OVERRATED! OVERRATED!
Please, enough already. The movie was mediocre. I know, race baiting sells newspapers, I am sure, but really. Please stop degrading yourself and your profession by creating melodrama where it doesn't fit.

It is because of "old-geezers" like you that such tensions continue to exist; one of the most glaring indictments of the baby boomers is the inability to dismiss white guilt. My friends, which cover all spectrums and nationalities, believe our generation is the first to have an honest dialogue regarding race and are through with your generations constant haranguing of our status.

My twenty-somethings are OVER IT. Why don't you join us?

Tom, you sound like most of us did last year when Brokeback Mountain was snubbed as Best Pic - at least it got a nomination, right? Now you feel OUR pain from last year!

I had a feeling after seeing and loving Dreamgirls that it would fall flat in nominations. Was it the best? Maybe not. Did it deserve the Best Picture and Director nominations? Absolutely! After seeing how the "old" academy (and I lower case the word out of sheer disrespect!) handled BBM last year, I am not surprised. Not only is Dreamgirls a virtually all African-American movie, it was also directed by an out director and loved by millions of gay men across the country.

The old academy won't have an African-American, gay-helmed movie hold their high honor! No sir! BUT they had to make room for anything Clint Eastwood does!

The only reason I'll watch the Oscars this year will be to see Jennifer Hudson win (I hope!) Other than that, I've grown weary with this popularity old, straight, white-man's club.

I said it in a posting last year after BBM's loss and I say it again now: Shame on you, academy. Shame on you!

Tom, tom, tom....you olda white geezer you. The academy does not like musicals you sa y because they're too gay... so why did they vote for Chicago as best pic? because it was a predominantly white cast? You say they don't like gay movies for best pic... I thought midnight cowboy had a gay subtext? you don't like that explanation? you want the gay them not to be a subtext but a main text? you said they don't like black actors in musicals? perhaps.... but a lot of black actors were nominated this year... the record year even. Walk the line was a black musical.. though it really was a drama, but it was nominated for best pic. what other reasons you say Tom? What kind of Oscar prognosticator are you... you should have read the signs... even you told them to us... like Time not including your "fave-est" pic in their TEN (10!) best pics of 2006. You should have read the signs..did it ever win a major critics award for best pic? Nada! Zero!! and the golden globes don't count ok?!! The fact that the academy voted it in other categories mean that they recognize that it's a good film... but a lot - a way lot more movies were BETTER!! the academy is racist? then why nominate a foreign lannguage film (Japanese) about a war that America won? oh right.. you were gonna say because it was directed by Clint... an old white geezer like you!! I think the real reason why Academy did not nominate Dreamgirls for best Pic was to spite "know-it-all" oscar pundits like you who love to dictate and ram through their throats who they think the Academy should vote. So think about it Tom....every time you espouse and promote and heck die for a movie to win best Pic....the academy will just know it....then they'll totally go against your position....just to spite you....because you are a know-it-all oscar pundit poseur! bwahahahaha!!! oh Tom..... hehehe.. all in good faith.. I just love executing schadenfreude on you.
Cheers! and peace! all in good fun Tom... til next year!

The AMPAAS has, in two years, proven itself to be the least intelligent and adept membership in regard to recognizing what constitutes the best in motion picture achievement. It is something I find discomfitting to say; however, given the past two years, I've no other recourse but to observe what the membership has made so plainly evident.

Last year, the membership not only chose the least worthy film as their "best of the year," but they made the glaring error of failing to nominate one of the best-directed films of 2005: "A History of Violence"; as well as one of the best performances: Maria Bello (who, incidentally, received some critics' awards for her stunning work in said film).

This year, to further prove their ignorance, they nominated a film for eight awards, yet failed to nominate it for "picture," "director," or "adapted screenplay." It's not the first time they've spurned a film that many considered the best of its year: "Leaving Las Vegas" -- one of the best films of the nineties -- failed to be nominated for best picture. Also, that same year, "Dead Man Walking" was ignored for a nomination for best picture. Perhaps the films were too realistic for the membership; or, perhaps, the films were just too good.

I think the same may be said for "Dreamgirls." The direction and writing, the acting, the technical mastery evident in every category -- maybe the AMPAAS just has no concept as to what constitutes "the best in motion picture achievement." Having read Mr. Condon's adaptation, I was again (as I was with "Gods and Monsters," "Chicago," and "Kinsey") struck by how sharp and literate a writer he is. The same cannot be said for "The Departed." While a good film, it juggles so many subplots that, by the final act, one feels as if Monahan was strenuously trying to close a suitcase that had been unnecessarily overpacked. A film analogy: Condon writes like Louise Sawyer packed her suitcase in "Thelma & Louise" -- sharp, orderly, with every item containing worth and heft. Keeping to said analogy, after reading "The Departed," Monahan wrote like Thelma packed -- just throw it all in and, sweating and red-faced, keep grunting until the clasps more or less connect. Of course, he found rather a tidy solution, no? Hey, it's a mob movie; therefore, let's just start killing everybody! And then, after all the eruptive grue has hit the wall, floor, ceiling, etc. -- trot out a symbolic object into the final shot that is the equivalent of smacking the audience in the face with a brick. (I admire Mr. Scorsese very much, and so I was rather disappointed that he allowed that final "element" to be included in the film's closing scene. He's better than that. It's sad to those who love and admire film, indeed, when one of their favorite filmmakers sinks to such a low, insulting, and literal level.)

So, another year of glaring omissions; of great work ignored. Where is Alfonso Cuaron? Sure, he was recognized in other categories this year, but the absence of his name in the "Best Director" category is a dark stain, indeed. What he accomplished in "Children of Men" was nothing less than revolutionary; one watches the film feeling as if he is there, right in the middle of the conflict and drama. I've never seen a film that put me so solidly into an imaginary future that seems not too imaginary at all.

And Paul Greengrass? "Best Director" -- wonderful. But no "Best Picture" or "Screenplay"? Pathetic. (Of course, it is another case of a film that is too good for the AMPAAS. They seem to enjoy films that lull them into a state of vapid complacency, rather than films that force them to see humanity as it truly is, minus flash and gloss and tidy, happy endings.)

As for Clint Eastwood: I think he's a masterful director. But it's rather slippery to push "Letters From Iwo Jima" to a 2006 release when his other film, "Flags of Our Fathers," did not do as well as the studio had hoped it would have done.

Campaigning, hype, more campaigning, more hype: such seem to be the ways of snagging nominations and awards from the AMPAAS.

Here's an idea: What if the AMPAAS created a new category called "Best Campaign"? Not only would it be more honest of them, but it would allow those films that truly deserve recognition ("Traffic," "L.A. Confidential," "Leaving Las Vegas, "Dead Man Walking, Dreamgirls" -- the list is extensive) to receive it.

I think, from this year on, I will stop my awards interest when the NYFCC releases their awards.

While I can concede that these implicit accusations of racism - or, at least, of cultural close mindedness - MIGHT have some foundations in truth, I think it's silly to authoritatively state, rather than objectively speculate, that voters just couldn't "break out of their white skins." After all, couldn't a given person mount a smilar argument for most movies to which he's had an emotional reaction? Couldn't one argue that The Fountain was underappreciated because critics refused to shed their pretentious exteriors and experience its unabashed romanticism? Or couldn't one argue that Babel's detractors are so caught up in abolsute narrative cohesiveness that they miss the forest for the trees, blidning themselves to the movie's emotional force? I don't particularly agree with either of these positions, but I can see how they could be legitimately argued. Tom's Dreamgirls partisanship has so partitioned him from object judgement that he assumes people cannot simply fail to connect with the movie, that they must have some sort of cultural or sensitivity deficiency. I think there are some objective standards by which movies can be judged and that some movies can objectively and definitively be called better than others. I also think Tom might be right. But the wholesale conviction with which he ignores other possibilities is a little obnoxious.

I'm elated that DREAMGIRLS did not get any more "top" nominations than the two it truly deserved- that of Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy- who actually invest humanity into this goofy piece of ear candy. The basic fact is that DREAMGIRLS manages to be simultaneously entertaining and sucky, a camp fiesta two shades removed from a Motown version of BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. And for those who claim racism on the Academy's part- the fact is that this is a show written by white people, accounting for the lameness, and fakeness of its songs- something I'm certain wouldn't have happened if black people were the behind-the-scenes creative forces. At its worst, the songs being like pitches for a Coca Cola commercial. CHICACO this ain't, in spite of the critics singing its praises. And while I disagree with some of the Academy choices this year like the dreary BABEL, I'm thankful they can see through the DREAMGIRLS ad campaigns to the hollowness of the film. At least I won't have to suffer the same noxiousness by watching another TITANIC-like win of popularity over quality for Best Picture.

Quite frankly, I'm happy the film got snubbed. It wasn't one of the five best films of 2006. While it was a soild,enjoyable film, I think it's overrated and I'm happy it lost out in Picture/Director...

Dreamgirls did not get nominated because of the simple fact that it is horrible. The same could be said about Brokeback Mountain not winning best picture last year. Discrepancy of ethnicity or sexuality is not a factor. What a miserable accuse to use when you don’t get your way. When I was reading, watching, and listening to everyone in the media sob about dreamgirls. I couldn’t help of thinking about the 2002 awards when Chicago and the Pianist won pretty much everything. There was another movie nominated for most the categories by the name of Gangs of New York. Martin Scorsese, Daniel Day-Lewis, Liam Neeson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz. I was outraged when it lost. Fast forward to 2007 Scorsese makes another Gangster masterpiece and what comes out to rival it…Dreamgirls. Until today of was convinced that 2007 was to be a repeat of 2002 but not anymore. In conclusion, I have unofficially dubbed the 2007 Academy Awards “Revenge of Martian Scorsese”.

this was a tongue in cheek blog, right? must have been, because Dreamgirls was a hideous attempt at bringing a good (not great) musical to the big screen. The noms for Hudson & Murphy are on the mark, but it rightly was shut out for Best Picture & Director due to the fact that this movie was poorly made! Bad scene segues, terrible lighting, horrid costumes, and for the record, Jamie Foxx can not act.

You're feeling now what thousands (millions?) of us felt last year about BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN winning all the precursors and then losing Best Picture to arguably the 4th most deserving film among the nominees.

The pain lessens, but you'll never forget it.

Well yes Jennifer Hudson has the award sewn up.

I agree that theres an element of racism here. Don't forget that while individual catagories are decided upon by their peers, the Best Picture nomination come from all the nearly 6,000 AMPAS members. The same geezers that wouldn't even watch Brokeback Mountain probebly didn't see "Dreamgirls" either.

So, last year the gays got the slap and this year the blacks.

Get over it!!! "Dreamgirls" is not a good film!!!!!!!!!!!! The play didn't even won the Tony when it was on Broadway!!!!!!!

TOM, AND I'M TELLING YOU....

Investigate. You have the power. Dreamgirls was the frontrunner. It's the first time the frontrunner is snubbed. it's impossible.

Who counts oscar nominations votes? Probably the same guys n Florida that elected george w. bush...