I've got a bone to pick with the Hollywood Foreign Press. All those Golden Globe nominations for Dreamgirls (not to mention the majority of American Critics who went all soft and gooey over this film) cost me about 45 bucks (once my family and concessions are figured in). Dreamgirls is basically Chicago 2, or more accurately "Detroit." I hope you're not saying to yourself "but Chicago won the Oscar?" Guess what - so did Gladiator and Unforgiven – case closed. This fruity disaster of a film differs from Chicago in that it was fictitious, whereas Dreamgirls is a loose telling of the story of the Diana Ross and the Supremes rise to riches and fame.

To be fair, Dreamgirls does get off to a fresh and impressive start. Eddie Murphy is absolutely dynamic as Jimmy "Lightning" Early – a James Brown-light performer that Murphy was born to portray. Murphy is ultimately called upon to do a little bit of real acting and he rises to the occasion with true aplomb. It also helps that I think he only had to sing his dialogue, once. I guess the hallmark of a true musical is that a certain amount of the narrative is conveyed in song rather than dialogue. Dreamgirls is so crammed with ridiculous and unnecessary singing that you wouldn't be surprised if a Janitor broke out in song, "I'm gonna rise above this garbage, I'm gonna walk among the stars/ you're clean your own damn ashtrays, while I drive off in your cars" you get the idea.

I guess the worlds critics find it a romantic notion that the movie musical can make a comeback, but after seeing Chicago and Detroit, I think we'd all be better off just renting The Sound of Music and calling it good. To again be fair, Beyonce does a pretty good job of recreating Diana Ross and newcomer Jennifer Hudson steals the film – a dubious accomplishment. On the other side of the ledger, Jamie Foxx proves that he should have left music alone after Ray. He gives a completely stilted and clichéd performance as the heartless music mogul Curtis Taylor (A Berry Gordy type, though I don't know or care who he is really supposed to be portraying.) When he sang his dialogue audible groans would erupt from the crowd in the screening I attended.

As far as the music itself, I'll admit that it wasn't bad considering the Motown classics it was intended to replace. Had they actually acquired the rights to the actual Supremes songs and kept the singing dialogue to a minimum I probably could have suffered Dreamgirls and perhaps even found myself among the ranks of the severely misguided critics who have sung its praises. And that's to say nothing of the flawed plot structure. For example, the film gives only the briefest nod to the pre-success struggles of the Supremes – they were huge stars before the end of the first act. (My guess is they had to leave plenty of time for all the gay-ass dialogue singing.) After that the plot was a lame compendium of music biz cliches. The only worthwhile thing I took away from this film was the idea that Diana Ross was not the cold, calculating bitch that most people assumed due to the nature of her career, but rather just a pawn whose moves were orchestrated by her cold, calculating management. Good for you Baby Love. Whatever you do, ignore the critics (you do it all the time anyway) I saw it in Park City with a packed house who laughed derisively throughout. I suppose this is coming off as a tad mean-spirited, but Dreamgirls is laughable and lame and would have put me to sleep had I not had to support the heads of my wife and daughter who did doze off. My Dreamgirls, and it was a matinee.