Dreamgirls - Feel This
mannybolone
Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
This film may or may not live up to the hype but I've been listening to both versions of the song in the musical and cotdamn it's such a kick in the gut.Jennifer Holliday's OG: http://www.zshare.net/audio/tellingyou-og-mp3.htmlJennifer Hudson's updated: http://www.zshare.net/audio/10-jennifer_hudson-and_i_am_telling_you_im_not_going-mp3.html(not to be heretical but Hudson might take this one. She's straight 
Comments
nope.
Herm
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/movies/15drea.html?ref=movies&pagewanted=all
i love how she runs her fingers through his hair then wipes the jheri curl juice off on his suit while she's singing to him
I can see where he's coming from.
On Broadway it worked fine because it WAS a show.
But film is a completely different medium (particularly when it comes to time and space) and to try and convey changes in styles within black music during the 60's and yet every single song remains sounding like a show tune is a bit strange.
Scott's review doesn't really dim my interest in going to see this but I'm glad he's one o the few reviewers to actually talk about the MUSIC in the film (oddly missing from most of the others I've read).
yes, the whole thing is kinda bizarre when you think about it... the story's about 60's soul music, the music is show tune schitt from 1981 and it's being sold as a movie to a 2006 audience. i'm sure a lot of people (mostly younger) are probably gonna be like
Naw, younger folks wouldn't know the difference b/t what a song from 1968 vs. 1978. I think it's more people like us - who would sit there and say, "uh, this isn't what Motown ever sounded like, least of all in the early 1970s".
Yeah... well, that was certainly said back in 1981 too. I just meant that the young youth are gonna probly be like "WTF is this wack ass music???" I guess older folk may say that as well- like Paul said, these songs work fine for the stage, but I dunno about on screen, especially in 2006. We'll see.
Beyonce is
BAN.....
THE REAL!!!!!
I'm not remotely taking anything away from Holliday. But seriously, Hudson is hardly a pretender to the throne.
I heard her version while I was shopping in Virgin records. Its good but quite streamlined compared to Holidays version.
Unfortunately I don't think the storyline and previews are going to draw the audience to the box office and unless some word of mouth really kicks in its going sink until its DVD release.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/dreamgirls-scores-a-christmas-surprise/
Just to also note, Will Smith's film - definitely a "Black" film as well - did 26,000,000 last weekend and pulled in another 15M this weekend.
We'll see in a few hours how "Dreamgirls" did with a Monday release (albeit Xmas day).
it actually goes out of its way to NOT be a black film.
I think I get your meaning but I'm dying to hear you break this down.
although the movie is about a smart black guy who ends up homeless (for a short time) during the regan era, there is not a single reference to racism, or even black issues. it was definitely intentional as the movie tries to carry out the inspirational message (if you want something, go after it) without making it a good v. evil type thing. i'm sure the real life character had to deal with bigotry at every turn, but it just doesnt exist in the movie, and aside from class issues, there really wasn't much to smith's identity in terms of blackness. for better or worse, this movie is a generic underdog story. i liked it.
Wwwooowww... I guess the stuff about the protagonist's determination to end the pattern of black fathers abandoning their children and trying to make it in America despite sociological setbacks went right over your head, huh?
Perhaps you took away from the film what you can identify with, but there's very little that's generic about this story.
i guess i did miss the part where will smith says that he is keeping his kid to buck the racial stereotype. what are you talking about? the actual movie or the real events that led to the movie? i wasnt talking about what i could "identify with" or interpret, but what actually was discussed in the movie. if race was such a major factor why was it completely ignored?
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=8241
the reviewer seems to think this was a right wing propaganda film about homeless people being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. happyness is one guy's story, and if i wanted to be educated about the psychological and social problems of the typical homeless person, i wouldn't expect a will smith movie to provide all the answers. every movie doesnt have to show realism at every turn. the important parts were real enough. maybe i'm sappy, but i thought the scene in the subway station bathroom was solid.
Not quite as good as "Chicago" when that musical went to wider release but just to contrast, the night "Night of the Museum" opened this past Friday, it made $12M but was on nearly 4x as many screens. Not only that but "Dreamgirls" debuted AFTER the weekend and thus, likely drew smaller numbers as a result.
Or, to put it another way, the apparently "non-Black" "Pursuit of Happyness," on its opening night - a Friday no less - managed 8.9M but was on 3x as many screens.
All saying: "Dreamgirls" is looking pretty good right now for a *cough cough* "Black film." Actually, it's looking pretty good right now for any film, period. Its point of comparison isn't "Idlewild" (which only managed to pull in $12M since debuting): it's more like "Chicago" or "Ray."
It wasn't an overt "race" film, as in, there were no direct confrontations. It was subtle, but still apparent. The reason I was talking about parts you could probably identify with is because there are two layers in the film. The first being similar to what you stated: "the generic underdog story". But for anyone who has a more informed understanding of race in America, there's a second layer. For example: African-Americans are a grand total of 1% of the financial services industry. It's basically a "good ole boys club". I don't expect you or anyone else to know that off the top, but it's a fact (my pops is one of the few). I mean, do you even recall seeing another black person in the Dean Whitter scenes? (That in itself should be a red flag). Knowing something like that adds to the complexity of not only "generic person achieving the American Dream", but breaking down sociological and professional barriers in a racial sense. And to answer your last question, I think, if anything, the race factor was suppressed in the film because most white folks won't pay to see a film primarily dealing with that issue (smart business move). So, I'm not completely disagreeing with your original statement, but a lot of context is removed from the story in your description/interpretation of it. I'm sure Chris Gardner would attest to that, as well.