scenes, and both were in the original show. It wasn't a case of swapping one for the other.



...And no, I don't think Dreamgirls is a bad movie. I think it's easily as good or better than the film version of Chicago. That would make it one of the best movie musicals in the past 30 years, in my book. So... no, it's not a bad movie.

But to each his own.

[blueroses]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:42am

best12...I guess I shouldn't have used the words "in favor of." My bad. :) I didn't see the original and for some reason was under the impression that "Family" was a new song. Still disappointed they cut "Ain't No Party" though.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 10:54am

blueroses---I missed "Ain't No Party" too, but the scene with Lorrell and Jimmy didn't need to turn into a comedic rant (which is what what "Ain't No Party" is, at that moment in the story). The dialogue leading up to the song is there, when she kisses him once for each of the years they've been together in "unmarried life." It actually would have been very jarring for her to turn this more subdued and realistic frustration from her relationship with Jimmy into any song, right then. And as much as I miss the song, I agree with the decision to remove it.

"Family" is from the stage show, and happens exactly in the same point in the story as it does on film. If it's "cheese" for you now, it would be "cheese" then. I think the song has some of the weakest lyrics in the score... but it's still a very sweet, beautiful song. It works a little better on stage, only because audience buy the schmaltz more in live theatre. In a film... schmaltz is exposed exactly for what it is, and many audience members will cringe.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:00am

I disagree about "Ain't No Party" being jarring for that scene. I've heard several people say that (it seems like it's the official line on its exclusion), but personally I don't see any reason why it couldn't have been in that scene in the movie. The song takes an immediate turn at the end and segues into the melancholy "I Meant You No Harm/Quintette," so I don't see how there would have been a tonal disruption.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:44am

It's an unnecessary mood shift in the film.

"Ain't No Party" is almost an old-school Broadway "formula" song. It's in the same spot as "Sue Me" in Guys & Dolls and "All Or Nothin'" in Oklahoma!

They each come about halfway through the second act, when we've been exposed to the more serious, emotionally developed plot points of our leading characters, so the writers decide to give us a little "lift" by having the secondary characters step into the spot light for a "peppy" number. They provide a moment of raised energy and comedy, as well as beginning to tie up their own sub-plot points during the song.

The audience gets a breather, and they "wake up" a bit, before returning to the deeper "main story."

So, basically, they cut "Sue Me" or "All Or Nothin'." Yeah, I miss it, but it doesn't kill anything for me.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:55am

I'd like to see Faith Prince and Nathan Lane do "Ain't No Party."

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:56am

I missed "Ain't No Party" mainly because it'd have been great to see what Anika Noni Rose would've done with the number. She was so wonderful throughout the whole film that I wish she had that one moment in the spotlight. Also, it'd have been nice to have a full version of the song recorded by someone who can actually sing the song (Headley's version on the concert recording is jarring). Having said that, I thought Rose and Murphy handled that scene pretty well and got the point across without the song.
I believe "Family" shouldn't have made it past the editing room, this is the one song in the whole score that I believe is actually "bad." The lyrics are just absurd and the way the number is filmed does not help much. Did anyone notice Jamie Foxx during this number? He was sort of moving his lips, not sure what he was trying to do. It was also a bit of a cop-out to set the number on a stage. I also agree that "Listen" should've been a book song, Curtis would've never let Deena record that song especially at that point in her career.
So yes, Dreamgirls is a flawed film but what movie isn't? I've seen it three times and every time I like it better and better. I still think Chicago is a more focused and better-performed film, but that's for another thread. To call Dreamgirls a "bad movie" is a bit extreme.

[Kringas]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 11:56am

It's an unnecessary mood shift in the film.

I dunno, this all happens around the time of the The Campbell Connection, which has gotten a laugh with every audience with which I've seen the film. I see what you're saying, but I still disagree that there would have been that much of a shift there.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 12:03pm

I had no problem believing that it wasnt until Deena was in the recording studio, actually recording "Listen" and laying that track that Curtis realized that she was singing to and about him...and it seemed the first time she showed her true feelings in song, and it even surprised her.

They both seemed to be taken aback by her vocals - she wasnt just singing prettily, she was connecting to the lyrics and they meant something to her...it was a great moment for me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 12:34pm

It was for me too, doodle.

As for the Campbell Connection, I laughed at that too... but it was a NOSTALAGIA laugh at recognizing "little Michael" in the group and his big fro.

I didn't laugh at him anymore than I did some of the other extreme "retro" iconic looks, album covers, costumes and hairdos.

Besides, they're on screen at the tribute concert for maybe THREE seconds. It's hardly an invasive moment in the film.

And I wouldn't misinterpret a laugh of recognition for one of disapproval. I laughed, but I did not disapprove.

Updated On: 1/8/07 at 12:34 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 1:23pm

I also think that "Ain't No Party" would have ruined the mood. I liked it better in dialogue form.

And the movie is AMAZING!

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 1:27pm

I still think this was the best movie of the year.

Also, I have come to terms with the fact that it could very possibly win Best Picture at the Oscars. It practically has the Golden Globe for Best Picture all tied up which generally leads to an Oscar nod. Also, after the majority of the films that have been awarded in recent years (A Beautiful Mind, Million Dollar Baby, Crash, and even most of the nominees in recent years -Capote, Munich et al.-), I think Oscar is ready to award a big, glitzy, splashy film and I think DREAMGIRLS is that movie. It's also impeccably well done which doesn't hurt. After last year's viscious campaign by Crash (Dreamgirls is starting a VERY VERY strong Oscar campaign as well that will most definitely only get stronger) and the film's surprise win, I think Dreamgirls could definitely pull this one out of the hat. It's between Dreamgirls and The Departed at this point; I think that much is vividly clear.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 1:42pm

Re: "Family", I always hated the song. I think it's an awful, awful song.

[javero]

Posted: 1/8/07 at 1:55pm

I finally saw the flick last night. The movie is not without its flaws of which many have been pointed out already. Murphy & Husdson were brilliant and casting was perfect overall. The only items that I found troublesome were: (1) AITYING seemed to go one too long on screen & the orchestration sounded a bit cheesy, (2) 'Listen' is a beautiful song & Knowles is a beautiful creature that now seems capable of channeling Diana Ross & Audrey Hepburn on scree but it was SO out of place and (3) the ending was just plain lame.

I agree with the other posters here about the scene transitions just not working ideally in some spots. Though I didn't see the Broadway production with the OBC, I've seen some really good regional theatre mountings of the musical. The film adaption just seems too sterile & I honestly thought that most of the wigs looked plain awful. There were worse wigs on screen than what was sold recently at Whitney Houston's yard sale. That said, I did feel moved by it and actually shedded a tear when Deena consoled Lorrell.

Nearly forgot, to me the best scene in the movie was the cameo by Loretta Devine. Her screen presence and performance were surreal.

Updated On: 1/8/07 at 01:55 PM

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 11:57am

Looks like with the Academy (rightfully) snubbing DREAMGIRLS today this debate will be more heated.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:14pm

Priest - as you probably have already read in the other thread: "snub" is never really an accurate description for when a film gets left out of the Best Picture line up. The way the ranking voting works for AMPAS, essentially only the "number 1" choice on the ballot for Best Picture means anything. So its not really an instance of people voting for five movies and leaving others out (which is what I would consider a snub). Every person in the Academy could have selected DREAMGIRLS has their number 2 in ranking, and it still wouldn't have made it to the BP lineup.

As a film, I think DREAMGIRLS is fine - but it is not a film people feel passionate about. You have to have a group of AMPAS that feels passionate enough to give the film a sizable amount of number one votes on their ballots. The passion is for DREAMGIRLS' performances, which were rightly recognized.
Updated On: 1/23/07 at 12:14 PM

[bschneid76]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:37pm

Going to the point about Deena singing "Listen" we don't ever know if it ever gets released! Look at the song "Patience", it shows them trying to break free from the same style that Curtis kept making them sing. It also shows Deena trying to break free from Curtis as well. So I think it works well for the show, not to mention being able to show all the facts that are and have been occuring throughout the story.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:39pm

I actually think it's better than "Chicago." When I saw "Chicago" all three times in the theater, I just wanted to see the music numbers (same on dvd). I thought the actual dialog and "movie" parts were boring, and when I watch it on dvd, I just skip those scenes. But, with "Dreamgirls," I liked the dialog, the music numbers, the plot, etc.

Whatever, different opinions!

[WalkOn]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:48pm

I saw it again last night. I was surprised at how much I let my knowledge and experience with the stage version influence my enjoyment. I found it even more impressive the second time around.

[DG]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:50pm

Bad? Goodness, no. Equal to the hype? Not for me.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:56pm

I'm with DG. Not a bad movie, in fact a good one. But only a good one. Nothing special.

[kooky]

Posted: 1/24/07 at 4:08pm

Well some of the music was O.K. - - it just didn't knock me out - - I wanted to
feel much more. I guess you can say I was disappointed.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 1/25/07 at 4:03am

A wonderful film...hardly a bad one.

It definately deserved to be included in the nominees for Best Picture!

[Trekkie2]

Posted: 1/25/07 at 8:12am

GREAT MOVIE!!
paradox, don't get me started.