Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: *** WARNING! SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN! ***

This is a semi-autobiographical look at what might happen to Madonna if she were ever to be stranded on a deserted island. There's absolutely no challenge to Madonna in this role, and it shows. She's just Madonna playing Madonna, and she can't even get THAT right. I know what you're saying, you're saying, "How do you know this is what Madonna is really like, you've never met her!" Correct, I haven't, but we all remember "Truth or Dare", don't we? I know Kevin Costner does.

You would think, in the year 2002, that Madonna might have learned something, one way or the other, from the "crossover" ladies that have also made their way across the silver screen. For goodness' sake, hasn't Madonna seen "Glitter"? Mariah Carey showed the film world HOW IT IS DONE!!! Mariah kicks Madonna's trashy butt to the curb in beauty, talent, screen presence, charisma, characterization, you name it! All we see from this glimpse into Madonna's world is she's the only one in it.

If there's one thing to be said for Madonna, it is that she's consistent. When she was an MTV darling, she set the world of women's fashion back 20 years. Now, in film, she has set women's roles in film AND society back 20 years, by glamourizing all the most hated, horrible, reprehensible, odious qualities women have been reputed to have locked away inside them, qualities they have been so desperately trying to prove they really don't possess.

***HERE'S THE SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW...***

Here's the one good thing I will say about this film, and I really was impressed by it. They didn't go for the "Hollywood Ending" - Madonna's character lives. In the typical, happy Hollywood ending, Madonna's character would have died on the island, and her long-suffering, oppressed, whipped husband would have been free to finally settle down with a good, decent woman, a woman who would be the exact opposite of his deceased wife, and they both live happily ever after. But in this extremely depressing conclusion, she is rescued, and once more, this poor victim of a husband is once again saddled with his demon of a wife, and his life will once again become a living hell.

*** HERE ENDETH THE SPOILERS ***

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.

Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.

I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.

Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life!