Dreamgirls via Steve Daly

email this story
read comments (9)
post a comment

Entertainment Weekly's Steve Daly has been shown Dreamgirls (DreamWorks, 12.15) and has seen "some arresting stuff," he proclaims. But he doesn't explain in great detail what stuff he's talking about. The piece is basically a blah-blah tap dance that delivers almost nothing. In terms of what we want to hear, I mean.

There are two minor chickenshit reveals. Daly writes that Beyonce Knowles is "resplendent in a disco-era silver-lame cape and long, corkscrew-curl wig." He also says costar Jennifer Hudson kicks splendid ass. Daly declares that "judging from an early look at Dreamgirls, director Bill Condon 's "crash course [with Hudson]" -- goading her into some flamboyant attitude and bitchy behavior -- "worked spectacularly well."

And that's all. The world is hungering for a seasoned, sophisticated opinion about a film Daly knows full well is being looked to as the last possible hope for a Best Picture slam-dunk (or not) and he all he can do is give an "attagirl!" to Hudson and describe Beyonce's gown and wig.

No other observations, anecdotes or judgments are rendered about the finished film. Too early, I guess. (Even though it's being shown to the world starting this Sunday.) The rest of the story is all backstage stuff, and it's not that arresting.

Farewell Jack Palance<< previous | next >>Dargis on Rossellini

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 10, 2006 at 3:52 PM

comment #1

Filmshark says ...

I really can't understand how Dreamgirls has been able to pull off so much pre-release hype when no one has seen the actual movie. From everything I have seen, it hasn't impressed me yet I keep reading how it is a lock for the Oscars. Paramount/Dreamworks have done a great job convincing people that the movie is great and I just hope that the movie is good or all the Oscar pundits will look like fools.

Posted by Filmshark at November 10, 2006 4:45 PM

comment #2

corey3rd says ...

I love the scene where even after Ray Charles goes blind, he races into the room to drag Ike Turner off Johnny Cash. This trailer is blurring with every other music semi-biopics.

Posted by corey3rd at November 10, 2006 7:07 PM

comment #3

erniesouchak says ...

You answered your own question, Filmshark. "Dreamgirls" has sustained its buzz precisely BECAUSE no one has seen it, aside from some sneaks in the 'burbs. But I have seen it, and I can tell you that if the film ends up being any kind of major Oscar contender, 2006 will go down as an especially sorry year in motion pictures.

Posted by erniesouchak at November 10, 2006 9:44 PM

comment #4

wholovesya says ...

How did you see the movie ernie?

The big buzz stems from the 20 minutes of Cannes footage that was shown at the festival and then back in LA a few months later (to those of us who couldn't catch it in la France).

Needless to say - it was impressive.

Posted by wholovesya at November 10, 2006 10:30 PM

comment #5

Chris Molanphy says ...

You're right on all counts, Jeffrey, but isn't the explanation obvious? Dreamamount wanted the cover that EW offered them, but they couldn't let an actual critic see the movie ahead of everyone else; they couldn't even allow the feature writer (Daly) who DID see the movie write anything substantive about its...er, substance. So they negotiated -- down to a fare-thee-well, I'm sure -- exactly how far Daly could take it without giving anything away.

Also, after last year's TIME/'Munich' debacle -- where one outlet/critic got favored treatment, and the editors writing headlines for the magazine's cover got too zealous too early -- I'm sure Dreamamount doesn't want to repeat mistakes.

Posted by Chris Molanphy at November 11, 2006 11:51 AM

comment #6

Arrow77 says ...

What I'm wondering is how a movie starring BeyoncÃ© can have any kind of Oscar buzz. She might become a great actress one day but so far, I can't say her performances wowed anyone I know.

Posted by Arrow77 at November 11, 2006 3:13 PM

comment #7

austin111 says ...

In answer to the comment about 20 minutes shown in Cannes -- GONY. Almost same kinda deal. Most folks came out at least semi-impressed with what they saw. The actual film didn't get quite that response, however, 10 oscar nods or not. It ended up being shut out.

Still, I have hopes that Dreamgirls will at least be a pretty fine entertainment. However, I'm getting more into the idea of Pursuit of Happyness taking the prize right now.

Posted by austin111 at November 12, 2006 9:52 AM

comment #8

erniesouchak says ...

The 20-minute reel of "Dreamgirls" worked because it was a handful of big-production-value numbers strung together, with no narrative scenes to tie them together. That can be entertaining for 20 minutes, but the film is like a 2-hour version of that. The story is paper-thin, the characters are all 1-dimensional types, the plot turns are all things you can see coming a mile off, and, perhaps worst of all, none of the songs is really memorable. You don't need much of a story for a musical revue, and perhaps this is why the show worked on stage, but a movie is another animal. As flawed as it was, even "Chicago" had a narrative thru-line. "Dreamgirls" just drifts around. Eddie Murphy has some of the best moments -- why oh why doesn't that man do more? -- but Beyonce is window dressing, and Foxx lurks around the sidelines with nothing to do. Hudson has an incredible voice, yes, but Effie is a one-note character, the "brassy-as-I-wanna-be" diva, and there is no dimension or variation in the performance. She should win a Grammy but not an Oscar.

Posted by erniesouchak at November 12, 2006 10:37 AM

comment #9