MovieChat Forums > Sparkle (2012) Discussion > Better than Dreamgirls

Better than Dreamgirls

posted 11 years ago by MotherMayI
17 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this movie. After months of being apprehensive because I had heard it wasn't very good. I found it to be a much better story with far more heart and emotion than the "Dreamgirls" movie. I've often wondered what all the hoopla was about Dreamgirls and Jennifer Hudson's performance. Compared to Carmen's performance as Sister in this movie - there is NO comparison. ANd Mike Epps as Satin was really great. This movie is way better.

"They told you you were stupid, ugly and doomed to fail............and you believed them"

[–] LaWanda74 11 years ago

I didn't care for Dreamgirls either but this wasn't much better IMO. I didn't care for the original Sparkle but it's alot better than either of these two movies.

Okay I get the Fassbender and Hardy hype!

[–] anthropo 11 years ago

I do agree that the acting is stronger in Sparkle than in Dreamgirls but Dreamgirls' screenplay is much more tightly written. This story runs like they went with the first draft and didn't bother with a second draft.

[–] blaque108 11 years ago

I was telling my friend this the other day when we was watching Sparkle together. I was just hooked to Sparkle from beginning to end it was like watching the The Temptations movie or The Five Heartbeats. I do think Sparkle is better than Dreamgirls I love Jennifer Hudson singing but in Sparkle the girls didn't over sing or scream and holler in there songs. Whitney blew me away again with her acting skills. I just loved it.

[–] MotherMayI 11 years ago

I do agree that the acting is stronger in Sparkle than in Dreamgirls but Dreamgirls' screenplay is much more tightly written. This story runs like they went with the first draft and didn't bother with a second draft.

There really was not much of a story in "Dreamgirls" for it to be "more tightly written" it was just one long concert with a bit of dialogue thrown in. If you take all the musical numbers out of the movie you will see that.

Sparkle's overall story and love stories were far better developed. In "Dreamgirls" the relationship stories were poorly developed. Effie belts out this major tune mid-movie about her and Curtis' relationship which was NEVER EVER shown. In my view that whole thing made absolutely no sense and held no emotion for me, since Curtis never seemed attracted to her and always seemed to have a thing for Deena and on top of that their personal relationships (the singers in the group) were never explored past them trying to get a record deal. Whereas in this movie you see them as loving sisters first who used to cover for one another, then you see them struggle together and continue to defend each other. The best story line in "Dreamgirls" was actually the one based on Jimmy and Laurel's.

"They told you you were stupid, ugly and doomed to fail............and you believed them"

[–] anthropo 11 years ago

We can agree to disagree but since you bring it up..speaking of NEVER EVER SHOWN, and not making sense:

A daughter (significant character) who ends up in jail with no resolution; a mother meeting w/that daughter for 10 seconds that includes a dialogue saying only "You look tired" then flashing to Sparkle in her dressing room w/ bloody nose (no transition by the way) doesn't make a strong story. Building the audience to care about a character only to leave her in jail w/ no effort to get out is not a strong story.

Also, too much suspension of disbelief is required. Sparkle gets punched in the face and practically knocked clear across the room. Yet there's no blood, no bruising, no nothing. That happens in cartoons but not in movies. We also have Whitney's character going from completely not supporting Sparkle's career choice to just showing up in her dressing room for her concert. No transition shown in the character. It just happens and we're expected to believe it.

[–] astonishing 11 years ago

Actually, you're wrong on all accounts.

The daughter Sister said in the movie that in 2-3 years she's going to be out of jail at the beginning of her conversation with Sparkle when she visited her. So that's resolved. The thing is, it was important for the character to have SOME consequences for her actions and decisions, but unlike in the first movie where she died, at least she will stay a couple of years in jail. She even said that she took responsibility because it was all her own decisions that led to this. If you want her to leave jail right there, then there would be no consequences to her actions.

As for the mother and Sister meeting for a few seconds, that's actually a very powerful scene. And it's obvious in how that scene ended that it ment that the mother was going to be there for Sister and keep visiting her in the future. The way they talked briefly was powerful and very telling that they were tired of the past and that they are connecting as mother and daughter from now on.

As for Emma going from not supporting Sparkle's career to showing up to her concert, well there IS a transition shown and it's when Emma's bestfriend told her "How many times you are going to keep making the same mistake Emma?". It's obvious that they both had a talk and that her friend miss Waters got through to Emma. It doesn't all need to be shown in detail, but you can definitely see the transitions.

As for not showing Sparkle bleeding because of Satin's punch, that's really a minor detail and not important to the story. A bruise sometimes takes time to show, but for Sparkle to be bruised for the rest of the movie is rather pointless and unrealistic, it's not some horror movie.

[–] MotherMayI 11 years ago

Thank you Astonishing

"They told you you were stupid, ugly and doomed to fail............and you believed them"

[–] Ocean_Breeze 8 years ago

Thank you, anthropo. There was too much padding (Sparkle sitting in the record office did nothing but show off her outfits), so many loose ends (why did her nose begin to bleed?), Tuney was a pathetic, one-dimensional stereotype, and it was piggybacking on a lot of Dreamgirls' fame and glory. Emma's switch around made no sense, characters were inexplicably dropped for no reason and it hardly resembled the original film.

You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you're all the same.

[–] b-touch 11 years ago

If you take all the musical numbers out of the movie you will see that.

"If you take the musical numbers out"? "Dreamgirls" is a musical (on stage, it's a rock operetta - that is to say, it really is "one long concert") - it wasn't ever designed to work without its songs. In most stage or film musicals, the story is designed around the songs and the songs are used as important plot tentpoles - they're not just dropped in for entertainment purposes.

Curtis never seemed all that attracted to Effie and preferential to Denna because he was.

I admit that the story in "Dreamgirls" is thin and has always been, but the story in "Sparkle" (either version) is jumbled and unfocused, though the 2012 version is an improvement (primarily in the character department) over its clumsy 1976 original story-wise.

[–] MotherMayI 11 years ago

"If you take the musical numbers out"? "Dreamgirls" is a musical (on stage, it's a rock operetta - that is to say, it really is "one long concert") - it wasn't ever designed to work without its songs. In most stage or film musicals, the story is designed around the songs and the songs are used as important plot tentpoles - there not just dropped in for entertainment purposes.

While I agree that musical numbers are an important part of a "musical" - the story should still be able to stand on its own. In "Chicago" the story stood on its own. In "Ray" the story stood on its own. Those are Oscar Worthy films. "Dreamgirls" the film was not and the story did not stand on its own.

In most stage or film musicals, the story is designed around the songs and the songs are used as important plot tentpoles - there not just dropped in for entertainment purposes.

I don't know about that. There should be a story first and then the songs should be designed around helping the story along. But we can agree to disagree again

Curtis never seemed all that attracted to Effie and preferential to Denna because he was.

Then that made the song that Effie sang and her emotion behind it overdone.

I admit that the story in "Dreamgirls" is thin and has always been,

Good then you can probably also admit that it was worse than Sparkle and should not have been nominated for an Academy Award/s.

Yes? No? Maybe?

"They told you you were stupid, ugly and doomed to fail............and you believed them"

[–] CynE007 11 years ago

Hell no, Dream Girls was WAY better!

[–] MotherMayI 11 years ago

Whatever you want to view it as - "Sparkle" was waaay better than "Dreamgirls".

Sadly Dreamgirls had bigger name actors and actresses, so it got more shine even though it was in no way up to par.

"They told you you were stupid, ugly and doomed to fail............and you believed them"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChocolateButt 10 years ago

No. Dreamgirls was never that great, but overall it is a better film than Sparkle, which was saved by two or three fantastic performances.

Expiration dates are mere suggestions! Like late fees and traffic lights.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jane_bront 10 years ago

I agree with the OP except I thought Jen Hudson was pretty good too.

~"Chris, am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."

[–] surgecess 9 years ago

It has to be said: Sparkle is MUCH better than Glitter 😜