or another way of putting it is, it's ridiculous. You are basically writing that the movie is bad because the play is bad. You are reviewing the stage production, not really the movie and not giving it a chance. And dissing the music because it's not Motown...of course it's not Motown, it's *Broadway*-they are two different animals.

And it seems like your apparent inordinate love of the Supremes has clouded your judgement. Big deal if the movie (which I have already seen and thought was great and problematic all at once) hurts Diana Ross's feelings-she can cry into her hundred dollar bills.

And "This is a puny, pinched vision of R&B history and of R&B itself, a sanitized, show-tunized reading of some of the greatest pop music to come out of the 1960s." While I had problems with all the cramming in, especially at the end the movie was going *way* too fast-it wasnt supposed to be an overview of the development of black music in the sixties-it's about the Dreams and their story.

And anyone who goes into the movie already hating "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" really shouldnt be reviewing the movie in the first place-there was no way you were going to like the movie no matter what it did.

I haven't seen Dreamgirls yet, although I saw a local production of the show a few years back. The movie may be awful. I've learned not to get my hopes up about movie musicals, since very few directors these days know how to film musical numbers, and they replace substance with quick cuts and flash. But as a lover of musicals who can't often afford to see decent productions on stage, I still have hope for the movie musical.

But, what's wrong with "Broadway" music? It seems to be fashionable these days to put it down and call it "sentimental" or "inauthentic" but it's a genre of its own - it's not supposed to mimic rock or pop. Farmers on the Midwestern plains never sat around singing "oh what a beautiful morning" and hispanic immigrants of the 1950's never sang "I want to live in America" but I don't think that detracts from the power of Oklahoma or West Side Story - even if it's not hip to say so these days.

Would Dreamgirls be a "better" musical if it featured pseudo pop songs in the style of the Supremes? Is Mamma Mia a better musical than West Side Story because Mamma Mia has "real" songs and West Side doesn't?

"But, what's wrong with "Broadway" music? It seems to be fashionable these days to put it down and call it "sentimental" or "inauthentic" but it's a genre of its own - it's not supposed to mimic rock or pop."

Then it really shouldn't tackle rock or soul or pop history, should it?

However if the old tried and true "Zacharek review formula" pans out, I might just end up loving this.

The soundtrack for the play is excellent. That's the sounds dissed here. They are 80s sounds, and were never meant to be Motown sounds. If they were, there would be a copyright issue. "Family" is one of the most heartbreaking songs of all time.

Beyonce is not meant to impersonate Diana Ross. Deena Jones is modeled on here, but was never a copy. Deena is supposed to be finding herself. She is supposed to seem confused, unlike the ever scheming and manipulative Ms. Ross. That's a part of the dramatic license that keeps Gordy and Ross from being able to sue.

I love "And I am Telling You". It was a massive hit the first time around.

I think the problem here is that people make so much of the play was based on the Supremess hat they miss the fact thatthe play was an indictment of the soul killing music industry and it's relentless 80s emphasis on "crossing over" and "whitening". With pop artists like Justin Timberlake trying to sing black, the opening soliloquy on appropriation has a different meaning to people like me than to a movie critic. It is as fresh an argument today as it was then; only the sound appropriated is different.

Gotta respectfully disagree about Dreamgirls. Well, I have to agree on one point it should not be read as an accurate or even thorough fictionalization of the rise of the supremes and the early days of motown. But, I still came away from the movie with a fairly good feeling. The musical numbers were adequate and I think a lot of the soul-sucking blandness put into many of the earlier number were appropriately applied. I thought Eddie Murphy's acting was top notch. He blended his trademark shit eating grin with at least a touch of realism and liscivious soul. The film might have benefited from more Eddie.

Yes, Idlewild was deeply original from the standpoint of its hybrid music and dance and the way it was filmed, but it disappeared for far too many reasons. The story is thin, boring, and cliched. The fabulous dance numbers (I watched "Bowtie" three times when it was on DVD) are cut so badly you never get to appreciate them in all their richness. Macy Gray is wasted because she never lets loose the way she can and her first number is not just badly edited, it's hard to hear. Andre 3000's energy and zest are kept tamped way down until the closing credits. Why cast him as a suppressed son of a dominant father in the first place? The movie feels like a tease all the way through, offering much more than it ultimately gives you.

It is a bit much to suggest that Florence Ballard was the real talent, and not Diana Ross. No doubt she (FB) was a fine singer, but Ross's voice, as displayed in numbers like Where Did Our Love Go, Stop In The Name of Love, Baby Love etc., is one of the most readily identifiable sounds of the sixties.

Success in pop music is rarely about having a fine voice alone. It has much more to do with looks and how the performer is managed and promoted. Those who are most successful are often those who compose their own music and are involved on the production side.

I don't think Ross is one of the greatest singers of all time, but those early records that feature her lead vocal are terrific, and kudos goes to all involved in the production.