Dreamgirls (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Review this title
562 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
An undemanding and thoroughly enjoyable date movie
Chris_Docker2 February 2007
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.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The year's big "if"
zetes1 January 2007
It's a crowd-pleaser all right, and I usually object to those. But I have to say, this member of the crowd was rather pleased with the film. It's nothing deep, I'll say right off the bat. It's no cinematic masterpiece that will be a beacon for films to come. What it is, however, is an absolute ball. It's the only film I think I've ever seen that really captures the experience of seeing a great musical in the theater. It's fun, it's rousing, and it just made me feel good. The music is outstanding and surprisingly comes off as stuff that might really have been recorded during the eras depicted, with maybe just the right tinge of Broadway to them. The vocal performances are just outstanding. Of course by now everyone knows the standout is Jennifer Hudson, who will be unstoppable at the Oscars this year. Her acting is quite good, but she'll win it for the singing. I would also be perfectly happy to see Eddie Murphy take home a statuette. He's excellent in both comedic and dramatic moments. Much of the rest of the cast is good, too, including Beyoncé Knowles and Anika Noni Rose. The story is of course based on that of the Supremes, and in that way, I felt a little Susan Alexander Kane / Marion Davies situation going on with Deena Jones / Diana Ross. While the Dreams are supposed to be only like the Supremes, the film kind of does imply that Ross was not an extremely talented singer, which is of course patently false. Anyway, small quibble. No, Dreamgirls is no masterpiece, but I like it about as much as I liked Chicago, probably a tad more, and I wouldn't be too ticked off if the Academy went with it for Best Picture. I do prefer it slightly to The Departed. I just don't think Scorsese's fourth best movie about organized crime should be crowned. Definitely recommended, as long as you know what you're getting into.
60 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Jennifer's Show!
Britinmiami5 January 2007
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!
35 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Overrated
nayanbhula13 February 2007
After all the nominations and wins, my wife and I finally saw this -- I love this era of soul music, so i was really excited about the music. For the most part the music was good...some overblown American Idol theatrics and shrieking instead of singing, but overall good. I was also excited to see the acting...and in the end I wasn't that impressed. Jennifer Hudson seems to be everyones favorite this year, but I didn't think she had to do to much acting...it was good to see a newcomer, so confident in a role -- but in regards to actual nominations, this is probably the last you'll see of her. Eddie Murphy was good in his very small role, I wish that he was given more dialog or more story...if he wins the Oscar, I guess it's the Academy giving him an award for the bulk of his work. But, Hudson clearly shouldn't win...I hope the Academy looks to the Babel nominees, who had to act, not make music videos with emotion! Costumes and make-up were great, Beyonce's role shadowed her real life...in the sense, beautiful woman, good in various forms, singing, dancing, acting...a great product. Not actual a standout in any of them. In the end OK movie, overrated....definitely.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
OK!
igornveiga1 May 2019
A film, very well set, a beautiful biography of American singers, the film is a wonderful musical, recommended for people who enjoy music.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Michael Jackson Spits
tedg31 December 2006
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.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pfft! I can see why it wasn't nominated for best picture
Smells_Like_Cheese7 May 2007
I was excited about seeing Dreamgirls, especially after seeing the Oscar nods it got. But I still wasn't too sure about Jennifer Hudson's win, after all, before I saw this film, I saw Babel, and the Hispanic actress who was nominated I felt totally deserved the award. But how can you judge before seeing what Jennifer Hudson's raved about performance was all about. Now I have to start off with that actually this was a good film, but you know what? It was average, nothing thrilling or original came out of it. It's your typical rise and fall story that had nothing special or had no spark. Jennifer's performance was good for a first time, but I still wasn't too thrown over it. The story is just so abused and too used by so many writers.

Curtis is looking for a backup group for his famous singer, James Early. He finds the Dreamettes, three beautiful and strong black women, he also becomes involved with one of them. Slowly they rise to the top, but Effie, the girl is involved with is not exactly "thin" or that "appealing" to a younger crowd, so with her girlfriends in the group, her brother, and her new boyfriend, Curtis, they vote her out of the group and the Dreamettes become huge, but the joke is on Curtis when Effie gets a second chance.

The performances were the key that got raved about most in the film, now I have to say that they were good, but honestly, it was nothing beyond good. I don't have anything against Jennifer Hudson, but I am very upset with all the publicity she is getting now for one film and an Oscar that I believe doesn't belong to her, but I know there are some that wouldn't agree with me. Eddie didn't thrill me either, I've actually seen him in better, but I have to admit the only performance I was actually, and surprisingly, impressed with was Beyonce Knowles, she has come a long way. So, I'm not sure if I would recommend this film, if you wanna watch it, go ahead, but don't expect too much.

6/10
10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Surprisingly campy!
oldskoolgeek26 December 2006
After all the wonderful things I heard about this movie (the Golden Globes nods, the Oscar buzz) and the fact I'm an American Idol fan as well as a fan of Beyonce, I really wanted to like this movie, but by the time the closing credits rolled I found myself laughing with the rest of the audience about the sheer campiness of this flick. The characters were so clichéd and everything so melodramatic that I can't believe reviews praising this film for its fine acting and originality. By the end it was so over the top that at least the crowd I was with found it hard to take anything seriously. Jennifer Hudson is, of course, the stand out role and she really gives a show-stopping performance at one point that had the audience applauding, but it was her voice that received this reaction. Eddie Murphy was probably the next most interesting character, but nearly everyone else was considered laughable. Beyonce is a dead-ringer for Diana Ross by the end and the girl can sing, but if this is supposed to be Academy Award worthy acting then I must say she did a much better performance in Austin Power's Goldmember.

All and all the most overrated movie of the year, I'd wait for it on DVD before paying to see it in the theater.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A great American musical....
Screen-Space30 November 2006
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.
218 out of 320 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
See it, and make up your own mind.
lambiepie-26 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Before anyone should make any comment about anything, they should have some experience with it. With "Dreamgirls", my comment is for YOU to go see it and make up your own mind based on your own taste. These comments just another view in helping you to decide. My advice: See it. On the BIG screen.

The character "Effie" says this in the film: "You pick her to be out front only because she looks good? I have the talent! I can sing! Why do that?" This is the entertainment industry, and "Dreamgirls" gives you a look. Even within its own cast.

The production quality is the best on film for a musical this year. The ensemble cast is one of the best ensemble casts of this year. If you loved "Dreamgirls" on Broadway 25 years ago, you'll tip your hat to what a wonderful film and film adaption production this is. It's as faithful to the production as possible with a few changes, and a few additions, but because this is "film" and not "stage", you can sit back and enjoy.

As far as the performances: Jennifer Hudson as "Effie" steals the film. Talented as anything, but dismissed for her looks and her strength. You miss her when she is not on screen, you feel for her when she is. This part is a star making role and Jennifer Hudson is a star in the role. It's almost a shame to call her role "supporting actress", she's just that good and attention grabbing.

Anika Noni Rose as "Lorrell" is the surprise here. She is simply adorable! You watch her mature right before your eyes, and mature she does. She fits perfect as a "supporting actress" and does a darn good job of her role. On screen, you are interested in her, wonder about her and is humored by her.

Beyonce Knowles has the hardest role of the film - "Deena" - one that everyone will eventually loathe at some point and because of which, she'll fade away in the role. In watching Beyonce you cannot escape her beauty, how great she appears in costumes and how she can carry a tune -how she is supposed to be a lead -- but her role becomes second banana almost immediately to the stronger role of "Effie" and Jennifer Husdon nailing it. In watching Beyonce get a solo song, "Listen", it was like watching a performance that was thrown in as if to say, "Look at me, I can sing and be heartfelt too!". Yes, Beyonce can. But it was NOWHERE near the showstopper tune "Effie" has and unfortunately "Listen" me feel as if there WAS a singing competition going on between Beyonce and Jennifer - not "Deena" and "Effie". Jennifer won. But this is NOT to say Beyonce Knowles doesn't have an acting future and she doesn't have acting talent and that she was horrid in this role. On the contrary, Beyonce Knowles was perfect as Deena.

The surprise to me was Eddie Murphy...Eddie Murphy...EDDIE MURPHY(!) as "James Thunder Early". Those that have followed Eddie's career from the beginning will be able to see that this is the role he has been working towards - and he knocks it out. What another perfect cast. Those that know of Eddie's later performances here and there will find much to nit pick about, but there is no mistaking his exemplary performance as a star that rises and falls with all of its joys and pitfalls.

Danny Glover was also cast wonderfully in the quiet role as the beaten music manager "Marty Madison". It is a quiet role for it interweaves through so many lives. Jamie Foxx as "Curtis Taylor, Jr." was done well although I thought there was something more 'supporting' than 'leading' about his character. Keith Robinson as "C.C. White" is an important role that gets lost somewhere in transition - maybe because they waited until late in the film to expose his background.

The plot has been told much here: "Dreamgirls" is loosely based on the make-up of The Supremes, but it has so much more make ups of so many other African American artists of that time - Motown based or NOT ... and it gives you a look into the history of music - of the racial differences of crossovers and payola of the 60's and to the 70's during turbulent times and to free wheeling "disco". Each character has a bit of ALL of these musicians mixed in, and this production isn't too shy with being forward about influences of many.

You don't have to like musicals to like this, but it helps. You don't have to like girl groups and music cat fights of the 60's and music/history of that time to like this film, but it helps. "Dreamgirls" is lively, dramatic, musical, touching, a wonderful ensemble of actors and musicians, gorgeously produced, will have you clapping and yes, could very well be "Best Picture" front runner at the Oscar race. A very enjoyable experience.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What WERE they thinking?
mmckaibab13 February 2007
Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film.
59 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Belting Up The Old Story
littlemartinarocena6 February 2007
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!
95 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Motown sliced too thin
Chris Knipp25 December 2006
Dreamgirls is a filmed musical that by reports stays close to its Broadway source. It provides glitzy entertainment, with a tale of intrigue and manipulation and glamorous song performances featuring increasingly chic hairstyles and slimmer singers, as the central black girl song group based on the Supremes loses its more soulful, plumper member, Effie (American Idol's Jennifer Hudson) along with its bad wigs and moves on to superstardom. Behind them is a promoter who himself achieves mega-bucks status and adopts hipper hairstyles, but not without bending a lot of rules and using a lot of people.

It may seem unsporting to say so, but this movie, despite its glitter and entertainment value, leaves an empty feeling. There are major questions about how American musical history gets treated here, for the sake of some fairly unexciting original musical numbers. One basic question is, if Effie was the singer who could move you, how did the group become a hit without her, regardless of the promotion? It's obvious Dremagirls refers to Berry Gordy Jr.'s Motown in its focus on impresario Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx). First this Gordy-surrogate hires a soul singer, James "Thunder" Early, persuading a young black girl group, The Dreamettes, to sing backup for him and pushing out the Dreamettes' sedate manager Marty Madison (Danny Glover). Next Taylor promotes the Dreamettes separately and eliminates Effie. He sells out his used car business to buy payola air time for the group's songs.

Gordy pushed Florence Ballard out of The Supremes and made the slimmer more homogenized looking Diana Ross the lead singer. But there's an important element missing from the movie: the charisma and magic of Diana Ross. Her stand-in here, Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles) just can't come close, so the success of the Dreams (as they're re-christened) without Effie remains a mystery.

Berry Gordy was involved in payola and he manipulated his groups. But this story is unfair to Gordy, Motown, and black music. It refers to male singers through a composite of James Brown, Little Richard, et al., represented by Jimmy Early (Eddie Muphy), whose performances are uninvolving mimicry and who dies early (get it) of a drug overdose. Motown's greatest star Michael Jackson gets shrunken to ten seconds of a group mimicking the Jackson Five, not even getting the dancing right and seen only on TV. The many other sensational Motown stars beloved of black and white audiences are forgotten, as is the Disco era, since Diana Ross stand-in Knowles is seen as the only Disco diva in Taylor's stable.

Subplots like Effie's affair with Taylor and child by him whom he recognizes later, Early's affair with Dreams member Lorell (Anika Nori Rose), and Deena's attempt to star in a movie as Cleopatra, do nothing to make up for how the plot slights black musical history.

Jamie Foxx is uneasy and ill cast as the cruel manipulator, Curtis Taylor. This character gets muddled because as the screenplay makes him more and more evil, Foxx seems to be trying harder and harder to make us like him. Maybe he's trying to show Taylor as more three-dimensional, but the character as written is too cardboard thin for that to work.

Sure, Motown groups were packaged, and we don't know how many soul singer' souls were destroyed in the process. But Dreamgirls fails to show how huge Motown was for American culture in general and African American culture in particular in the Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties. Gordy's was a big accomplishment, not a narrow con game. What of the "Motown sound"? There's only one sound here, and it doesn't sound right. The movie makes us long for little clubs with down-dressed performers like Effie as we see her eventually making a partial comeback helped by the faithful Marty Madison. Knowles has one big number, but Hudson soars every time she opens her mouth, even if she can't act. While the big numbers are emotionally empty, the group's composer, Clarance "C.C." Brown (Keith Robinson) is moving in his song, "We'll always be family." Robinson gives his small role some feeling and intensity.

It's hard not to see this as really the story of Effie—she's the only singer we really care about. The audience is electrified by Hudson's farewell song, "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" (though it goes on too long and is poorly directed) and can't wait for her to come back on screen. The elaborate production numbers staged with The Dreams are just flash. But the movie doesn't show that Motown performances, with Diana Ross at the center, could be both glitzy and musically exciting, and these forgettable showtunes don't begin to remind us how often songs out of Motown could stay engraved on our hearts and minds forever.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
inauthentic, unwatchable, hideous
vandenberg_guy16 June 2007
I grew up in this age, I loved the music, it was part of my life. This movie creates an ugly caricature of that time and sound. The music doesn't sound anything like the real music of that era: it sounds like a misguided and failed attempt to make the music of that era sound like the current sounds. The story lines and (especially) the characters spontaneously bursting out in song are pathetic and false. I find it utterly, utterly incomprehensible why bona fide stars like Jennifer Hudson, Eddy Murphy, and Jamie Foxx would want to have anything to do with this piece of junk, and completely stunning why this movie won any awards! The acting is bad, the singing is bad, the script was called in by a screenwriter with a hangover on his/her way to a custody settlement hearing. This movie was offensively awful. YECH!
33 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Rather hollow musical melodrama
Flagrant-Baronessa10 February 2007
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
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boring, self indulgent drivel . . .
smitty-4518 June 2007
We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
it's about the music - and unfortunately the music sucks
winner5515 November 2008
This is a Broadway musical brought to film, and never rises above that gestalt. That is, if you like the Broadway of its era (and frankly, I don't), you'll like this movie; but if you're looking for a great film, what you have here is basically just an expanded recording of the play.

That in itself doesn't sink th film - Chicago was also merely a recording of the Broadway production, really, but I admit the production itself was strong enough to pull that off.

But here the problem is unavoidable - great performances, strong characters, interesting story, solid work behind the camera - and the most boring music to spew off a Broadway stage in many a year.

If thy were going to do a compressed fantasy history of '60s soul, why did they not get the original music? This stuff is an embarrassing Broadway version of the mediocre soul of the 1970s. Where is the chunk, the drive, the wickedly seductive melodies that made '60s soul popular enough to build legends? At some points in this movie, I expected Spinal Tap to step out and take a bow.

With some of the worst songs cut, I could recommend this, but not as it stands now.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An all-right movie
Kenisto16 January 2022
The movie is about a trio of black female soul singers who cross over to the pop charts in the early 1960s, facing their own personal struggles along the way.

I read some reviews before I saw the movie. My expectations were lowered by the reviews but the movie surprised me a bit. I am not a big fan of musicals so this review is a bit biased. The movie is good. I feel like it lacks a bit of drama in some parts. In some parts of the movie, it's just music. And in my opinion, that's not as fun.

Jennifer Hudson got an oscar for her part in the movie and that is well deserved. Her acting is very good and she plays her role perfectly. Overall the acting is good from most of the actors.

I find it hard to see the bad things in the movie when there is a song every 10 minutes. Especially when all the songs are very happy sounding. It's like listening to "Pumped Up Kicks". It sounds happy but it's really not.

Overall I give the movie a seven. It's good, not great.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Baby... I can't take it no more.
anthonyjlangford3 February 2010
I'm not certain I should be writing a review of 'Dreamgirls'. Not that there's anything seriously wrong with the film, but I was under the misapprehension that I was watching an interpretation of Diana Ross and the Supremes. In a way it is, but it's now up in the air whether anyone will back the real thing seeing that its 'been done already.' Confused? I certainly was. I was expecting a biopic in the vein of 'Ray' and 'Walk the Line'. What I got was more 'High School Musical.' Now I love a good tune as much as the next guy, particularly if its got a touch of urban soul to it, but when the character breaks out in song in the middle of a dramatic scene with a line such as, 'Ooh, you're gunna love me,' or 'I'm somebody, and nobody's gunna hold me down...,' then I was looking around for the paper bag.

Many of the songs are great and I'm sure it was fun on stage, but as the atmosphere had already been established, we had to wait until the song was over before the story could continue. As a piece of celluloid, I found this tedious. The vocals were strong but visually, there was not enough to hold an audience. I will admit that musicals are not really my thing, though I do relish a story that contains great music as in those previously mentioned films.

Two actors have been singled out for notice, particularly Jennifer Hudson who has the truth in her eyes and Eddie Murphy, who is also good though I think we're yet to see the best of him. Chances are the Oscar is theirs, (though Jackie Earle Haley deserves it over Murphy for Little Children) but I thought Jamie Foxx and Danny Glover were just as effective. Beyonce Knowles is a little like her character, great visually but a little thin on substance.

The screenplay by Bill Condon (Kinsey, Gods & Monsters) hints at so much more, the politics of the African American movement in the sixties, particularly in relation to their role in the music industry, the industry itself, the Watts riots, the price of fame, but just when it gets interesting, Condon forces his actors through yet another tune. Personally I was checking my watch.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but they say the show ain't over till the fat lady sings. In 'Dreamgirls', she didn't sing early enough.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Triumph!!
nibbly27 November 2006
What a spectacular movie musical experience! This is one worth waiting in line, if not purchasing advance tickets for. Beautifully realized by writer-director Bill Condon, 'Dreamgirls' brings back thoughts of a few years ago when the movie musical version of 'Chicago' knocked our socks off, and (with the help of the gorgeous 'Moulin Rouge') helped to revive the modern movie musical. The sets, costumes, musical numbers all flow beautifully and make for an incredibly affecting motion picture.

As amazing and eye-popping as all of the scene work and musical numbers are, this is, ultimately, a movie rooted in its performances. Jamie Foxx gives further credence to his stature as an incredibly talented musician, and Beyonce Knowles (known for her vocal talents) still manages to impress with her songs and her voice. Not to mention her stunning beauty, as each costume and scene in which she appears seem to top one another in terms of showcasing her incredible beauty. Eddie Murphy blew me away with not only his truly heartfelt performance as Jimmy Early, but his amazing voice and showmanship. What a talent! Anika Noni Rose, who I fell in love with on Broadway in 'Caroline, or Change,' gives her performance as Laurelle soul and a deep, rich vocal styling. But let's face it..we are all going into 'Dreamgirls' wondering if 'American Idol' contestant Jennifer Hudson can pull it off. She has quite a bit to live up to, as Jennifer Holliday's performance as Effie White in the original Broadway production is legendary. Add to that the fact that this is Ms. Hudson movie debut, she must have been feeling a huge weight on her shoulders to do the part, as well as the show, justice. If she isn't able to do anything less than nail the part of Effie, as well as her signature song, 'And I am Telling You,' the whole production, no matter how great the other aspects hold up, runs the risk of crashing loudly. The question on everyone's mind is: Can she do it?

Let me just say this... I have never sat in a theater watching a musical where the audience erupted in applause like they would in a Broadway theater after a performer's song. Everyone (and I mean everyone!) was wildly applauding when she struck her last note in 'And I am Telling You.' It was such an intense experience to be a part of. I mean...as I am writing this, I am getting goose bumps. But not only is her singing tremendously effective, but her actual performance is just as good. She brings a vulnerability and an innocence that perhaps would not have come through had the part been given to a more experienced movie performer. Ms. Hudson is nothing short of breathtaking and, even if you are not crazy about the rest of the picture (doubtful), you will almost certainly be amazed by her talent. Just remarkable. This has to be one of the most impressive motion picture debuts in the history of cinema. Even during the closing "curtain call," when Jennifer Hudson's name was shown, there was, again, wild applause. A star has been born!!!
171 out of 266 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Reality Singing Competition Loser Completely & Magnificently Outshines Multi Hundred Million Worth International Entertainment, Fashion, Music, & Sex Icon
ASuiGeneris14 November 2017
Maybe I am a sucker. For all the impressive sets, the magnificent costume design, the catchy songs, the accomplished choreography, the mesmerizing glitz and glamour of the Hollywood stage performances.

Maybe I need to see the Broadway musical. Then again, Broadway musicals are nearly always better; it is the original!

Maybe I need to get to know my Motown better. I appreciate my soulful tunes from the 60s and 70s, but am admittedly not a sophisticated listener to the genre.

Maybe I am supposed to want an intricate plot executed beautifully, rather than a basic story that serves as the vessel to provide the audience with moving performances and songs.

Fair enough, this was no "Chicago"; the balance and pacing could use some editing and I definitely would not recommend this to anyone looking for the magnificently story, but it was definitely better than many of the critics out there are saying.

Commendable performances by everyone on the cast. Beyoncé Knowles is Deena Jones, the lead singer for The Dreamettes now The Dreams, Anika Noni Rose as Lorrell Robinson, Sharon Leal plays Michelle Morris, Danny Glover makes an appearance as Marty Madison. Jamie Foxx as the all business before family vilified manager and owner for Rainbow Records, Curtis Taylor. I was notably impressed by Eddie Murphy's performance as music legend and womanizer James Early, especially to see him sing like that! I also really liked lesser known actor Keith Robinson, who plays C C White, songwriting older brother to Effie White. Which brings us to the star of this film. She may not be the star of Curtis Taylor's The Dreams, but she damn sure takes the show anyways. In her Hollywood debut, (Season 3 American Idol seventh place finalist) Jennifer Hudson makes her stage presence known in a dazzling way, winning an Academy Award for Best supporting actress. Well deserved for her singing, in my opinion, but not quite so sure on the acting alone.

Maybe I am a sucker for the formulaic lights and special effects. Or maybe I simply know how to appreciate a good voice, soulful performances, emphatic performances, and an entertaining musical.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Exceptionally Bad Movie
DeskMail1 January 2007
I just saw DreamGirls, and all I can say is WOW! what an awful film. The movie is a poor attempt at converting an (apparently) successful musical to screen. I spent the majority of the movie hoping the singing would stop at some point so I could enjoy the movie, but it never did. All the songs sounded exactly the same: exceedingly LONG, tired and uninspired, just like the songs you might hear in a high school play. The singers were very talented, but if I wanted to hear really good singers beat their talent to death, I would go to the opera. Also, the songs written for the singers were well below the talent used to deliver them, kind of like using a Ferarri to deliver pizzas. There was a good storyline, but it was hard to focus on in the movie due to the poor acting, and of course, the mass murder of all the key dramatic scenes by characters breaking out into SONG! The movie was supposed to be a drama, but it's just comical and amateurish. Do studios still use screeners? Save your money, pay off your Christmas bills, or go watch 'RAY' on DVD.
38 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wow. And I thought it was going to be just "okay".
the_Poppuns13 January 2007
Fantabulous. Stupendous. I can't even believe it. I've changed my pick for Best Picture this year so many times you'd think I have multiple personalities. But let me tell you it's just been a tremendous year for film. Kudos all around. I tell you none of the BP nominees last year, could compete this year. And I loved Brokeback Mountain and Munich.

Dreamgirls is an amazing movie. I know what you're thinking. I didn't believe the hype either. But I saw it today and I actually don't think it's been hyped enough. Everyone deserves to be nominated. But it's just that kind of year, folks. Too many awesome performances not enough nominations. Of course the major buzz has been going to Jennifer Hudson and she does deserve as much praise as she's getting but that's because she's a 15. Everyone else is a 10. So she's better but it's ridiculous how awesome everyone else is. Of course Eddie Murphy's great. He's been in those movies where he plays like 10 fat people, which should have gotten him some recognition all these years, but of course they wouldn't go for that. But now that he's done such a great job here whatever awards he'll get, he'll deserve. And those of us who loved "Party All the Time" are definitely not surprised at his vocal prowess. Jamie Foxx is great again you know, but this time he's playing the villain so maybe that's why he's kinda been ignored. Anika Noni Rose. I don't know where she came from but I loved her too. All great voices. All great performances.

Beyonce. Okay, I'm not a huge fan. She's talented and I appreciated her acting from Austin Powers. Yeah that sounds weird but you could tell she was comfortable on screen and had a lot of fun. I don't generally like the way she and her contemporaries sing nowadays so I wasn't expecting much either way. I figured she'd be passable. But she did such a great job playing Diana Ross. Everything down to the gestures, and the fact that she wanted to lose weight for this, tells me that she definitely took her job seriously. And it paid off.

I think this is rated PG13. I can't remember why. I think there are a few bad words and one quick flash of some drugs. But I wouldn't mind taking a kid to this. Because there is so much more to it that's worth it. In a strange way I thought it would make a great double feature with Happy Feet. So much toe-tapping to be done. People waited in my theater through the credits for Jennifer Hudson's name/image to pop up and they all clapped. That never happens where I live either. Never. And there were little old ladies going "WOOHOO!" after a couple of Effie's songs.

If you like movies, this year go see everything. But make sure that you save time for this one. You're gonna love it.
46 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Drama
sergelamarche15 December 2021
I was expecting a true story that was going to be touching and all. It was based on the truth, was somewhat touching but was a bit superficial. A bit like a short story book missing flesh. I didn't feel it as real but as a dramatic blacksploitation TV movie. Didn't like most of the songs but loved the actors though.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What an Awful Movie
penncatt29 December 2006
It makes sense to me that this film is getting raves from Hollywood because oftentimes in Hollywood it's all just a popularity contest. It also makes sense when you think that people who are liking the film may just be reacting to the countless songs being spit out at you rather than story content. Yet, this film is overrated and overblown. Eddie Murphy looks just ridiculous. No way do Jeniffer Hudson and Beyonce Knowles give the Oscar rated performance so many have raved over BEFORE the film was even out. I can't even believe that Condon is being set up to be nominated for a Directing Oscar when all he did was put together an album. Glitz does not replace a nothing storyline. A bunch of songs does not a movie make.
52 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed