You're Gonna Love Me

by cnw
December 20, 2006 4:49 AM
  • |


Here at Reverse Shot, we care about keeping you up-to-date on all the hottest buzz -- after all, that's our job; we are film critics!-- and so we scraped and saved and sent one of our own (yours truly!) to the hotttest ticket in town (that's 3 t's and 4 stars, if you're counting!): the $25 all exclusive screening of Dreamgirls! And let me tell you: the Ziegfeld hasn't shook from applause like this since the Liza with a Z screening last March!

Okay, in all seriousness, Liza with a Z is the best thing ever. As for Dreamgirls, well... Never mind the nonexistent screenplay or the facile approach to its subject, the biggest problem with Dreamgirls is that the musical numbers -- the disappointing music, the apologetic staging (as if writer-director Bill Condon wants to insist, "Look, they're singing, but it's okay, because now they're onstage!")--are utterly boring and forgettable. It's no wonder people are so effusive about Jennifer Hudson; at least it feels like something is happening when she's onscreen. And let me join the chorus. Hudson is something truly special (her performance of "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going", owing exclusively to her considerable talent, was among the most devastating moments of cinema I experienced all year), but she's certainly not perfect -- she can sing, and she can act, but every time she's called upon to speak...

Anyway. So Hudson's the best thing about a bad (or at least really boring) movie, but still, the Dreamgirls hype reproduces itself. Why are people paying $25 to see this thing? Wait, better question: why did I pay $25 to see this thing? And the worst part of all is that hype begets more hype. Create an event, and people will go. They'll pay their $25, applaud (hell, they even cheered Beyonce), and go home and tell their friends they have to see Dreamgirls. It's brilliant marketing. In fact, it's the only brilliant thing about Dreamgirls.

  • |


  • Lonely | January 4, 2007 9:31 AMReply

    To be honest. You are as wrong as you could be. Se was the best thing of the movie.

  • andrea | December 30, 2006 9:00 AMReply

    wow!!! if u haven't seen this movie, you better get up!!! this girl will take your breath away!!!

  • Crystal | December 29, 2006 5:02 AMReply

    I agree with Talman. The critic who says that Dreamgirls was not worth the money and that it was only "good marketing" obviously has led a sheltered life. Anyone who has experienced any pain in love, work, the loss of friends ... real life ... has to appreciate the emotions in this movie. I loved it and I will see it again. Jennifer Hudson was dynamic and I didn't know who she was (I don't watch American Idol).

  • robbiefreeling | December 28, 2006 5:35 AMReply

    Before the film opened widely, it played on a few screens, including the Ziegfeld in New York, where they charged special advance ticket prices of $25, trumping it up as an event, complete with accompanyiing glossy booklet.

  • Talman | December 26, 2006 10:24 AMReply

    Dreamgirls: F-ing brilliant. Your critics are full of Sh'. Jennifer Hudson is a star who sets the screen ablaze with her soul. Fire your moron critics, they obviously don't have one.

  • Angela Pires | December 20, 2006 3:56 AMReply

    Yes, I love you. I really do! I haven't seen Dreamgirls, haven't even consider doing it. But it's sooo good to know that someone is out there to say some truth. I started paying attention to you guys after seeing Quincenera and finding hard to read any good sense about a film that have a hype I couldn't understand. Thanks for your guts!