Soul Opera

Rating: 8/10 (23 June 2007)

This is not a musical. This is not a movie about musicians with a lot of musical numbers. It is what I'd call a "soul opera".
People who are not used to operas may be a little put off when the characters start singing their lines instead of talking them, and not in the way of a musical number, either. (people who ARE used to operas, however, will probably groan though).
It was a real OK movie. I can honestly say, I liked it; but I would like to get a few things off my chest before I talk about the good points.
One, I like a movie that can transport back into a time and place and make me really believe I'm there. Tiny details like what kind of buttons people wore don't matter. But in Dream Girls, while the set and costumes were so obviously 60s (but even that got a little blurry towards the end) the sound rarely was. OK, some at first. But it mostly felt like "modernized" sixties music. As someone growing up in the 60s with a transistor radio practically wired to my ears, I can honestly say this film practically never "took me back". The low-budget non-famous Robert Townsend flick "Five Heartbeats" did that much more for me.
Two, and this is related to One, I would likely have enjoyed this movie more if I were deaf than if I were blind. The music wasn't bad, and there were great moments, but a day after seeing it I can't remember anything (except the refrain of "One Night Only" disco version): it was mostly forgettable. This was in direct contrast with the incredible sumptuousness of the costumes and dance staging of the numbers themselves. (This too went a little overboard and became a 2006 version of the sixties/seventies and didn't convey the period at all to me. but I understand it was to make the movie fun, and that's OK with me).
Anyway, Beyonce was incredible as the naive teenage girl to the jaded star (as were all her costumes and wigs), and Jennifer Hudson was a sight to see as Effie, even on welfare, but I keep comparing the movie to "Five Heartbeats". Oddly, the "Heartbeats" were played by actors (not singers), but the too-few numbers were beautifully done (not always by the actors voices!) and there was a story to follow, although similar to DGirls: poor beginnings, talent shows, racial issues, slime-ball promoters, main-singer-goes-bad and slides into poverty, and of course a reunion.
In contrast Dgirls was over-saturated with musical numbers and the operatic diversion further distracts. Maybe that's why I can remember nothing but the thudding disco beat mentioned above. The story got lost. A 'scuse me, what was this movie about? kinda thing. Too much of a good thing is not necessarily good. I guess I liked "Heartbeats" as it it left me wanting more, whereas with Dgirls I felt a little bloated (and I admit, misty-eyed by Hudson's finale, which I can't remember).
Of course, movies about beautiful women do sell. Pretty boy Leon of "Cool Runnings" fame was about as far as the Heartbeats got with visuals, but that was enough for me.
Sorry, what movie was I reviewing?? Oh yes, Dreamgirls. Anyway, I went home and watched my DVD of "Ray", another low-budget movie, also with Jamie Foxx. Now THAT movie had soul !!!