'Dreamgirls" is a star-studded, finger-popping, whiz-bang adaptation of the Broadway hit. It's sure to have some audiences literally standing and cheering.
December 23, 2006 (Press Release) --
BRASSY, BIG -- BUT IT'S NOT THE YEAR'S BEST
But it doesn't deserve to win in most categories.
They're selling this as the shoo-in for best picture, and I am telling you I'm not buying. As much as I enjoyed the sheer brassiness and emotion and bigness of this production, as much as I appreciated the performances from the terrifically talented cast -- as much as I liked "Dreamgirls" -- I didn't love it. Maybe it was just a little too slick and over the top for its own good.
Not that writer-director Bill Condon (who also penned the screenplay for the equally splashy "Chicago") has merely replaced the original Broadway cast with movie stars (and one "American Idol" finalist) and filmed the musical. There's a lot of flashy camera work (maybe too much), some new numbers, a few fresh plot twists, expanded roles for a couple of characters -- but at heart, this is essentially the same story that roared onto Broadway some 25 years ago.
But remember, it's not the story of Diana Ross and the Supremes, even though it sure seems like it was "inspired by" the story of Diana Ross and the Supremes.
Three poor black girls from Detroit become R&B crossover superstars, with the help of their Barry Gordy-esque, Svengali of a manager? Check.
The original and greatly gifted lead singer of the act is relegated to the background in favor of a thinner, more conventionally attractive, more audience-friendly diva? Check.
Pushed-aside former lead singer is quickly forgotten and falls on hard times? Check.
Lead singer becomes a solo sensation and branches out to film? Check.
Not to mention the parallel versions of James Brown and the Jackson 5, among others, who exist in this "Dreamgirls" universe.
Source: http://www.yahoo.com
POSTED BY RICHARD ROEPER
But it doesn't deserve to win in most categories.
They're selling this as the shoo-in for best picture, and I am telling you I'm not buying. As much as I enjoyed the sheer brassiness and emotion and bigness of this production, as much as I appreciated the performances from the terrifically talented cast -- as much as I liked "Dreamgirls" -- I didn't love it. Maybe it was just a little too slick and over the top for its own good.
Not that writer-director Bill Condon (who also penned the screenplay for the equally splashy "Chicago") has merely replaced the original Broadway cast with movie stars (and one "American Idol" finalist) and filmed the musical. There's a lot of flashy camera work (maybe too much), some new numbers, a few fresh plot twists, expanded roles for a couple of characters -- but at heart, this is essentially the same story that roared onto Broadway some 25 years ago.
But remember, it's not the story of Diana Ross and the Supremes, even though it sure seems like it was "inspired by" the story of Diana Ross and the Supremes.
Three poor black girls from Detroit become R&B crossover superstars, with the help of their Barry Gordy-esque, Svengali of a manager? Check.
The original and greatly gifted lead singer of the act is relegated to the background in favor of a thinner, more conventionally attractive, more audience-friendly diva? Check.
Pushed-aside former lead singer is quickly forgotten and falls on hard times? Check.
Lead singer becomes a solo sensation and branches out to film? Check.
Not to mention the parallel versions of James Brown and the Jackson 5, among others, who exist in this "Dreamgirls" universe.
Source: http://www.yahoo.com
POSTED BY RICHARD ROEPER
Email
Print
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
