"Dreamgirls" transfer to the screen

Rating: 7/10 (27 January 2007)

Maybe it's because my expectations were so high that my eye was a little more critical, but, "Dreamgirls"--while a very good film--didn't 'blow me away' like I guess I had hoped it would.
Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a waste of time or money, but, with all the hype surrounding it, most notably the attention placed on Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy, I was expecting a total jaw dropping breakout performance from Hudson, and a career performance from Murphy. What I got was what I was hoping not to get...just what I expected, unfortunately.
What I expected from Hudson was an amazing voice and adequate acting...that's exactly what I got. What I expected from Murphy was adequate singing and go-for-laughs acting (trademark Murphy)...that's exactly what I got, too.
Perhaps to his detriment, Murphy has made a career out of creating caricatures in his roles. It didn't help that when I remember back to early SNL, I remember Murphy did an impersonation of James Brown. I guess that's what I thought about during his performance of James "Thunder" Early. When he does have a dramatic scene, we almost expect him to crack a smile or make a joke at the end of it. There are dramatic moments in his performance, but, for the most part, his presence on the screen is larger than life hysterics that left the audience chuckling 90% of the time he was on there. James "Thunder" Early has a tragic side as well, and--except for the drug use scenes--Murphy didn't really convey them the way I'd hoped he would. In other words, it was really hard to distinguish between the role of Early and the actor, Murphy. It was almost as if Murphy was playing himself.
Hudson, on the other hand, demands focus the moment she opens her mouth to hit the first chord we hear from her. No one can deny that she's got one hell of a voice. Unfortunately, it's when she's not singing that our focus from her drifts. Her line delivery isn't backed up with any expression to speak of, and no matter how they try to age her or transform her to later years, she still looks 22 years old. In musical numbers (with a few exceptions where her dancing looked a step off from the others), she comes alive. In dramatic scenes, she's a little overwhelmed. I don't know what kind of an acting career she can forge for herself if it's any role outside of a musical.
Are these two Oscar winning roles? I don't know. The Acadamey likes to reward longevity, so Murphy definitely (especially with the Golden Globe nod) stands a chance. Best Supporting Actress is always the upset category, so, even though Hudson has been wracking up all the awards, with the clear front runners in other categories (i.e. Helen Mirren in "The Queen"), I wouldn't be surprised if she has some unexpected competition. After all, the Oscar Awards are all about ratings, too. It is show BUSINESS. Why would they expect anyone to tune in if they already know who the winner is?
As for the rest of the film, its visually appealing and very enjoyable. The music on the film, like in the Broadway production, is fantastic--and I didn't even mind the added-for-film song, "Listen." Beyonce Knowles is lovely and seems comfortable in the role of Deena. Anika Noni Rose does a fine job as Lorell, but, looks her age compared to Knowles and Hudson...about ten years older. Jamie Foxx doesn't really stand out, but isn't distracting. Danny Glover is as good as usual, and underutilized.
So, go see "Dreamgirls" and enjoy it for what it is. But, unlike "Chicago" that transferred to the screen almost without any flaw, don't expect the same results.