As Erik noted earlier today, the Screen Actors Guild noms are out, and there are few surprises. I was a little surprised by what Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere had to say about Eddie Murphy's Best Supporting Actor nod for Dreamgirls, though (WARNING: There is a spoiler in his post, so be warned before you click over there):

"What could the Murphy nom be about? Because he sings well, drops his pants and [SPOILER DELETED]? I ve been told all along that the SAG rank-and-file regards Murphy as an asshole. Maybe it's the old animal-kingdom instinct of showing obeisance before power, because Murphy was King Shit in the '80s? I know this: Murphy isn't fit to shine Mark Wahlberg's shoes."

Oof. That seems a little harsh. I mean, I like Wahlberg well enough, he's a solid actor, but Murphy, when he's on, does his thing very well. Personally, I'm impressed, if nothing else, with Murphy's ability to continually reinvent his career and surprise his fans. I've not seen Dreamgirls yet, unfortunately, but from all reports he does a bang-up job and is deserving up a nom, if not the win. Chime in with your thoughts, readers -- especially if you've seen Dreamgirls and have thoughts on Murphy's performance. Is Wells spot-on in saying Murphy shouldn't be nominated? Or is he full of hot air?