list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Dreamgirls on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Dreamgirls/262766/default.aspx Title: Dreamgirls
Year: 2006
Director: Bill Condon
Plot: Director Bill Condon brings Tom Eyen's Tony award-winning Broadway musical to the big screen in a tale of dreams, stardom, and the high cost of success in the cutthroat recording industry. The time is the 1960s, and singers Effie (Jennifer Hudson), Lorrell (Anika Noni Rose), and Deena (Beyoncé Knowles) are about to find out just what it's like to have their wildest dreams come true. Discovered at a local talent show by ambitious manager Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx), the trio known as "the Dreamettes" is soon offered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of opening for popular singer James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy). Subsequently molded into an unstoppable hit machine by Taylor and propelled into the spotlight as "the Dreams," the girls quickly find their bid for the big time taking priority over personal friendship as Taylor edges out the ultra-talented Effie so that the more beautiful Deena can become the face of the group. Now, as the crossover act continues to dominate the airwaves, the small-town girls with big-city dreams slowly begin to realize that the true cost of fame may be higher than any of them ever anticipated. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 17
Number of Lists: 30
Number of blog posts: 20
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:01:05 GMTDreamgirls2006Bill CondonDirector <a href="/players/P____85649/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bill Condon</a> brings Tom Eyen's Tony award-winning Broadway musical to the big screen in a tale of dreams, stardom, and the high cost of success in the cutthroat recording industry. The time is the 1960s, and singers Effie (<a href="/players/P___454405/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jennifer Hudson</a>), Lorrell (<a href="/players/P___355460/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anika Noni Rose</a>), and Deena (<a href="/players/P___327089/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Beyoncé Knowles</a>) are about to find out just what it's like to have their wildest dreams come true. Discovered at a local talent show by ambitious manager Curtis Taylor Jr. (<a href="/players/P____24604/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jamie Foxx</a>), the trio known as "the Dreamettes" is soon offered the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of opening for popular singer James "Thunder" Early (<a href="/players/P____51440/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eddie Murphy</a>). Subsequently molded into an unstoppable hit machine by Taylor and propelled into the spotlight as "the Dreams," the girls quickly find their bid for the big time taking priority over personal friendship as Taylor edges out the ultra-talented Effie so that the more beautiful Deena can become the face of the group. Now, as the crossover act continues to dominate the airwaves, the small-town girls with big-city dreams slowly begin to realize that the true cost of fame may be higher than any of them ever anticipated. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide17Tag Target (>10)302013http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s262766.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Dreamgirls/262766/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/1/19/39678.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/19/2009 5:01:05 PM
Body: With a few more days left before the Oscar nominations are revealed, it is time to look at what the non-professionals anticipate will be among those contenders announced Thursday morning. Last Monday, we posted our own predictions for the Academy Award nominees and invited readers to weigh in with their own forecasts. A lot of comments concentrated on what shouldn’t happen, like The Dark Knight shouldn’t be nominated for Best Picture and Dustin Lance Black shouldn’t be nominated for his screenplay for Milk. And apparently The Curious Case of Benjamin Button could be this year’s Dreamgirls. However, there were some interesting trends among the many who chimed in. Check out some highlights after the jump. GRAN TORINO for Best Picture? With a strong wide release, Clint Eastwood’s second film of 2008 has been gaining a lot of Oscar buzz in the last minutes before the nominations are announced. JonathonSaia says it might even make the top category: “I would be hard pressed to believe that Gran Torino will not sneak in the Picture or Direction category. Yes, they will give him an actor nod, but the Academy loves his work. I expect either The Dark Knight or Christopher Nolan to be nominated, but not both. The other will be Gran Torino.” THE WRESTLER for Best Picture? The other strong major category candidate missing from our predictions for Best Picture is The Wrestler, which may indeed be another possibility, yet not an “upset.” Says Paul DeBenedetto: “No real love for the Wrestler in the Best Picture or Best Director categories? It was my favorite movie of the year and I think Aronofsky in particular really knocked it out of the park. It could really step in and ruin both the Dark Knight and Boyle’s evenings. That being said at the very least I don’t think noms in those categories would be an upset.” Nuttylichee agrees that the film will make the top five. Her reasoning: “simple story, a fantastic lead, great direction, better than revolutionary road (dear god, please don’t let revolutionary road get a best picture nod).” ARNAUD DESPLECHIN for Best Director? Anthony88 thinks David Fincher will be snubbed in favor of a foreign filmmaker, specifically the director of Un Conte de Noel (A Christmas Tale): “I know Desplechin is an out there pick but those few who have seen A Christmas Tale will surely agree. It has topped an impressive amount of critics’ lists. There is usually a room for a great film that is ineligible for best Foreign film (Letters From Iwo Jima, Talk To Her, Amélie, Vera Drake, Pan’s Labyrinth, Diving Bell and the Butterfly, City of God, and Cache).” [editor’s note: both Amelie and Pan’s Labyrinth received nods for Best Foreign Film; neither had a nod for Best Director. And Cache got no Academy love at all. But we get and agree with your point, Anthony.] JOSH BROLIN for Best Actor? Brolin’s portrayal of George W. Bush did make my wishlist for the Oscar nominations, but I think he’ll get snubbed in favor of his supporting performance in Milk. Michael disagrees: “Has everyone forgotten about JOSH BROLIN! His performance in W. was fantastic, say what you will about the overall film, he was brilliant and deserves a nod. He was a better Bush, than Langella was as a Nixon.” THE CLASS for Best Adapted Screenplay? Anthony88 really does have an argument for the Academy having a greater love for foreign films in the directing and writing categories. Here he foresees Francois Begaudeau and Laurent Cantet being recognized for adapting Begaudeau’s book: “Being a weak category this year there shouldn’t be any surprises here other than Cantet’s The Class, which is a shoe in to win Best Foreign Film. It should garner enough love to go the extra mile.” TROPIC THUNDER or THE WACKNESS or WALTZ WITH BASHIR for Best Original Screenplay? Another possible surprise upset could come from one or more of the following nominations in the Original Screenplay category: Tropic Thunder (predicted by jeremy); The Wackness (predicted by Aaron); Waltz with Bashir (predicted by Nic). On the latter idea, though, Anthony88 disagrees; yet he acknowledges that it deserves the honor: “Unfortunately, Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir will be dismissed as a documentary screenplay. IT’S STILL A SCREENPLAY!!” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:01:05 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/19/2009 5:01:05 PMWith a few more days left before the Oscar nominations are revealed, it is time to look at what the non-professionals anticipate will be among those contenders announced Thursday morning. Last Monday, we posted our own predictions for the Academy Award nominees and invited readers to weigh in with their own forecasts. A lot of comments concentrated on what shouldn’t happen, like The Dark Knight shouldn’t be nominated for Best Picture and Dustin Lance Black shouldn’t be nominated for his screenplay for Milk. And apparently The Curious Case of Benjamin Button could be this year’s Dreamgirls. However, there were some interesting trends among the many who chimed in. Check out some highlights after the jump. GRAN TORINO for Best Picture? With a strong wide release, Clint Eastwood’s second film of 2008 has been gaining a lot of Oscar buzz in the last minutes before the nominations are announced. JonathonSaia says it might even make the top category: “I would be hard pressed to believe that Gran Torino will not sneak in the Picture or Direction category. Yes, they will give him an actor nod, but the Academy loves his work. I expect either The Dark Knight or Christopher Nolan to be nominated, but not both. The other will be Gran Torino.” THE WRESTLER for Best Picture? The other strong major category candidate missing from our predictions for Best Picture is The Wrestler, which may indeed be another possibility, yet not an “upset.” Says Paul DeBenedetto: “No real love for the Wrestler in the Best Picture or Best Director categories? It was my favorite movie of the year and I think Aronofsky in particular really knocked it out of the park. It could really step in and ruin both the Dark Knight and Boyle’s evenings. That being said at the very least I don’t think noms in those categories would be an upset.” Nuttylichee agrees that the film will make the top five. Her reasoning: “simple story, a fantastic lead, great direction, better than revolutionary road (dear god, please don’t let revolutionary road get a best picture nod).” ARNAUD DESPLECHIN for Best Director? Anthony88 thinks David Fincher will be snubbed in favor of a foreign filmmaker, specifically the director of Un Conte de Noel (A Christmas Tale): “I know Desplechin is an out there pick but those few who have seen A Christmas Tale will surely agree. It has topped an impressive amount of critics’ lists. There is usually a room for a great film that is ineligible for best Foreign film (Letters From Iwo Jima, Talk To Her, Amélie, Vera Drake, Pan’s Labyrinth, Diving Bell and the Butterfly, City of God, and Cache).” [editor’s note: both Amelie and Pan’s Labyrinth received nods for Best Foreign Film; neither had a nod for Best Director. And Cache got no Academy love at all. But we get and agree with your point, Anthony.] JOSH BROLIN for Best Actor? Brolin’s portrayal of George W. Bush did make my wishlist for the Oscar nominations, but I think he’ll get snubbed in favor of his supporting performance in Milk. Michael disagrees: “Has everyone forgotten about JOSH BROLIN! His performance in W. was fantastic, say what you will about the overall film, he was brilliant and deserves a nod. He was a better Bush, than Langella was as a Nixon.” THE CLASS for Best Adapted Screenplay? Anthony88 really does have an argument for the Academy having a greater love for foreign films in the directing and writing categories. Here he foresees Francois Begaudeau and Laurent Cantet being recognized for adapting Begaudeau’s book: “Being a weak category this year there shouldn’t be any surprises here other than Cantet’s The Class, which is a shoe in to win Best Foreign Film. It should garner enough love to go the extra mile.” TROPIC THUNDER or THE WACKNESS or WALTZ WITH BASHIR for Best Original Screenplay? Another possible surprise upset could come from one or more of the following nominations in the Original Screenplay category: Tropic Thunder (predicted by jeremy); The Wackness (predicted by Aaron); Waltz with Bashir (predicted by Nic). On the latter idea, though, Anthony88 disagrees; yet he acknowledges that it deserves the honor: “Unfortunately, Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir will be dismissed as a documentary screenplay. IT’S STILL A SCREENPLAY!!” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/lmstanley/archive/2009/1/7/39211.aspx Post By: lmstanley
Post To: lmstanley Blog
Post Date: 1/7/2009 3:01:57 PM
Body: This movie was just "okay" for me. The story line was mildly interesting, but I always felt like an outsider watching these characters. I was never really super involved in their story and had a hard time relating. That said, I do love Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson was awesome. I probably won't go out of my way to watch it again. But if you're in the mood to half watch a movie, then put it on.
]]>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:01:57 GMTlmstanleylmstanley Blog1/7/2009 3:01:57 PMThis movie was just "okay" for me. The story line was mildly interesting, but I always felt like an outsider watching these characters. I was never really super involved in their story and had a hard time relating. That said, I do love Beyonce and Jennifer Hudson was awesome. I probably won't go out of my way to watch it again. But if you're in the mood to half watch a movie, then put it on. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/22/38710.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/22/2008 1:01:38 PM
Body: The Academy’s list of 49 tunes deemed eligible for the Best Original Song Oscar this year seems like a lot for the Music Branch to pick through. That is, until you notice that more than one-fifth of those contenders are from the same film (High School Musical 3, which, thanks to a new rule, is only allowed, at most, two nominations in this category) and you recall that last year’s list included many more songs (59) to choose from. The talent involved this year, however, is tremendous, at least in terms of those performers who sing the tunes on the soundtrack (many of whom had a hand in the songwriting). These artists include Mariah Carey, Etta James, Beyonce Knowles (who played Etta James), Norah Jones, will.i.am, Jack White and Alicia Keys, Danny Elfman, Emmylou Harris, Chaka Khan and Regina Spektor. Add to those big names such heavyweights as Bruce Springsteen and Peter Gabriel, both of whom are locks to be nominated, as well as tween favorites Miley Cyrus and Zac Efron (along with the rest of the cast from High School Musical 3), and you could have one hell of a concert if the Academy simply turned its awards telecast into one big celebration of the year’s songs written for the screen. Unfortunately for ABC, the Oscars aren’t just about securing viewers, so there’s no promise that the most popular artists will be among the five nominees. Rather, the true Oscar-worthy songs are those tunes that serve their respective films best — in terms of context as much as in the quality of their songwriting. In addition to Springsteen and Gabriel, another sure thing nominee is Clint Eastwood, who wrote the title song for his film Gran Torino. As for the fourth slot, Cyrus could very well find herself a contender, which would technically allow the marketers of her upcoming Hannah Montana Movie to advertise the film as starring “Academy Award Nominee Miley Cyrus.” Her song, “I Thought I Lost You,” co-written with Jeffrey Steele (and co-performed with John Travolta), from Bolt has already received nominations for both a Golden Globe and a BFCA Critic’s Choice Award (as have Springsteen’s title song from The Wrestler and Gabriel’s “Down to Earth” from WALL-E). The only issue with a telecast performance of this song, despite the fact that it might draw higher ratings than a Best Picture nomination for The Dark Knight, is that a live duet between Cyrus and Travolta could be the creepiest musical number since Rob Lowe and Snow White’s infamous rendition of “Proud Mary” back in 1989. The final nominee is more difficult to predict. The Golden Globes selected Knowles’ “Once in a Lifetime” from Cadillac Records, which the Academy could use to make up for the singer/actress’ nominal exclusion as one of the songwriters of the 2007 nominee “Listen,” from Dreamgirls. Another favorite is M.I.A. and A. R. Rahman’s  “O…Saya” from Slumdog Millionaire, though this song has stiff competition from Rahman’s “Jai Ho” from the same film. A nod for the latter would be a wonderful recognition of Indian music, yet in a way it would also beg the question of why thousands of other great tunes from Bollywood haven’t been honored in the past (nor will they be recognized in the future). And why this song over other great “world music” possibilities like Bebel Gilberto’s “Forever,” from They Killed Sister Dorothy, and Angelique Kidjo’s “Djoyigbe,” from Pray the Devil Back to Hell? Oh yeah, because it’s the catchier number from the more upbeat (and fictional) Best Picture favorite. It will be a shame if, like many Oscar categories, there are no real surprises in the nominees for Best Original Song, so to assist the Music Branch in their task, I’ve picked out five alternative selections to those more likely to be nominated: “Barking at the Moon” by Jenny Lewis, from Bolt – Cyrus might be the bigger ratings draw, but Lewis would bring that indie “hipster” cred not really seen from the Academy since Elliott Smith’s nomination and performance more than ten years ago. Ratings aside, though, “Barking at the Moon” is actually the better of Bolt’s two eligible songs, and it’s just as catchy as “I Thought I Lost You.” Plus, its context is equivalent to the usual Randy Newman tune played over an animated film’s montage sequence. And since Newman is shockingly absent from the category this year, Lewis should fill in for him. “Sweet Ballad” by ‘Munchausen by Proxy,’ from Yes Man – If the Academy would rather recognize an actress who is also a singer rather than a singer-turned-actress (Knowles) or an actress-turned-singer (Lewis), then it’s time to honor Zooey Deschanel, who has performed on many of her films’ soundtracks, often diegetically and in character. This time she joined up with Von Iva to form Yes Man’s fake band Munchausen by Proxy, which has two songs eligible for the Oscar. The better of the two is this track, which sounds kind of like Julie Cruise fronting Goldfrapp (maybe David Lynch needs to cast Deschanel in something). It might be a little racy to perform a song featuring the repeated backing vocal lyric of “whore, whore, whore,” but it’s no worse than the Oscar-winning lyrics of “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” “Trouble the Water” by Blackkoldmadina, from Trouble the Water – Recently the Academy has honored two rap songs (“Lose Yourself” from 8 Mile and “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” from Hustle & Flow) and one track off a documentary (“I Need to Wake Up” from An Inconvenient Truth), so it’s only fair to go the next step and at least nominate this rap song from a documentary. It would be another of the Academy’s favored stories of triumph, since the track is by the doc’s subject, a relatively upbeat Katrina survivor who turned lemons into lemonade with her home video footage of the hurricane. “Up To Our Nex” by Robyn Hitchcock, from Rachel Getting Married – If for some reason the Academy wishes to ignore the usual old guys (sure, Gabriel’s never been nominated, but isn’t he almost interchangeable with his former bandmate Phil Collins?), it could do well to nominate Hitchcock, whose song is both lyrically relevant to the film’s story and prominently performed diegetically, which is precisely how an Oscar-winning song should be. Considering how important music is to Rachel Getting Married, it would be terrible for it to be ignored in this category in favor of an end-credits number. “Dracula’s Lament” by Jason Segel, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall – It’s easy to dismiss both this and Hamlet 2’s “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” as being “funny” songs, comparable to the Oscar-nominated “Blame Canada” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. But “Dracula’s Lament,” though plenty humorous, is no joke; it’s actually a great song that reflects the feelings of Segel’s character in the movie. And it would be the first Muppet-related Oscar-nominated song in more than 20 years. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:01:38 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/22/2008 1:01:38 PMThe Academy’s list of 49 tunes deemed eligible for the Best Original Song Oscar this year seems like a lot for the Music Branch to pick through. That is, until you notice that more than one-fifth of those contenders are from the same film (High School Musical 3, which, thanks to a new rule, is only allowed, at most, two nominations in this category) and you recall that last year’s list included many more songs (59) to choose from. The talent involved this year, however, is tremendous, at least in terms of those performers who sing the tunes on the soundtrack (many of whom had a hand in the songwriting). These artists include Mariah Carey, Etta James, Beyonce Knowles (who played Etta James), Norah Jones, will.i.am, Jack White and Alicia Keys, Danny Elfman, Emmylou Harris, Chaka Khan and Regina Spektor. Add to those big names such heavyweights as Bruce Springsteen and Peter Gabriel, both of whom are locks to be nominated, as well as tween favorites Miley Cyrus and Zac Efron (along with the rest of the cast from High School Musical 3), and you could have one hell of a concert if the Academy simply turned its awards telecast into one big celebration of the year’s songs written for the screen. Unfortunately for ABC, the Oscars aren’t just about securing viewers, so there’s no promise that the most popular artists will be among the five nominees. Rather, the true Oscar-worthy songs are those tunes that serve their respective films best — in terms of context as much as in the quality of their songwriting. In addition to Springsteen and Gabriel, another sure thing nominee is Clint Eastwood, who wrote the title song for his film Gran Torino. As for the fourth slot, Cyrus could very well find herself a contender, which would technically allow the marketers of her upcoming Hannah Montana Movie to advertise the film as starring “Academy Award Nominee Miley Cyrus.” Her song, “I Thought I Lost You,” co-written with Jeffrey Steele (and co-performed with John Travolta), from Bolt has already received nominations for both a Golden Globe and a BFCA Critic’s Choice Award (as have Springsteen’s title song from The Wrestler and Gabriel’s “Down to Earth” from WALL-E). The only issue with a telecast performance of this song, despite the fact that it might draw higher ratings than a Best Picture nomination for The Dark Knight, is that a live duet between Cyrus and Travolta could be the creepiest musical number since Rob Lowe and Snow White’s infamous rendition of “Proud Mary” back in 1989. The final nominee is more difficult to predict. The Golden Globes selected Knowles’ “Once in a Lifetime” from Cadillac Records, which the Academy could use to make up for the singer/actress’ nominal exclusion as one of the songwriters of the 2007 nominee “Listen,” from Dreamgirls. Another favorite is M.I.A. and A. R. Rahman’s  “O…Saya” from Slumdog Millionaire, though this song has stiff competition from Rahman’s “Jai Ho” from the same film. A nod for the latter would be a wonderful recognition of Indian music, yet in a way it would also beg the question of why thousands of other great tunes from Bollywood haven’t been honored in the past (nor will they be recognized in the future). And why this song over other great “world music” possibilities like Bebel Gilberto’s “Forever,” from They Killed Sister Dorothy, and Angelique Kidjo’s “Djoyigbe,” from Pray the Devil Back to Hell? Oh yeah, because it’s the catchier number from the more upbeat (and fictional) Best Picture favorite. It will be a shame if, like many Oscar categories, there are no real surprises in the nominees for Best Original Song, so to assist the Music Branch in their task, I’ve picked out five alternative selections to those more likely to be nominated: “Barking at the Moon” by Jenny Lewis, from Bolt – Cyrus might be the bigger ratings draw, but Lewis would bring that indie “hipster” cred not really seen from the Academy since Elliott Smith’s nomination and performance more than ten years ago. Ratings aside, though, “Barking at the Moon” is actually the better of Bolt’s two eligible songs, and it’s just as catchy as “I Thought I Lost You.” Plus, its context is equivalent to the usual Randy Newman tune played over an animated film’s montage sequence. And since Newman is shockingly absent from the category this year, Lewis should fill in for him. “Sweet Ballad” by ‘Munchausen by Proxy,’ from Yes Man – If the Academy would rather recognize an actress who is also a singer rather than a singer-turned-actress (Knowles) or an actress-turned-singer (Lewis), then it’s time to honor Zooey Deschanel, who has performed on many of her films’ soundtracks, often diegetically and in character. This time she joined up with Von Iva to form Yes Man’s fake band Munchausen by Proxy, which has two songs eligible for the Oscar. The better of the two is this track, which sounds kind of like Julie Cruise fronting Goldfrapp (maybe David Lynch needs to cast Deschanel in something). It might be a little racy to perform a song featuring the repeated backing vocal lyric of “whore, whore, whore,” but it’s no worse than the Oscar-winning lyrics of “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.” “Trouble the Water” by Blackkoldmadina, from Trouble the Water – Recently the Academy has honored two rap songs (“Lose Yourself” from 8 Mile and “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” from Hustle & Flow) and one track off a documentary (“I Need to Wake Up” from An Inconvenient Truth), so it’s only fair to go the next step and at least nominate this rap song from a documentary. It would be another of the Academy’s favored stories of triumph, since the track is by the doc’s subject, a relatively upbeat Katrina survivor who turned lemons into lemonade with her home video footage of the hurricane. “Up To Our Nex” by Robyn Hitchcock, from Rachel Getting Married – If for some reason the Academy wishes to ignore the usual old guys (sure, Gabriel’s never been nominated, but isn’t he almost interchangeable with his former bandmate Phil Collins?), it could do well to nominate Hitchcock, whose song is both lyrically relevant to the film’s story and prominently performed diegetically, which is precisely how an Oscar-winning song should be. Considering how important music is to Rachel Getting Married, it would be terrible for it to be ignored in this category in favor of an end-credits number. “Dracula’s Lament” by Jason Segel, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall – It’s easy to dismiss both this and Hamlet 2’s “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” as being “funny” songs, comparable to the Oscar-nominated “Blame Canada” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. But “Dracula’s Lament,” though plenty humorous, is no joke; it’s actually a great song that reflects the feelings of Segel’s character in the movie. And it would be the first Muppet-related Oscar-nominated song in more than 20 years. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/16/32629.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/16/2008 2:00:50 PM
Body: The latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave. A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such. Meanwhile, at Defamer, Stu Van Airsdale offers the simple idea that kids today just don’t give a rats ass about Eddie Murphy. And neither does anyone else. But enough people cared to allow Norbit to come really close to grossing a million bucks, and the people tend to enjoy him, as Anne Thompson claims, when he’s in disguise (of course, he also makes big bucks when his face is visible and he’s surrounded by talking animals or rambunctious kids). Considering his recent Oscar nomination (for Dreamgirls), he probably just needs to go serious for a bit. Or merely stay away from the spacemen roles. It’s definitely not too late for Murphy, despite Vulture blog’s call for his retirement. Personally, I stayed away from Meet Dave because it seemed a lot like a cross between What Planet Are You From? and Innerspace, neither of which I particularly enjoyed (well, I have a soft spot for the latter as a huge Joe Dante fan). That, and I guess I’m in the Stu-designated camp since I haven’t bothered with any of Murphy’s films since I Spy (and honestly I stopped caring after The Distinguished Gentleman — I didn’t even see Beverly Hills Cop III). As for the people who have cared in the past, neither the little kids nor the older fans likely saw any appeal in Meet Dave. Maybe Murphy needs to decide to go directly for the family films or directly for the raunchy stuff (it still works well enough for Martin Lawrence and others). Trying for the middle clearly isn’t working. What was your reason for avoiding the flop? The star? The subgenre? The fact that a ton of other bigger blockbusters are out right now? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/16/2008 2:00:50 PMThe latest Eddie Murphy comedy, Meet Dave, debuted at a dismal 7th place this past weekend with only $5.3 million (on Monday it had already dropped down to #8), marking the worst wide-release opening for the actor since The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Can you spot the connection between these two movies? If you noted that they’re both sci-fi comedies, you’re smarter than the average movie exec, apparently. After comedy subgenre failures like Pluto Nash and Vampire in Brooklyn, you’d think producers would have known better than to cast the broad comedy star in something like Meet Dave. Actually, its distributor, Fox, may have started growing wise to the issue when it threw away the original title, Starship Dave. A few writers have now addressed some of the reasons why Meet Dave failed, and it should be clear how to avoid such a bomb in the future. At the L.A. Times, Patrick Goldstein argues the sci-fi comedy case, though figured out the subgenre can sometimes go blockbuster, as the Men in Black movies show us. He also notes all the horrible crap that Fox has been putting out lately, displaying how shocking it is that this particular film did so much more poorly than garbage like Alvin and the Chipmunks and even What Happens in Vegas. Still, there seems to be some debate over whether or not Meet Dave suffered from actually being a sci-fi comedy or from Fox’s failure to own up to the fact and market it as such. Meanwhile, at Defamer, Stu Van Airsdale offers the simple idea that kids today just don’t give a rats ass about Eddie Murphy. And neither does anyone else. But enough people cared to allow Norbit to come really close to grossing a million bucks, and the people tend to enjoy him, as Anne Thompson claims, when he’s in disguise (of course, he also makes big bucks when his face is visible and he’s surrounded by talking animals or rambunctious kids). Considering his recent Oscar nomination (for Dreamgirls), he probably just needs to go serious for a bit. Or merely stay away from the spacemen roles. It’s definitely not too late for Murphy, despite Vulture blog’s call for his retirement. Personally, I stayed away from Meet Dave because it seemed a lot like a cross between What Planet Are You From? and Innerspace, neither of which I particularly enjoyed (well, I have a soft spot for the latter as a huge Joe Dante fan). That, and I guess I’m in the Stu-designated camp since I haven’t bothered with any of Murphy’s films since I Spy (and honestly I stopped caring after The Distinguished Gentleman — I didn’t even see Beverly Hills Cop III). As for the people who have cared in the past, neither the little kids nor the older fans likely saw any appeal in Meet Dave. Maybe Murphy needs to decide to go directly for the family films or directly for the raunchy stuff (it still works well enough for Martin Lawrence and others). Trying for the middle clearly isn’t working. What was your reason for avoiding the flop? The star? The subgenre? The fact that a ton of other bigger blockbusters are out right now? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30637.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 1:19:58 PM
Body: Released: December 25, 2006Director: Bill Condon*****Much like it's 2007 movie musical brethren Hairspray, Dreamgirls concerns itself with race relations in a more straight forward, less pop way. Which isn't to say either approach is better then the other: both end on positive, uplifting notes for the most of the characters and are filled with music from beginning to end. Dreamgirls, though, relegates the various love stories to second tier status in favor of contrasting the rise and fall of early Motown music personalities. Namely James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy, in a role he should have received an Oscar for), car salesman turned executive Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx in a smoldering performance) and the girls who comprise the Dreamettes (later the Dreams) singing group.In a desperate bid to put his new act on the map, Taylor, Jr. engages in dubious at best payola with radio stations in the Detroit area. As new gigs start to be lined up, lead singer Effie (Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson) is replaced with Curtis' lover, Deena (Beyonce). With an arguably better looking lead to front the Dreamettes, Effie eventually drops of the group, squandering all the money she has saved up. Over the course of several decades, the Dreams chart hit after hit while Effie has all but abandoned her singing career. Until one fateful day at the unemployment office when she the lightbulb finally goes off for her. And this begins her comeback, if only for a moment, and the destruction of everything Curtis has built.Despite a 130 minute running time and musical numbers nearly blanketing the entire film, Dreamgirls never turns into a chore to watch. Rather, with shifting time periods, an engrossing story, kinetic music sequences and glorious acting turns by everyone involved, it not only charts the career trajectories of those fictional people involved, but also the rise of "black" music in America. Even though the history lesson is always foremost in the mind of the script, preaching is never at the heart of the story. Instead, the characters-through song-drive the drama. Dialogue is relatively sparse in favor of song, although the only gripe one can have with the film is the relative lack of development some of the supporting players get. Danny Glover's Marty Madison, for instance, or Anika Noni Rose's Lorrell. There just isn't enough time to tell the main story while giving everyone a fully formed character. It can be argued a great many aspects of the film are the highlight, it is the script (based on the original production) which propels the action on screen. It constantly asks the audience to keep up with leaps in time and story without including subtitles of obvious references to what happens between one scene and another. The story simply flows, and with each change of scenery, costume or hairstyle, we are expected to connect the dots. This approach forces us to become invested in the story from the very beginning as opposed to being passive viewers.Bill Condon brings a unique flair to the production, not with flashy camera moves, but with a steady hand and a trick I found mesmerizing the two times he used it. Going from a rehearsal to an actual production, the camera pans around the group singing on stage, only to reveal an audience where there was none previously after one full rotation. Simple enough to be sure, but fascinating nonetheless. Beyonce, Murphy, Hudson, Foxx, Danny Glover and the rest of the cast shine in their own roles,searching for the depth of their character whenever they can. The singing from the entire cast is above reproach; costuming, makeup, hairstyle and production design are vibrant and alive, drawing us into their world. The finale may seem a bit too easy for some audiences, yet it works for the story.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:19:58 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 1:19:58 PMReleased: December 25, 2006Director: Bill Condon*****Much like it's 2007 movie musical brethren Hairspray, Dreamgirls concerns itself with race relations in a more straight forward, less pop way. Which isn't to say either approach is better then the other: both end on positive, uplifting notes for the most of the characters and are filled with music from beginning to end. Dreamgirls, though, relegates the various love stories to second tier status in favor of contrasting the rise and fall of early Motown music personalities. Namely James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy, in a role he should have received an Oscar for), car salesman turned executive Curtis Taylor, Jr. (Jamie Foxx in a smoldering performance) and the girls who comprise the Dreamettes (later the Dreams) singing group.In a desperate bid to put his new act on the map, Taylor, Jr. engages in dubious at best payola with radio stations in the Detroit area. As new gigs start to be lined up, lead singer Effie (Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson) is replaced with Curtis' lover, Deena (Beyonce). With an arguably better looking lead to front the Dreamettes, Effie eventually drops of the group, squandering all the money she has saved up. Over the course of several decades, the Dreams chart hit after hit while Effie has all but abandoned her singing career. Until one fateful day at the unemployment office when she the lightbulb finally goes off for her. And this begins her comeback, if only for a moment, and the destruction of everything Curtis has built.Despite a 130 minute running time and musical numbers nearly blanketing the entire film, Dreamgirls never turns into a chore to watch. Rather, with shifting time periods, an engrossing story, kinetic music sequences and glorious acting turns by everyone involved, it not only charts the career trajectories of those fictional people involved, but also the rise of "black" music in America. Even though the history lesson is always foremost in the mind of the script, preaching is never at the heart of the story. Instead, the characters-through song-drive the drama. Dialogue is relatively sparse in favor of song, although the only gripe one can have with the film is the relative lack of development some of the supporting players get. Danny Glover's Marty Madison, for instance, or Anika Noni Rose's Lorrell. There just isn't enough time to tell the main story while giving everyone a fully formed character. It can be argued a great many aspects of the film are the highlight, it is the script (based on the original production) which propels the action on screen. It constantly asks the audience to keep up with leaps in time and story without including subtitles of obvious references to what happens between one scene and another. The story simply flows, and with each change of scenery, costume or hairstyle, we are expected to connect the dots. This approach forces us to become invested in the story from the very beginning as opposed to being passive viewers.Bill Condon brings a unique flair to the production, not with flashy camera moves, but with a steady hand and a trick I found mesmerizing the two times he used it. Going from a rehearsal to an actual production, the camera pans around the group singing on stage, only to reveal an audience where there was none previously after one full rotation. Simple enough to be sure, but fascinating nonetheless. Beyonce, Murphy, Hudson, Foxx, Danny Glover and the rest of the cast shine in their own roles,searching for the depth of their character whenever they can. The singing from the entire cast is above reproach; costuming, makeup, hairstyle and production design are vibrant and alive, drawing us into their world. The finale may seem a bit too easy for some audiences, yet it works for the story. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/3/30385.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/3/2008 11:07:47 AM
Body: Anticipating the anguished emails of readers who may take umbrage to any critiquing whatsoever of their beloved characters from “Sex and the City,” I opted for a different (read: cowardly) approach to this review which enlists the talents of my editor, one Jen Ellingsworth – perhaps the target audience for this show. My theory is that if the producers wanted to make a film that catered specifically to the audience, it would have been released in the comfortable confines of its HBO home. Since it was debuting at the multiplex, however, it should be fair game for a standard critique on how it stands up as a film. (For example, if Pixar films are for children, shouldn’t they be open to adult reviewers?) Since I was a virgin to “Sex” – I have never watched an episode, nor was I overcome with any desire in which to do so – I felt the thoughts and comments of one who had spent many an hour with our fab foursome would be of relative importance. So below are transcripts of our post-screening conversation over a few rounds of martinis and Budweiser. For those wanting to hear a podcast of our entire conversation, visit natsukashi.wordpress.com. RR: You being, would you say, a quasi-fan? JE: I would say a pretty rabid fan. RR: That's fantastic because that puts us at two polar opposites. RR: You went to see this with your mother. Is she also a fan? JE: No, I think she's seen snippets of episode, but never a whole 'Sex and the City” episode. She certainly knows the characters from the media and pop culture, but she loved it. I think it was just a piece of confection...it has no nutritional value whatsoever. But it was just a lot of fun. RR: My thought process for this is, for guys, movies like “Transformers” have their explosions and guns, and this is kind of the estrogen-filled antithesis of a male-oriented blockbuster, in that the explosions come in the form of Louis Vuitton bags and the guns come in the form of 3-inch stiletto heels. JE: The Manolo Blahniks. RR: See, I don't even know how to pronounce it, that's why I was hoping that you would say it. JE: You are going to have to Google that name, trust me. RR: I am so fashionably challenged, it's sad. But that's a good place to start with this movie because it is so fashion conscious. And because my fashion can literally be found in the back of magazines where you can buy T-shirts with sayings from the 80s on them. This (film) looked like I was at Le Cirque du Soleil. It looked like some of the best fashion designers in the country got together and vomited up the worst aberrations of fabric that they could onto these women. JE: I agree. I mean the bird in the hair (worn by Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker) during her wedding scene. That, to me, was just deplorable. But some of the things were very, very cute, Rob. Maybe not for those of us in the Cape Region. RR: I'm going to guess that it really doesn't have to do with the regions of the country, but rather regions of the body of whether or not you are going to enjoy this film. Because my feeling is that a lot of guys were drug through with misty eyes as they passed by the “Iron Man” and “Indiana Jones” marquee and had to be seated in there with Carrie Bradshaw and her friends... (Let's ) go over the premise of this film. JE: It was basically revisiting the girls – Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis), Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon), Carrie and Samantha (played by Kim Cattrell) – four years after the series ended to see where they are in their lives. Basically, the whole plot revolves around Carrie and Big (played by Chris Noth), her on-again, off-again love interest, who...get engaged and... RR: They fall in and out of love (repeatedly). JE: Exactly. They've had a tumultuous ten-year relationship and it's seeing what the next step is for that. And babies and jobs and things like that ensue for the foursome. RR: For you, as a fan, was (the film) a big payoff? Did the series end at such a point where this tied everything up in a nice, tidy bow, or was it something that felt like a few more episodes? JE: I feel like it was a few more episodes, quite honestly... RR: It was a LOT of more episodes, let's say. Two and a half freakin' hours? Come on! It was like “Dances with Martinis.” JE: I know, what's next, the two-and-a-half-hour movie of “Two and a Half Men?” To me, it felt like a very long episode. Or, if I had rented the box set of a season of episodes. RR: It's didn't feel cinematic to me. New York has looked better after it was leveled by aliens in “Independence Day.” For having “City” in the title, it didn't feel like it really showcased the beauty of New York. And it felt very confined and cramped. There wasn't much flair from a cinematic perspective. JE: I can see that... (but) they were trying to shoehorn so much in those two and a half hours with how many years of “Sex and the City” on television, ten? RR: The term “excess” comes to mind in every sense of the word. Not just the materialism of the leads (who were) very materialistic...they solved crises by retail therapy and alcoholism. JE: It's true. That is “Sex and the City.” If you are a tried and true fan, you will really enjoy this movie because they've done right by the TV series. But does it belong on the big screen? I don't know. For me, it was good because I did watch the series and I still do. RR: As far as the product placement, was the series as filled with name dropping as there was in this, because honestly, it seemed like there was something being hawked every few minutes of this film, whether it was a designer name or a mineral water or the name of a restaurant, everybody had something to pimp out in this film. JE: The movie was shameless in that respect. The series, not so much. RR: As far as the comedy was concerned in this, at times, I honestly felt like maybe they had the Farrelly Brothers (“Something About Mary”) stop in and direct some of it. In specific, there was an instance where one of the character, Miranda, the lawyer, is rather negligent in, let's say, “landscaping” of the body. It seemed like a very broad style of comedy where it wanted to play with the sexy shenanigans of the Farrellys...The women of the film, and this is from someone who has not spent any time, but in that time that I spent in a darkened theater with them, they seemed so shallow and narcissistic and materialistic that I didn't feel that I could find anything worth merit for these girls, and I'm hoping that the series preceding this helped to flesh them out, but for a newcomer, the movie certainly did not. JE: I can totally understand what you are saying. My whole point is, as a viewer, even for the first time, which my mom basically was, you have to look at it like that cell phone that Carrie had in the movie...it's pretty and shiny, but the prettiness and shininess really doesn't mean anything. And it's not meant to mean anything. It's just like escapism. It was just eye candy – the clothes, the fashion, even the music. And there are strung throughout the movie little nuggets that only people who have watched it from the beginning would get, but I think a lot of that movie could have ended up on the editing room floor. RR: Believe me, I did my research on this. “Entertainment Weekly” put out an entire volume on “Sex and the City” and I read every damn episode guide. JE: Good job! RR: I know. I wanted to make sure that I knew my stuff going in here because I knew the wrath that I would face if I were a tad too harsh on this. It seemed to me that from a male perspective, there was a real anti-romantic vide in this movie. For as “Cinderella-story” as it wanted to be, there seemed to be this entire undercurrent of how romance really is kind of a fallacy. JE: They do eventually get to the point at the end, where they wrap it up nicely, I think. But they could have wrapped it up a little sooner. RR: There's a new character that was introduced and it was Carrie's assistant. Jennifer Hudson of “Dreamgirls” plays her. JE: Beautiful girl. RR: And Oscar-nominated, I should add. JE: I was shocked to see her in it. I had no idea. RR: Personally, I was disappointed because here you have an Oscar-nominated actress, who, I felt, was put in (the film) to say, “Hey look, let's try to pick up the black market.” JE: I felt the same thing. At one point Carrie gives her a rather extravagant gift, and it was so schmaltzy.... (and I'm) saying that from the fan standpoint. That was just a little too much. RR: In that scene, Carrie says “You gave me my life back,” and her assistant says “You gave me a Louis Vuitton”... and that to me summed up the mentality of these four women. Their life can essentially be compacted into a handbag and toted away as long as the Chihuahua can fit in it. JE: Things. A lot of “thing” envy. Excess. RR: From a straight male perspective, I can probably say that I would not walk but run to the other side of the street if any of these women were approaching from the opposite direction. At least based upon this film, I could not see myself cozying up to any of these four characters, because there was just zip appeal to me and they felt more narcissistic than most leads that I should feel compassion for, in a feature film, at least. JE: I think if you spent more time, which you probably will not based on what I'm hearing now... you know, rent the box set, get some Cosmos going... Seriously, I have already talked to my friends who are fans and said “As a fan, you should check this out.” Now, someone who is not that familiar with the series? Put it at the bottom of the Netflix queue. RR: I would go a step further and say, make plans to have kidney stone removal or something... Jen, any closing comments on “Sex and the City?” JE: It is, I cannot say enough, confection. No nutritional value, just sex...and the city. RR: I thought the sex was rather unsexy, but this is why I ambushed you to accompany me on this journey, so that I would at least be buoyed by your positive comments and not suffer the wrath as I would expect. So, thank you very much. JE: Thank you, Rob. RR: I will have this on your desk promptly, boss!
]]>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:07:47 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/3/2008 11:07:47 AMAnticipating the anguished emails of readers who may take umbrage to any critiquing whatsoever of their beloved characters from &ldquo;Sex and the City,&rdquo; I opted for a different (read: cowardly) approach to this review which enlists the talents of my editor, one Jen Ellingsworth &ndash; perhaps the target audience for this show. My theory is that if the producers wanted to make a film that catered specifically to the audience, it would have been released in the comfortable confines of its HBO home. Since it was debuting at the multiplex, however, it should be fair game for a standard critique on how it stands up as a film. (For example, if Pixar films are for children, shouldn&rsquo;t they be open to adult reviewers?) Since I was a virgin to &ldquo;Sex&rdquo; &ndash; I have never watched an episode, nor was I overcome with any desire in which to do so &ndash; I felt the thoughts and comments of one who had spent many an hour with our fab foursome would be of relative importance. So below are transcripts of our post-screening conversation over a few rounds of martinis and Budweiser. For those wanting to hear a podcast of our entire conversation, visit natsukashi.wordpress.com. RR: You being, would you say, a quasi-fan? JE: I would say a pretty rabid fan. RR: That's fantastic because that puts us at two polar opposites. RR: You went to see this with your mother. Is she also a fan? JE: No, I think she's seen snippets of episode, but never a whole 'Sex and the City&rdquo; episode. She certainly knows the characters from the media and pop culture, but she loved it. I think it was just a piece of confection...it has no nutritional value whatsoever. But it was just a lot of fun. RR: My thought process for this is, for guys, movies like &ldquo;Transformers&rdquo; have their explosions and guns, and this is kind of the estrogen-filled antithesis of a male-oriented blockbuster, in that the explosions come in the form of Louis Vuitton bags and the guns come in the form of 3-inch stiletto heels. JE: The Manolo Blahniks. RR: See, I don't even know how to pronounce it, that's why I was hoping that you would say it. JE: You are going to have to Google that name, trust me. RR: I am so fashionably challenged, it's sad. But that's a good place to start with this movie because it is so fashion conscious. And because my fashion can literally be found in the back of magazines where you can buy T-shirts with sayings from the 80s on them. This (film) looked like I was at Le Cirque du Soleil. It looked like some of the best fashion designers in the country got together and vomited up the worst aberrations of fabric that they could onto these women. JE: I agree. I mean the bird in the hair (worn by Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker) during her wedding scene. That, to me, was just deplorable. But some of the things were very, very cute, Rob. Maybe not for those of us in the Cape Region. RR: I'm going to guess that it really doesn't have to do with the regions of the country, but rather regions of the body of whether or not you are going to enjoy this film. Because my feeling is that a lot of guys were drug through with misty eyes as they passed by the &ldquo;Iron Man&rdquo; and &ldquo;Indiana Jones&rdquo; marquee and had to be seated in there with Carrie Bradshaw and her friends... (Let's ) go over the premise of this film. JE: It was basically revisiting the girls &ndash; Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis), Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon), Carrie and Samantha (played by Kim Cattrell) &ndash; four years after the series ended to see where they are in their lives. Basically, the whole plot revolves around Carrie and Big (played by Chris Noth), her on-again, off-again love interest, who...get engaged and... RR: They fall in and out of love (repeatedly). JE: Exactly. They've had a tumultuous ten-year relationship and it's seeing what the next step is for that. And babies and jobs and things like that ensue for the foursome. RR: For you, as a fan, was (the film) a big payoff? Did the series end at such a point where this tied everything up in a nice, tidy bow, or was it something that felt like a few more episodes? JE: I feel like it was a few more episodes, quite honestly... RR: It was a LOT of more episodes, let's say. Two and a half freakin' hours? Come on! It was like &ldquo;Dances with Martinis.&rdquo; JE: I know, what's next, the two-and-a-half-hour movie of &ldquo;Two and a Half Men?&rdquo; To me, it felt like a very long episode. Or, if I had rented the box set of a season of episodes. RR: It's didn't feel cinematic to me. New York has looked better after it was leveled by aliens in &ldquo;Independence Day.&rdquo; For having &ldquo;City&rdquo; in the title, it didn't feel like it really showcased the beauty of New York. And it felt very confined and cramped. There wasn't much flair from a cinematic perspective. JE: I can see that... (but) they were trying to shoehorn so much in those two and a half hours with how many years of &ldquo;Sex and the City&rdquo; on television, ten? RR: The term &ldquo;excess&rdquo; comes to mind in every sense of the word. Not just the materialism of the leads (who were) very materialistic...they solved crises by retail therapy and alcoholism. JE: It's true. That is &ldquo;Sex and the City.&rdquo; If you are a tried and true fan, you will really enjoy this movie because they've done right by the TV series. But does it belong on the big screen? I don't know. For me, it was good because I did watch the series and I still do. RR: As far as the product placement, was the series as filled with name dropping as there was in this, because honestly, it seemed like there was something being hawked every few minutes of this film, whether it was a designer name or a mineral water or the name of a restaurant, everybody had something to pimp out in this film. JE: The movie was shameless in that respect. The series, not so much. RR: As far as the comedy was concerned in this, at times, I honestly felt like maybe they had the Farrelly Brothers (&ldquo;Something About Mary&rdquo;) stop in and direct some of it. In specific, there was an instance where one of the character, Miranda, the lawyer, is rather negligent in, let's say, &ldquo;landscaping&rdquo; of the body. It seemed like a very broad style of comedy where it wanted to play with the sexy shenanigans of the Farrellys...The women of the film, and this is from someone who has not spent any time, but in that time that I spent in a darkened theater with them, they seemed so shallow and narcissistic and materialistic that I didn't feel that I could find anything worth merit for these girls, and I'm hoping that the series preceding this helped to flesh them out, but for a newcomer, the movie certainly did not. JE: I can totally understand what you are saying. My whole point is, as a viewer, even for the first time, which my mom basically was, you have to look at it like that cell phone that Carrie had in the movie...it's pretty and shiny, but the prettiness and shininess really doesn't mean anything. And it's not meant to mean anything. It's just like escapism. It was just eye candy &ndash; the clothes, the fashion, even the music. And there are strung throughout the movie little nuggets that only people who have watched it from the beginning would get, but I think a lot of that movie could have ended up on the editing room floor. RR: Believe me, I did my research on this. &ldquo;Entertainment Weekly&rdquo; put out an entire volume on &ldquo;Sex and the City&rdquo; and I read every damn episode guide. JE: Good job! RR: I know. I wanted to make sure that I knew my stuff going in here because I knew the wrath that I would face if I were a tad too harsh on this. It seemed to me that from a male perspective, there was a real anti-romantic vide in this movie. For as &ldquo;Cinderella-story&rdquo; as it wanted to be, there seemed to be this entire undercurrent of how romance really is kind of a fallacy. JE: They do eventually get to the point at the end, where they wrap it up nicely, I think. But they could have wrapped it up a little sooner. RR: There's a new character that was introduced and it was Carrie's assistant. Jennifer Hudson of &ldquo;Dreamgirls&rdquo; plays her. JE: Beautiful girl. RR: And Oscar-nominated, I should add. JE: I was shocked to see her in it. I had no idea. RR: Personally, I was disappointed because here you have an Oscar-nominated actress, who, I felt, was put in (the film) to say, &ldquo;Hey look, let's try to pick up the black market.&rdquo; JE: I felt the same thing. At one point Carrie gives her a rather extravagant gift, and it was so schmaltzy.... (and I'm) saying that from the fan standpoint. That was just a little too much. RR: In that scene, Carrie says &ldquo;You gave me my life back,&rdquo; and her assistant says &ldquo;You gave me a Louis Vuitton&rdquo;... and that to me summed up the mentality of these four women. Their life can essentially be compacted into a handbag and toted away as long as the Chihuahua can fit in it. JE: Things. A lot of &ldquo;thing&rdquo; envy. Excess. RR: From a straight male perspective, I can probably say that I would not walk but run to the other side of the street if any of these women were approaching from the opposite direction. At least based upon this film, I could not see myself cozying up to any of these four characters, because there was just zip appeal to me and they felt more narcissistic than most leads that I should feel compassion for, in a feature film, at least. JE: I think if you spent more time, which you probably will not based on what I'm hearing now... you know, rent the box set, get some Cosmos going... Seriously, I have already talked to my friends who are fans and said &ldquo;As a fan, you should check this out.&rdquo; Now, someone who is not that familiar with the series? Put it at the bottom of the Netflix queue. RR: I would go a step further and say, make plans to have kidney stone removal or something... Jen, any closing comments on &ldquo;Sex and the City?&rdquo; JE: It is, I cannot say enough, confection. No nutritional value, just sex...and the city. RR: I thought the sex was rather unsexy, but this is why I ambushed you to accompany me on this journey, so that I would at least be buoyed by your positive comments and not suffer the wrath as I would expect. So, thank you very much. JE: Thank you, Rob. RR: I will have this on your desk promptly, boss! http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28772.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 10:48:43 PM
Body: Dreamgirls is a nightmare. Actully, it's not that bad, but that statement was too funny for me not to open the review with. On to the real review-_______________________________________________________________ When the Academy Award nominations were announced last week, Dreamgirls made history- it is the first time the film with most nominations (8) was not nominated for Best Picture. Since long before its release, the film was considerd to be Oscar-worthy or Oscar bait, depending on your point of view. And indeed, it does seem like the worst kind of thing the Academy usually rewards, which why it must be comended for not falling for the bait. Dreamgirls looks great, has a social message, and is well acted, which is all the voters usually pay attention to but the movie is extreamly underwritten and shallow. Based on a supposedly beloved musical (which I had never heard of, nor did I recognize any of the songs), Dreamgirls recounts the rise of the black soul trio The Dreams, obviously modled after The Supremes. Lacking any other sucess, the group begins their professional career by singing backup to James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphey, who unfortantley does not perform "Party All the Time"), but soon their manager Curtis (Jamie Foxx), gets them a solo gig and bribes DJ's to play their music, and the group hits it big, but with a price- their music must unpolitical and somewhat bland to appeal to white audiences. Tensions build in the group when Curtis forces lead singer Effie (Jennifer Hudson) to backup, not because she is untalented, (in fact her replacement, Deena (Beonce Knowls) has a weaker voice) but simply because she is overweight and Deena looks better on television. Pressures between Effie and Deena grow until Effie is forced out. Meanwhile, Curtis becomes more and more ruthless in his pursuit of power and money. Many critics have commended the movie for its social commentary- how black artists were forced to whitewash their work in order to become popular, or indeed, even have a chance to become popular. I agree with the movie's sentiment, but object to the obvious and shallow way it presents it. Its case is somewhat awkwardly presented because The Dreams are just singers and do not write their own matieral. Furthermore, the film expects us to be shocked that show business is shallow and sometimes the most talented person does not suceed because of their physical appearance. This is indeed unethical, but I doubt that few will find it surprising in these days. Of course, narrative problems in musicals don't mean much if the songs are there (i.e. West Side Story) but this movie has one of the most boring song scores I have heard, and certainly one of the longest. In Dreamgirls songs stop for dialouge instead of other way around. Kristen G. Gorlitz was correct when she commented that this almost like a concert film. It is particulary annoying at how the song The Dreams are performing always seems to just happen to also describe their emotional state. What that film's admirer's have gotten right is the quality of the performances particulary from Hudson and Knowls, who both have extreamly strong voices and can carry the dramatic material. It unfortanate that their huge efforts and creativity is wasted on such shallow material. I do not totally understand what the people who love this film see in it beyond glitz and glamour. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers called it "The story of America". I think that he is reading more sophistication into the movie that is there. Like the overproduced pop the film comdemends, Dreamgirls is consumatley professional, but empty. Dreamgirls (2006)
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 02:48:43 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 10:48:43 PMDreamgirls is a nightmare. Actully, it's not that bad, but that statement was too funny for me not to open the review with. On to the real review-_______________________________________________________________ When the Academy Award nominations were announced last week, Dreamgirls made history- it is the first time the film with most nominations (8) was not nominated for Best Picture. Since long before its release, the film was considerd to be Oscar-worthy or Oscar bait, depending on your point of view. And indeed, it does seem like the worst kind of thing the Academy usually rewards, which why it must be comended for not falling for the bait. Dreamgirls looks great, has a social message, and is well acted, which is all the voters usually pay attention to but the movie is extreamly underwritten and shallow. Based on a supposedly beloved musical (which I had never heard of, nor did I recognize any of the songs), Dreamgirls recounts the rise of the black soul trio The Dreams, obviously modled after The Supremes. Lacking any other sucess, the group begins their professional career by singing backup to James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphey, who unfortantley does not perform "Party All the Time"), but soon their manager Curtis (Jamie Foxx), gets them a solo gig and bribes DJ's to play their music, and the group hits it big, but with a price- their music must unpolitical and somewhat bland to appeal to white audiences. Tensions build in the group when Curtis forces lead singer Effie (Jennifer Hudson) to backup, not because she is untalented, (in fact her replacement, Deena (Beonce Knowls) has a weaker voice) but simply because she is overweight and Deena looks better on television. Pressures between Effie and Deena grow until Effie is forced out. Meanwhile, Curtis becomes more and more ruthless in his pursuit of power and money. Many critics have commended the movie for its social commentary- how black artists were forced to whitewash their work in order to become popular, or indeed, even have a chance to become popular. I agree with the movie's sentiment, but object to the obvious and shallow way it presents it. Its case is somewhat awkwardly presented because The Dreams are just singers and do not write their own matieral. Furthermore, the film expects us to be shocked that show business is shallow and sometimes the most talented person does not suceed because of their physical appearance. This is indeed unethical, but I doubt that few will find it surprising in these days. Of course, narrative problems in musicals don't mean much if the songs are there (i.e. West Side Story) but this movie has one of the most boring song scores I have heard, and certainly one of the longest. In Dreamgirls songs stop for dialouge instead of other way around. Kristen G. Gorlitz was correct when she commented that this almost like a concert film. It is particulary annoying at how the song The Dreams are performing always seems to just happen to also describe their emotional state. What that film's admirer's have gotten right is the quality of the performances particulary from Hudson and Knowls, who both have extreamly strong voices and can carry the dramatic material. It unfortanate that their huge efforts and creativity is wasted on such shallow material. I do not totally understand what the people who love this film see in it beyond glitz and glamour. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers called it "The story of America". I think that he is reading more sophistication into the movie that is there. Like the overproduced pop the film comdemends, Dreamgirls is consumatley professional, but empty. Dreamgirls (2006) http://www.spout.com/blogs/wonga/archive/2008/1/10/23719.aspx Post By: wonga
Post To: wonga's filmblog
Post Date: 1/10/2008 12:19:35 PM
Body: i have a wonderful picture of all my movie ticket stubs from this year in a pile but i can’t get it transferred to my filmblog (yes, i save my ticket stubs and scrapbook them at the end of the year…i know, it’s sad really)! armed with discount movie coupons, i saw 118 movies this year at the theater and, as usual, it was really hard to narrow them down but here’s my list, for what it’s worth. some are from 2006 that i didn’t see until later. my 15 favorite movies at the theater in 2007the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert fordthe diving bell and the butterflythe lives of othersjunothe painted veilonceno country for old menthe darjeeling limitedwaitressstarting out in the eveningsunshinefirst snow zodiacin the shadow of the moonacross the universehonorable mention (alphabetically)2 days in paris 3:10 to yuma51 birch streetdirty dancing (20th anniversary)dreamgirlshairsprayinto the wildthe jane austen book clubkiller of sheepknocked uplars and the real girlletters from iwo jimathe lookouttalk to me wristcutters: a love story2007 movies i still want/need to seeking of kongthe savagessweeney toddthere will be blood 2007 movies I didn’t like so well before the devil knows you’re deadfeast of lovei now pronounce you chuck and larryla vie en rosemartian childold joyratatouillespider-man 3other movies (on video) that I fell in love with this yearthe dead girllonesome jimlook both ways
]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:19:35 GMTwongawonga's filmblog1/10/2008 12:19:35 PMi have a wonderful picture of all my movie ticket stubs from this year in a pile but i can&rsquo;t get it transferred to my filmblog (yes, i save my ticket stubs and scrapbook them at the end of the year&hellip;i know, it&rsquo;s sad really)! armed with discount movie coupons, i saw 118 movies this year at the theater and, as usual, it was really hard to narrow them down but here&rsquo;s my list, for what it&rsquo;s worth. some are from 2006 that i didn&rsquo;t see until later. my 15 favorite movies at the theater in 2007the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert fordthe diving bell and the butterflythe lives of othersjunothe painted veilonceno country for old menthe darjeeling limitedwaitressstarting out in the eveningsunshinefirst snow zodiacin the shadow of the moonacross the universehonorable mention (alphabetically)2 days in paris 3:10 to yuma51 birch streetdirty dancing (20th anniversary)dreamgirlshairsprayinto the wildthe jane austen book clubkiller of sheepknocked uplars and the real girlletters from iwo jimathe lookouttalk to me wristcutters: a love story2007 movies i still want/need to seeking of kongthe savagessweeney toddthere will be blood 2007 movies I didn&rsquo;t like so well before the devil knows you&rsquo;re deadfeast of lovei now pronounce you chuck and larryla vie en rosemartian childold joyratatouillespider-man 3other movies (on video) that I fell in love with this yearthe dead girllonesome jimlook both ways http://www.spout.com/blogs/paul/archive/2007/12/21/23097.aspx Post By: paul
Post To: paul on spout.com
Post Date: 12/21/2007 4:16:16 PM
Body: In spite of writers forcing primetime repeats as most of the country settles into winter (I recommend knitting as an alternative), the public seems to be siding against “The Corporations.” How American. Marketing guru behind Sweeney Todd–Tim Burton’s musical about a serial killing barber–struggles with “many niche audiences that need to be dealt with.” Solution: Promote it as Saw meets Dreamgirls. Jesse Eisenberg (Squid and the Whale) and Justin Bartha (Failure to Launch) will add to the “burgeoning ‘Jewsploitation’ genre” with a *comedy* about Hassidic drug mules. How does “sploitation” get added to an ethnicity? Case in point: Maria Full of Grace is sad, but if it had a Hassidic Jew cast? Oy vey! I just spit out my Schmaltz! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul
]]>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:16:16 GMTpaulpaul on spout.com12/21/2007 4:16:16 PM In spite of writers forcing primetime repeats as most of the country settles into winter (I recommend knitting as an alternative), the public seems to be siding against “The Corporations.” How American. Marketing guru behind Sweeney Todd–Tim Burton’s musical about a serial killing barber–struggles with “many niche audiences that need to be dealt with.” Solution: Promote it as Saw meets Dreamgirls. Jesse Eisenberg (Squid and the Whale) and Justin Bartha (Failure to Launch) will add to the “burgeoning ‘Jewsploitation’ genre” with a *comedy* about Hassidic drug mules. How does “sploitation” get added to an ethnicity? Case in point: Maria Full of Grace is sad, but if it had a Hassidic Jew cast? Oy vey! I just spit out my Schmaltz! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Paul http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2007/11/15/21712.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/15/2007 3:01:58 PM
Body: In spite of writers forcing primetime repeats as most of the country settles into winter (I recommend knitting as an alternative), the public seems to be siding against “The Corporations.” How American. Marketing guru behind Sweeney Todd–Tim Burton’s musical about a serial killing barber–struggles with “many niche audiences that need to be dealt with.” Solution: Promote it as Saw meets Dreamgirls. Jesse Eisenberg (Squid and the Whale) and Justin Bartha (Failure to Launch) will add to the “burgeoning ‘Jewsploitation’ genre” with a *comedy* about Hassidic drug mules. How does “sploitation” get added to an ethnicity? Case in point: Maria Full of Grace is sad, but if it had a Hassidic Jew cast? Oy vey! I just spit out my Schmaltz! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:01:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/15/2007 3:01:58 PM In spite of writers forcing primetime repeats as most of the country settles into winter (I recommend knitting as an alternative), the public seems to be siding against “The Corporations.” How American. Marketing guru behind Sweeney Todd–Tim Burton’s musical about a serial killing barber–struggles with “many niche audiences that need to be dealt with.” Solution: Promote it as Saw meets Dreamgirls. Jesse Eisenberg (Squid and the Whale) and Justin Bartha (Failure to Launch) will add to the “burgeoning ‘Jewsploitation’ genre” with a *comedy* about Hassidic drug mules. How does “sploitation” get added to an ethnicity? Case in point: Maria Full of Grace is sad, but if it had a Hassidic Jew cast? Oy vey! I just spit out my Schmaltz! Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/musical/MemberTagFilms.aspxmusical
Number of films tagged: 174

Number of people who tagged: 109

Number of times used: 356

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:03:25 GMT174109356Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/surprising/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurprising
Number of films tagged: 19

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 29

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:18:03 GMT192229Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/singer/MemberTagFilms.aspxsinger
Number of films tagged: 3001

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 52

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:39 GMT30012052Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/celebrity/MemberTagFilms.aspxcelebrity
Number of films tagged: 504

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 49

]]>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:09:23 GMT5041949Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fame/MemberTagFilms.aspxfame
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 36

]]>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:38:57 GMT6101736Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ego/MemberTagFilms.aspxego
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 17

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT871417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/performer/MemberTagFilms.aspxperformer
Number of films tagged: 2329

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 15

]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT2329915Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/james/MemberTagFilms.aspxjames
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:18:06 GMT9710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/manager/MemberTagFilms.aspxmanager
Number of films tagged: 115

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 5

]]>Wed, 20 May 2009 13:02:11 GMT11555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/early/MemberTagFilms.aspxearly
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 6

]]>Thu, 22 May 2008 07:56:35 GMT646Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beyonce/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeyonce
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:09:06 GMT233Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/caricatures/MemberTagFilms.aspxcaricatures
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:57:43 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/motown/MemberTagFilms.aspxmotown
Number of films tagged: 41

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:08:16 GMT4122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cultural-refs/MemberTagFilms.aspxcultural-refs
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sun, 27 May 2007 18:11:29 GMT111Tag