A bit overrated, but hugely entertaining and stylish

Rating: 8/10 (16 February 2007)

Based on the famous Broadway musical, Dreamgirls was meant to be an Oscar-stealing picture, like 2002's Chicago. Instead, it wasn't even nominated for Best Picture of 2006, making it the film to receive the most nominations (8) except for the "big" one. Now, does this mean Dreamgirls isn't worth watching? Certainly not. While it's true that other films are much better (The Departed, Babel, United 93 and several others), this ambitious flick is a guaranteed crowd-pleaser, and won't disappoint fans of the genre. In fact, the story it tells is so captivating it might even seduce viewers who aren't particularly fond of musicals.
Set in the '60s, Dreamgirls is a classic "a star is born" tale, as it shows us the troubled rise to fame of a female singing trio, the Dreamettes. When we first see them, they participate in a contest looking for young talents. Obviously, they lose, but soon enough a "guardian angel" shows up. His name is Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx), and having realized those girls are pretty good, he decides to give them a chance by changing their name (from now on, they're the Dreams) and having them sing alongside the experienced, incredibly popular James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy). Happiness isn't meant to last, though: problems begin when Curtis announces lead singer Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) will be sidelined in favor of the less talented, but better-looking Deena Jones (Beyoncé Knowles). It's the old rules of celebrity: you don't have to be good at what you do, you have to look fabulous on camera.
In his exploration of the darker side of show business, director Bill Condon (who also wrote the aforementioned Chicago) benefits from the fact that he knows how to use the camera to make every single stage-originated scene look breathlessly cinematic: from brilliant editing to sublime cinematography, every element makes sure Dreamgirls is an unforgettable experience, visually speaking. If the film has flaws, and it does, it's related to Condon's decision to leave Hudson and Murphy out of most of the film's second half. The former, making her motion picture debut, is nothing short of mesmerizing, stealing all scenes from her co-stars; Murphy, on the other hand, is at the peak of his career here, delivering a performance that's both wildly entertaining and stunningly vulnerable. It's a shame two performers that brilliant (and Oscar-worthy) are denied more screen time as the movie progresses (especially considering Foxx's semi-villainous turn lacks that extra something that would enable him to carry most of the picture). It is also vaguely annoying that, being this an all-black musical, Condon feels compelled to insert one or two hugely clichéd "white people stole our music" moments.
So, is Dreamgirls a masterpiece? Not really. Okay, but is it good enough to justify (most of) the hype surrounding it? Yes, it certainly is.
7,5/10