Here we go! "Dreamgirls" and "For Your Consideration"

Quinn wrote:
I am home in MN hopped up on cold meds, did see Pursuit of Happyness. More on that later. I will be meeting Chris Gardener thru one of my clients in April. Glad YOU got this up and running!

Joe wrote:
OK Quinn, here we go! The battle of opinions is on! Of course, its not really a battle but a friendly compare and contrast of our tastes. But who are we kidding - I can't wait to crush your posts. :) I copied/pasted portions of your last emai below. Of course I haven't seen Dreamgirls yet, but I have a feeling I'll be let down a bit. I've always been bored by Beyonce - ever her singing - can't she sing without sing-screaming? She comes from the Faith Hill school of talent: very beautiful, good sing-screamer, and boring on screen. And did I hear B's not 25, but really 32?? But I digress. I'll have to get back to this post with my Dreamgirls review.

For Your Consideration was mildly entertaining. I, too, was disappointed. I actually rank it 4th behind all 3 of his previous "mockumentaries": Waiting for Guffman, Best In Show, and A Might Wind (way underrated, and one of the best titles in a some time!). I expected more from Christopher Guest with FYC mining such fertile ground for satire. Yet scenes like Jane Lynch as this Amazonian Mary Hart character just killed me. She could have not said a word and I'd be in stitches just looking at her aggressive stance and heightened celebrity facade. Catherine O'Hare, of course, is the standout. She had the best written part. As opposed to her character, O'Hare does give an Oscar-worthy performance. However, its quite the crowded field of Supporting Actresses this year: Jennifer Hudson, Cate Blanchett (from Notes on a Scandel), the 2 ladies from Babel, Sharon Stone, Emily Blunt, Abigail Breslin (from Little Miss Sunshine). I've even heard buzz on Angelina Jolie - that the Good Shepherd comes to life only when she's on screen. I fear O'Hara will be lost in the shuffle, but I hope not.

JZ

On Dec 18, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Meyer, Quinn wrote:

> I agree with the NYTimes reviewer in that it was very good but not great.
> It did seem a little long but held your interest at the same time.
> Murphy and Hudson as expected are the two linch pins to the whole
> thing. Murphy will WIN supporting actor and deservedly so for his
> manic, but ultimately tragic portrayal. And Hudson does nail the
> SONG (yes it is almost like saying MacBeth in the theater at this
> point) but in a different way then Holliday. Holliday was two tons
> of raw emotion (literally and figuratively) on stage years ago
> singing the HELL to the NO out of this song. Now Hudson does the
> same thing but in a much less elephantine way and much more
> polished (this is movies not the theatre...) Hudson will be nommed
> but not win is my guess...although if the SONG generates enough
> emotion within the community, then who knows..
>
> Beyonce doesn't even channel Diana Ross. She is herself and
> ultimately this generations Diana Ross. I couldn't get past how
> much of a BEYOTCH she is in real life, and wanted to shoot a
> harpoon into the screen most of the time she was on. I hate
> her!!!!!! And Jamie Foxx is ditto. One hit wonder with Ray, now go
> away for awhile. So when you intensely dislike two of the 4 main
> characters, I can only give this Dreamgirls **1/2 to ***. The
> opening sequence, sound in general and costumes and hairdos/donts
> are tons of fun to behold though....
>
> Saw For Your Consideration this weekend. Not as good as Best in
> Show or Guffman but better then a Mighty Wind. The shtick is kind
> of wearing thin I think. Kind of like Mel Brooks movies after High
> Anxiety.
>
> Q