A trio of glitzy high-wigged divas are taken under by the slick management of Curtis Taylor (Jamie Foxx), gets assigned as backup singers from James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy) and later set free as leads. Owing to her beautiful looks, Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) is deemed more bankable than the "voice", Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) and assumes the leading position of the group accordingly, stirring up bitter rivalry in the trio and its behind-the-scenes management.
We follow our dreamgirls from age 16 when they are naive pop-stars on the rise to age 26 and over when they are washed-up overpriced divas arguing at Christmas, torn apart by intrigue, romance and prestige. As "Dreamgirls" makes the smooth transition from Motown blues to 70's soul to disco, the film makes a transition from charming to decent to tiresome. In short, it is frightfully unwise to stretch a light-hearted glammy musical over 2 hours of screen-time as the amount of likable characters and interesting set-ups wears increasingly thin.
Longevity is of course not its chief crux its characters are. Although Jennifer Hudson is rigorously being lobbied for as 'supporting actress' by studios (and a wise political move it is to ensure accolades), she inhabits something of a lead role in "Dreamgirls", perhaps not in direct screen-time (Beyoncé should be crowned the winner here) but in heart and soul. The problem with the character of Effie is that she is an unlikeable fame-hungry diva who spits sass like bullet-fire if she does not get the coveted spotlight. The only likable thing about her emerges distantly over time the fact that she didn't sell out like the rest. Wow, quite an accomplishment.
In spite of this, it should not be a gross overstatement to say that the success of "Dreamgirls" rests squarely on the shoulders of Jennifer Hudson. Eddie Murphy is fun, but ultimately forgettable and sparse in presence. Beyoncé is emotionally transparent in her performance, but not not particularly subtle. Jamie Foxx acts with cruel, success-driven intensity, but he is at the mercy of an underwritten character. In short, neither the the acting nor the wide montage of characters are anything to write home about.
Onto direction and editing, I must say I was rather impressed by both efforts. Director Bill Condon sews the film together with assured determination, even if it becomes too diluted toward the grand finale. The editing, which is not something I typically bring up or even notice, is beautifully inventive with a narrative structure that seamlessly intercuts future events/scenes in current scenes, such as one of the early sing-and-dancer numbers with James Thunder paralleled by the upcoming scene on the tour bus. I have seen this in films before ("Don't Look Now", 1973) but it is especially apt in Dreamgirls as the glittery trio cannot quite keep up with their own newfound success.
A source of annoyance with the aforementioned song numbers nevertheless becomes apparent. When the musical acts and drama are separated the result is credible, engaging and beautiful. When they are melted together in melodramatic singing showdowns, I shudder. But then, I suppose this is the "musical" part of the film. Although there are quite a few goosebumps-inducing sparkly moments on stage in a thick glossy coat of glamour, all the glitz soon becomes nauseating and the musical performances both unremarkable and indistinguishable. The latter is also true for "Dreamgirls" as a whole unless paint-by-numbers musicals are your thing.
6 out of 10
We follow our dreamgirls from age 16 when they are naive pop-stars on the rise to age 26 and over when they are washed-up overpriced divas arguing at Christmas, torn apart by intrigue, romance and prestige. As "Dreamgirls" makes the smooth transition from Motown blues to 70's soul to disco, the film makes a transition from charming to decent to tiresome. In short, it is frightfully unwise to stretch a light-hearted glammy musical over 2 hours of screen-time as the amount of likable characters and interesting set-ups wears increasingly thin.
Longevity is of course not its chief crux its characters are. Although Jennifer Hudson is rigorously being lobbied for as 'supporting actress' by studios (and a wise political move it is to ensure accolades), she inhabits something of a lead role in "Dreamgirls", perhaps not in direct screen-time (Beyoncé should be crowned the winner here) but in heart and soul. The problem with the character of Effie is that she is an unlikeable fame-hungry diva who spits sass like bullet-fire if she does not get the coveted spotlight. The only likable thing about her emerges distantly over time the fact that she didn't sell out like the rest. Wow, quite an accomplishment.
In spite of this, it should not be a gross overstatement to say that the success of "Dreamgirls" rests squarely on the shoulders of Jennifer Hudson. Eddie Murphy is fun, but ultimately forgettable and sparse in presence. Beyoncé is emotionally transparent in her performance, but not not particularly subtle. Jamie Foxx acts with cruel, success-driven intensity, but he is at the mercy of an underwritten character. In short, neither the the acting nor the wide montage of characters are anything to write home about.
Onto direction and editing, I must say I was rather impressed by both efforts. Director Bill Condon sews the film together with assured determination, even if it becomes too diluted toward the grand finale. The editing, which is not something I typically bring up or even notice, is beautifully inventive with a narrative structure that seamlessly intercuts future events/scenes in current scenes, such as one of the early sing-and-dancer numbers with James Thunder paralleled by the upcoming scene on the tour bus. I have seen this in films before ("Don't Look Now", 1973) but it is especially apt in Dreamgirls as the glittery trio cannot quite keep up with their own newfound success.
A source of annoyance with the aforementioned song numbers nevertheless becomes apparent. When the musical acts and drama are separated the result is credible, engaging and beautiful. When they are melted together in melodramatic singing showdowns, I shudder. But then, I suppose this is the "musical" part of the film. Although there are quite a few goosebumps-inducing sparkly moments on stage in a thick glossy coat of glamour, all the glitz soon becomes nauseating and the musical performances both unremarkable and indistinguishable. The latter is also true for "Dreamgirls" as a whole unless paint-by-numbers musicals are your thing.
6 out of 10