SubscribeWake me up from this 'Dreamgirls' nightmare!
Don't bother passing the Kleenex box. No, no, no, please. Just gimme a whole roll of paper towel. I will never, ever get over the cruel shock of "Dreamgirls" being snubbed in the top Oscar races for best picture, director and screenplay. I confess what you already know: I'm emotionally invested in this movie. I try not to let that happen during derby season. No good pundit should care if this-or-that pic wins. It's best to remain emotionally detached. But "Dreamgirls" cast its spell on me long ago as a Broadway show and later, when it got transferred to the screen so expertly by Bill Condon & Co., the result was a cinematic dream come true. Not just for me. Right now it's triggering roaring standing ovations at movie theaters across America. It just won the Globe for best musical/comedy picture! It just scored the most Oscar nominations! Eight! The Producers Guild of America nominated it as one of the five best-produced pix of 2006. The Directors Guild of America nommed it as one of the five best helmed. How could it NOT be nominated in the top race by the Oscars?
The reason: Let me quote what Jennifer Aniston says about that academy member Brad Pitt. Oscar voters are "missing a sensitivity chip."
Those straight ole white geezers in the academy just don't "get" the wow-pow of what's going on between all those hip black folk singing, loving, dancing, dreaming, hearts breaking up on screen. Yes, voters admire their performances, the songs, art direction, costume design, even sound mixing, but they're not doing their fundamental job as filmgoers, they're not projecting themselves into the characters on that screen, thus experiencing what they feel. Why? Because they can't break out of their white skins, that's why. From a distance they applaud Effie's roof-rattling role, sure (Jennifer Hudson), but they don't feel her pain. If they did, they would experience a whole, different cinematic experience — one of the finest of this year, any year.
Photo: "Dreamgirls" fans should throw an Effie-style diva fit today, I say!
(DreamWorks)
I'm not surprised Dreamgirls wasn't nommed for Pic, Director or Screenply, and, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't be more thrilled! Why? Because Condon and the Weinstein camp made the tremendously wrong-headed decision to shift the focus of the screenplay half-way through: the second half of the film focuses solely on Deena (played by the frighteningly bland Beyonce Knowles), whose rise to stardom is both banal and uninteresting, when the audience has already fallen in love with Effie. Condon should have trusted his key character to deliver; more to the point, he should have trusted his AUDIENCE to know the difference between fresh and stale. Effie is a far more dynamic and engaging character, and I think the film would have carried a much heavier impact by following Effie's story arc through to the end. Anyway, just my two cents there. Great first half; dreadful second half. Definitely not Best Pic worthy.
Posted by: James | January 25, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Quote from Nikke Finke LA Weekly, Sunday, March 5th, 2006 at 10:09PM:
"Way back on January 17th, I decided to nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That's because I felt this year's dirty little Oscar secret was the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members of the Academy of Motions Picture Arts and Sciences being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain.
"I explained that the real Best Picture issue [last year] wasn't which film was better. The real issue was which movie was seen by the Academy. I found horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually act like social liberals that they were disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex."
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/what-did-i-tell-you/
The Academy, as far as I know, has done NOTHING to rectify the situation where Academy members screen whatever films in competition they wish to.
They are also members for life. A large percentage, it is known, live in nursing homes. As to whether they give their ballots to family, friends, studio execs, or even sell them, is NOT known.
As Finkke states, it is HORRIFYING. But on the other hand, all they really care about is producing the annual ceremony and the millions of dollars the sponsors will spend. It's a show, a horse-race, a campaign, a circus.
Let's face it, artistic merit is NOT and has never been what it's primarily about. NOR FAIRNESS.
Too bad more people didn't read Nikke Finke's column(s).
Posted by: zhong | January 24, 2007 at 10:55 PM
It's not that anyone objects to "Crash" winning over "Brokeback Mountain" PER SE last year--
what one objects to is that there is substantial evidence that many Academy members refused to EVEN view the latter film, much less vote for it last year.
Nikke Finke of the LA Weekly talked to many Academy members who told her so:
Roger Ebert slammed my Oscar night scribble What Did I Tell You about why, eons ago, I predicted Crash would win Best Picture despite the hype for Brokeback Mountain. I cited the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero Academy members unwilling to screen Brokeback.
"Did anyone actually tell her they didn't want to see the movie because it was about two gay men?" Why, yes, Roger, that's exactly what Academy members were telling me. And what their friends were telling their friends in concentric circles of Oscar chatter. L.A. journalists who cover The Industry mix it up regularly with Oscar voters, and even more so during movie awards time.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/roger-ebert-naif/
http://www.laweekly.com/general/deadline-hollywood/how-gay-will-oscar-go/12564/
At least this, there were no Ernest Borgnines and Tony Curtises stating publicly that there were was no way they and their friends would see "Picture X" or "Picture Y."
Posted by: zhong | January 24, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Chris: as you read my previous post you'll see that i totally agree with your assesment that the movie wasn't a great one, but i also said that many musicals(they are the darlings of the acad. members) with white actors not only been nominated, but won the best picture oscar even if it was on the same level if not worse than dreamgirls. Now you tell me if chicago was better than malcom X or even dreamgirls itself then i'd say you are ignorant. But again i agree with your opinion in that it is the only solution african-american directors, writers...etc have is to rise above all that and be even better than the rest. cause i beleive from first hand experience that racism is mostly unconcious and affects all our dicisions without knowing. having said that, the academy ARE THE LEAST RACIST GROUP in america and it showed tuesday morning with the 3 acting nominations.
Posted by: Salieri | January 24, 2007 at 02:33 PM
As an African-American who ADORED "Dreamgirls" - and was upset about it getting snubbed - I can truly say that this entire argument is ignorant. Those who blame the movie getting snubbed on racism/homophobia are ignorant. Those who claim that racism no longer exists in Hollywood are ignorant. Those who claim that only Black directors can fully capture the Black experience are ignorant (and obviously have never seen "The Color Purple"). Those who claim that the film just wasn't that good...I have no choice but to respect your opinion. Those who claim that the film was "horrible" on the other hand...take your seats in the IGNORANT roll call!
Hopefully this year's Oscar results will send African American writers, directors & actors into the lab to create a piece of cinematic work that is so stunning and so brilliant that it absolutely cannot be denied by the Academy. Black Cinema needs to be raised up to the standards of quality exhibited by the 5 Best Picture nominees. Until that day occurs, ignorant arguments like these will continue.
Posted by: Chris | January 24, 2007 at 01:19 PM
I do belive race played some role in the Dreamgirls snub. All this talk about it being overhyped is laughable. Of course it was! It was a big budget Hollywood motion picture. Maybe people just aren't used to seeing white studios put that kind of money behind a movie with a largely black cast. It seems to me black films have a much steeper hill to climb to be taken seriously. Was it flwaed? Yes. So where a lot of other filsm (white films) that have been honored. But that is usually overlooked. But as usually as my mother taught me if you are black in this country you have to be "better than best " to get recoginzed. (or in the case of the Academy a junkie, whore, crooked crop,slave/servant) I mean how many whilte films have been hyped to the hilt and shoved down our throats as the greatest thing since sliced bread.? To many to mention. Little Miss Sunshine comes to mind.
Posted by: Millie | January 24, 2007 at 12:56 PM
All of the hype over the past year about Dreamgirls was manufactured buzz by the marketing department at Dreamworks/Paramount. How many members of the Academy were buzzing that this was the film they would vote for a year ago, before any of them had the chance to see it all the way through?
With so much buzz built up, the film didn't meet expectations to some people. People don't like being told what or who to vote for. In the current climate, with the shortened voting schedule, the multitude of critics awards, and very passionate posters in forums and blogs, and plants in those blogs and forums to "help convince others of a movies greatness and increase buzz." Just because some people think a movie is one of the greatest films ever made, doesn't mean other people have to agree with them.
I am also reading in here how convinced people are that Dreamgirls will win at least 3 awards (BSA, BSA, BOS). I don't know if I would be so certain of this at this point. I think it stands a really good chance of winning best supporting actress, but it has strong competition in the other categories. The support for Dreamgirls was not strong. I thought for sure it would be nom'd for Cinematography and Film Editing. It wasn't. So there are multiple branches of the Academy that didn't think the film was one of the best of the year. With all of the drama that gets created out its not being nominated for BP, BD, BAS, I feel like more people will want to stay away from the movie because some people are VERY upset by the snub and NOT vote for Dreamgirls to win in categories.
Posted by: bryan | January 24, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I hate to use the comments as a way to respond to people but I just wanted to say two things. 1) Bringing up Oscar awards that have been given in the past to African-American artists as a way of saying that the Academy isn't racist is the same logic behind saying "I can't be racist because I have black friends." Both are not true. 2) Just because "Dreamgirls" was written and staged predominately by white men doesn't mean it can't speak to the black experience. Sometimes it's people who are on the outside looking in that can tell the tale the way it should be. Plus, you have to involve white people in making a major broadway musical/movie, it's very difficult otherwise. That's all.
Posted by: junior | January 24, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Instead of blaming it on racism, why not recognize a film that really DID get snubbed- Little Children.
Posted by: l | January 24, 2007 at 10:30 AM
I guess that we should be thankful that "The Academy" is doing the actual voting and not the venom-spewing individuals who have chosen to post on this site.
Posted by: Vivian | January 24, 2007 at 09:47 AM
To Darcy: Most musical biopics make in boxo about $75-120 (Ray, Walk the Line) so the studio KNEW about what it would make. The problem is they went overboard with the promo. I agree with another poster that the 2nd half fell apart, but it was still entertaining, but I just couldn't connect after that big show stopper, which is VERY VERY OPERATIC if you go back and listen to the soundtrack and look at it as a clip by itself. It could stand alone from the film and crowds would cheer.
As a consumer I felt uncomfortable with the cliche second half. But overall, I thought Condon did about as best he could with the original material. I remember seeing it on Broadway and had the same feeling. Great 1st half, OK 2nd half.
Someone in another commentary mentioned the acting in DG. to me it was saved by Hudson, Murphy and Rose - who aint getting NO love whatsoever! and deserves to be recognized. The others fell flat. Or maybe their parts were just not written well. And I keep asking myself, who could have played Deena and Curtis - because Jamie Foxx wasn't as 'standout' as he should have been. So the producers did the best they could with what they had to work with. And to think that 800 tried out for the part of Effie, they got the best Effie they could.
I'm rooting for the Departed. I probably won't watch the Oscars, I'll watch the backstage press interviews on the computer...I find that more thorough and insightful than giving 1-min. acceptance speech. In fact, I suggest everyone boot up their computers to the backstage press interviews.
Posted by: Chicago48 | January 24, 2007 at 09:17 AM
also- if dreamgirls is such a massive success and fantastic film:the studio and others thought it was going to break office records-u say the public is behind it-but not the academy.then why has it not grossed 100 million yet-it expanded to more than 2,000 theatres and it was trounced by stomp the yard-in it's second week.explain that.the way the studio,tom,and others say it-you would have thought it would have grossed like 200 million by now.it has not.and oh- i even know of some african-americans who don't want to see it-saw it and prefered idlewild to it,or just flat out didn't like it. so don't go using the race card and putting words in all our mouths.
just because a movie has an all black cast doesn't mean we must like it.and-it's realy a "white" movie(well-that's how u see things tom).the director was white,the producers.are you realy a professional journalist? i hope not-because you have no credibility what so ever.
Posted by: darcy | January 24, 2007 at 08:25 AM
As an african American, I thought that the reason Dreamgirls did not get a nomination, was because it was one of the most mediocre seconds halves to any movie I have ever seen. After Ms. Hundson sings her aria to independence, what follows is not nearly as good or dramatic.
The fact is that I too could not get into its skin, because I was so bored and dissapointed. I'm sure you're a big fan of the razzle dazzle and the vacous lyrics. But Tom, don't try to tell me why the movie failed to get a nomination, and use my race to make your point.
The fact is, that the movie failed to earn a nomination, because it has a weak screenplay, it's in the story that the film falls apart, and the Academy recognized that. If you've ever familiarized yourself with Robert McKee's book Story, you would realize that this film committed more story telling mistakes than any Oscar Contender would ever dare.
But I'm glad you got Black and Proud Mr. O'Neil. Next time, but your anger behind getting Spike Lee a nomination, his direction of INSIDE MAN, was nearly flawless, and the only true African American made film this year. Cause last time I checked, Bill Condon (the director of Dreamgirls) was quite lackign in African-American.
At least you let us know that you're willing to put up a good fight for Mediocrity, I however, am not. I still look forward to that great Black Film being made. By a black cast and creative crew, until then, I'm actually amazingly rooting The Departed. Now that was "Story."
Posted by: Miles | January 24, 2007 at 08:05 AM
Tom -- Basically, what you are saying is that people who don't agree with you that Dreamgirls is the greatest film since Potemkin are racist, because they cannot identify with or enter into the emotional lives of black characters.
Is it so inconceivable to you that maybe some people just found the music lame and the entire production predictable? I love musicals, and I love lots of black music, so I refuse to accept your conclusion that I disliked Dreamgirls because I cannot relate to a black experience on film.
And your conlsuion that the white male geezers could not bring themselves to vote for a film that basically presents a black world view makes no sense given that the film received eight nominations (or five, if you discount song) and that the nominations this year are more diverse than in any other year in Oscar history. Why can Oscar voters identify with the trauma of a deaf Japanese teenager and a Mexican immigrant in Babel but not the black culture that permeates every aspect of American film, TV and music? Your sad little theory will probably be that the "straight" voters on the Academy just nominated Rinko Kikuchi in Babel because she appears nude.
There's a lot wrong with the Oscars, and the Academy, and the awards are not important on any level, but your theory for why Dreamgirls was snubbed just doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Todd | January 24, 2007 at 06:44 AM
I'm sad over "Dreamgirls" too, but look at it from the bright side: Even though Condon got snubbed too, its Best Picture diss means it will NOT go the way of "The Color Purple" or "The Prince of Tides", so Condon will NOT have to join Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris in the Witness Protection Program to save his movie. Murphy, Henry Krieger (last survivor of the original Broadway creative team, who shares in all three Best Original Song noms), and especially Hudson are safe. (Though my "move to Best Actress" prediction didn't happen, even then I made it clear that if I was wrong and Hudson was indeed nommed for Best Supporting Actress, she'd win easily.) I think the problem is that the Academy is spreading the noms around among lots more films, especially in the lesser awards like art direction and cinematography; but more about that later on.
"Dreamgirls" is only the third film ever, and the first non-Disney film (the others were "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King"), to draw 3 of 5 noms in Best Original Song, the only non-acting category where a film can collect multiple nominations. (Even if Dayton & Faris had been nommed for Best Director, it would have counted as one nomination.)
Eight of the 12 previous films that have collected multiple Best Original Song noms (the first was "Fame" in 1980) have gone on to win. Of the four that lost, two lost to another multi-nommed film ("Yentl" to "Flashdance", "The Bodyguard" to "Aladdin"); one ("Footloose") lost in what was arguably the toughest BOS race ever (1984 was the only year ever that all five nominated songs were Billboard No.1 pop hits--and that was with NO songs from "Purple Rain", for which Prince instead won the last-ever Oscar for Best Original Song Score); and the latest one ("Cold Mountain") ran head-on into the "LOTR:ROTK" juggernaut of 2003.
And for the 8 multi-nom films that won, it's the official "lead" song that always wins:
* 1980: The title song from "Fame" (over "Out Here On My Own")
* 1983: "Flashdance...What a Feeling" from "Flashdance" (over "Maniac")
* 1985: "Say You, Say Me" from "White Nights" (over "Separate Lives")
* 1989: "Under the Sea" from "The Little Mermaid" (over "Kiss the Girl")
* 1991: The title song from "Beauty and the Beast" (over "Be Our Guest" and "Belle")
* 1992: "A Whole New World" from "Aladdin" (over "Friend Like Me")
* 1993: "Streets of Philadelphia" from "Philadelphia" (over "Philadelphia")
* 1994: "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" from "The Lion King" (over "Circle of Life" and "Hakuna Matata")
(Haters, if you want to say these are "lightweight" films, then what's "Philadelphia" doing in this list? Its BOS nominees were Bruce Springsteen, who won, and Neil Young--not to mention Tom Hanks' first Best Actor win AND his famous acceptance speech. And how dare you call Sir Tim Rice, who shared in the "Aladdin" and "Lion King" wins, a lightweight!)
All in all, that says "Listen" will almost certainly win, even without Beyoncé; in fact, I'd say it's a safer bet than Murphy (but definitely not Hudson). And even if you weight the noms equally, Krieger has a 60% chance of winning an Oscar.
Posted by: RBBrittain | January 24, 2007 at 03:47 AM
I tried not to respond to the Twenty something. Hollywood always loves the young don’t they. But with experience comes the ability to see films most folks born in 1987 don’t have.
In 1987 the top grossing film was Three Men and a baby. The Oscar winner The Last Emperor.
Now that was a Oscar show this baby boomer ( old guy with glasses I was called recently) remembers.
As an OTHER, I refuse to be called a minority, Tom has every right to call it as it is.
Their aren’t many working black screenwriters, directors or actors in any given Oscar year.
See, http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?secc=10&cont=culture/num11/01_1.htm
Tom, if I can speak for Tom, connected to the characters in Dream Girls.
I did too, seeing the frustration of Eddie Murphy’s character, king of the chitlin circuit but demoted to what, a shallow of a man.
Racism as neglected by the twenty something crowd and often espoused by their elders is quite evident. See Regan’s America on the lynches and then their was that Texas beheading thing. And of course hurricane Katrina.
Such thoughts locked subconsciously in the brain can emerge sometimes when one pushes in a chad or two.
Norman Lear produced the Jeffersons. Most “HIT” movies and TV shows that offer us minority entertainment are written by white men or women who GET IT RIGHT. It is not often that you get a Chris Rock Show full of OTHER writers.
So what of white men, that is Hollywood right? White, mostly older men have chosen to ignore Dream Girls? See Tom was right if not “ politically correct.” What was their reason? As stated in earlier posts I hated and loved this film. BUT, when you have a film promoted in the millions of dollars and to quote Jaime Fox opened in only 800 plus theaters, not 4,000. IT DESERVED BETTER.
Dream girls should have at the minium been nominated. No, it is not Mahogany, or Lady Sings the Blues, but it reflected Blackness as much as a Walter Mosely novel, an Alice Walker essay or if can get an amen, a poem from Langston Hughes..
Why do people love this film? Why is Tom saying this about those he needs access too?
Why did I write this?
Posted by: db | January 24, 2007 at 03:35 AM
To say I was pissed yesterday is an understatement. I think the ommission in the 3 catagories Tom mentioned was a sham. The old foggies in the acadamy have no idea what they are voting for. I will say, even thou I am a gay man, think last year they did vote for the Best picture. I lovd Brokeback MOuntain but Crash was the best picture last year.
Posted by: Mike | January 24, 2007 at 03:29 AM
The first twenty minutes of DREAMGIRLS deserves an academy award -- no doubt. But I'm telling you that the music kind of sucked after that point (save one) and therefore the movie kind of sucked and therefore it's kind of a joke it got any nominations (especially three in the music category... I'll give it one).
I'd be hesitant to support this movie along racial lines because that's exactly what it wants you to do. It's called marketing. Instead of being outraged that DREAMGIRLS didn't get nominated, be outraged that movies of its poor quality (story-wise) are being made and pushed to represent a race.
Be outraged that movies that get green lit with a 'racial edge' must appeal to racial stereotypes (stomping, athletics, gang banging, singing).
Be outraged that multiple high level executives at multiple high level studios are of the opinion that if it's black it ain't green.
And, finally, be outraged with yourself because, ultimately, you buy the ticket.
Posted by: SM | January 24, 2007 at 01:56 AM
Dude,
Get OVER it.
I think you're turning this into a white/black racist thing is really uncalled for.
If anything, people in L.A. are so hyper-aware of the black/white relationships, they often go to great lengths not to give a candid opinion of a movie when it might deserve less than glowing reviews, or when an oft-told story that's been circulating since the 60's gets told over and over again.
Posted by: Zara | January 24, 2007 at 12:28 AM
This movie thought it was far better than it was.
Posted by: Anna | January 24, 2007 at 12:20 AM
LISTEN CAN I JUST SPEAK AS ONE WHO IS AFRICAN AMERICAN
have anyone of you even seen the movies that got best picture these were good films look at leonardo and the work he has done was the academy wrong no. the people who vote in the academy did not get there because they did not have anything to do with their day. their job is to sit down and judge and analyze who gets what. half of the people who get oscar nods are happy and when they don't win they don't quit and give up like some of you who make these comments about the academy. these people have put their life in this work and i am sure even though many of them are jewish they have other things to do beside hate african americans. when blacks win i truly believe the oscar committee gives it to them not just on their movie role but their professionalism and their ability to adapt in hollywood without being around other african americans who are there that feel hollywood owes them something.african americans should thank god for the opportunity to do a good job. and remember readers to win an oscar is a privilege not just a nomination. it is amazing to see that the film dreamgirls got 8 nods and the academy should be left out of the racisim clause because even though you think so it really is just your opinion. the departed and babel and blood diamond and iowa jima really happened to be good solid movies so think about that and the queen was brillant. remember america the dreamgirls is just a movie about diana ross and her desire to be the best when she really was not berry gordy was money hungry and he felt like her voice would appeal to an all white audience. diana never had the voice effie did and was put in the background the academy decided to vote for jennifer based on her performance from someone who was never in the industry or the a list. and jennifer hudson will or will not win depending on how the academy feels it does not mean she will quit hoolywood gave her the opportunity american idol did'nt. and she feels blessed to be in hollywood and i pray she remains separate from those in hollywood who feels like they hollywood owes them something instead of just doing what they have been asked to do play a role in the movie and be compensated. most of the racisim in hollywood comes from blacks, and you can tell who is who they always say the black peole this or the black people that when they should keep their mouth shut and work. remember black actors and actresses so you won't say a white person is talking about you i am black and i said hollywood is not a place where people want to hear all that just do your job and keep your mouth shut. and if there is any injustice pray and strive to be the best at what you do and stay away from the groups and societys that always talk about what happened during slavery it is over can we move on. oh my goodness thank god for the academy it bought out the best in dreamgirls by voting for it eight times and if it did not make it best picture i feel that hollywood is about to get a young actress that loves everybody and is groomed through her church to not get in the black politics of hollywood but stay true to the fact that it was the hollywood oscar committee that saw her gift and her amazing talent shine through, someone like her. beyonce probably thought they would choose her because she wanted and prepared to be dena jones aka dian ross all her life wherein jennifer was humble and just glad as she said in the golden globes to be part of a community like hollywood. look at tv watch her and see she thinks all that happens to me is a blessing. right now hollywood has one young girl an american who will because of her church upbringing feel what ever opportunities they give her will be a blessing so all of you out there leave the academy alone and the process thereof.
Posted by: SANDY | January 23, 2007 at 11:53 PM
I'm actually surprised at the venom spewing forth from some of these comments. "Dreamgirls" may not have deserved a Best Picture nod, but to call it "horrible," "a piece of crap," "lousy," "hideous," and "worst (movie) of all" is just ridiculous. It was highly entertaining, and the peformance of Jennifer Hudson alone made the film worth watching. Regardless of what anyone may have thought of the rest of the film, any movie that contains a scene or performance which makes audiences across the country literally stand up and cheer must be worthy of praise. I hope this backlash against "Dreamgirls" doesn't work against Hudson (or Murphy). They deserve to win their awards, and I hope the Academy recognizes that.
Posted by: Scott Witherall | January 23, 2007 at 07:41 PM
I was very happy to see Dreamgirls overlooked in the key categories. And I feel offended by Tom's insinuation that white people could not connect to this loud, overwrought film. Voters opted instead for 5 movies that have something to say about our world, our times and how we're all trying to cope. By contrast, Dreamgirls was a cliche ridden showbiz rags to riches tale that, frankly, I forgot about an hour after seeing it.
Saner, more reasonable people than Tom would be careful about throwing accusations of rasicm against an Academy membership that has nominated a record 5 African-Americans for acting performances this year, and that named "It's Hard out here for a pimp" best song last year, and that nominated Ray for best picture and gave Oscar to Jamie Foxx. Has O'Neil checked the - white - creative talent behind Dreamgirls? This movie is not exactly "Boyz from the hood".
Nine months ago, based on 3 minutes of clips, O'Kneel annoited Dreamgirls the front runner for best picture. Much to his chagrin, Academy voters just don't seem to understand that Tom's opinion HAS to prevail.
Posted by: Brendino | January 23, 2007 at 07:15 PM
This has been so entertaining! NY Branch reveal yourself! How dare you threaten Jennifer Hudson!
I saw most of the nominated movies, I'm a consumer, not in the business and I'm telling you, DG was entertaining, fun, and put a smile on my face. I rarely PAY to see movies more than once (the Matrix was the last one), but I paid to see DG two times and am resisting a third time.
I can't say that about LMS, "cute" "OK" "had some funny scenes" but in the end what did it all mean? What was the point? And to think DG was pushed aside for LMS - no wonder Marc Lawrence was happy at the Globes, because the prevailing thought was LMS was the winner.
One test of a movie's 'likeability' is the audience staying behind for the credits....didn't happen with LMS...didn't happen with Pan's, in fact people were flying out the exit door...it happened with the Departed and DG.
I agree, this year was a bit crappy. I loved the Departed, mostly the acting and the suspense. Did not feel the love for Blood Diamond, which I cannot believe got 5 noms. Amazing!
The best revenge is that DG leads all the movies in boxoffice and I predict will see a BIG bump and jump and make it to $100M matching the Departed.
And while we're talking boxo - Word of mouth will not help the rest - Letters has ONLY made $3M to date; Pan's is struggling at $10M and when families can't take their kids to a "fantasy" movie, it will die a fast death; the Queen is struggling at $35M and Babel is rebounding at $23M?
Let's make a bet - how much more do you think these movies will make in the next month? Believe me, nowhere near $100M because word of mouth will kill them. It's straight to video.
Posted by: Chicago48 | January 23, 2007 at 07:12 PM
How can it be about the black experience when it was written and directed by white men? I don't get that line of reasoning. I would think if you were that militant you would say these people had no right to write about the "black experience" in the first place.
Posted by: Gloria | January 23, 2007 at 07:00 PM