Socal Mom

The SATC Movie Experience

Those of you who have followed me a while know that I organize several "Mom's Movie Club" outings each year: I pick a Thursday or Friday to see a movie matinee while the kids are at school and see if any of my friends are interested in joining me.

Sometimes, we go to a theater in our neighborhood that starts showing films around 11:00, which gives us ample time to see a film, grab a quick lunch and get to school before the bell rings.

But ever since the ArcLight opened a Valley branch in Sherman Oaks, we've tried to see as many shows as we can over there. ArcLight screenings are like flying first class instead of coach: you can select your assigned seats over the Internet, and when you get there, you are escorted to them by a real live usher, who greets the audience before the start of each movie and asks them personally to turn off their cell phones and pagers. A member of the ArcLight staff remains in the theater after the start of the film to ensure that the sound and projection quality are up to snuff (there are no pre-show commercials and very limited trailers for coming attractions that are targeted for the audience of the film you are seeing at the time).

Best of all: ArcLight has an in-house cafe, cocktail lounge and coffee bar (and upscale goodies in the snack bar, including the best caramel corn you have ever tasted). Since my diet doesn't allow popcorn, I usually get a non-fat latte to take into the theater... but if you decide to go for one of their evening 21+ screenings, you get to watch while sipping cocktails.

I have always wanted to go to one of those grown-up, evening screenings - and they were offering them this weekend for Sex and the City... but it was more of a party: Appetizers, cocktails and a 10:00 p.m. show for $60 a pop.

When you think about it, $60 for dinner, two drinks and a movie is probably about right... and I thought attending one of these shows would make terrific fodder for this blog. My friend Mary Ellen and I seriously contemplated doing it, but in the end, we decided that we were better off seeing the movie the way we always do -- before lunch and in the quiet of a matinee.

I'm afraid that 10:00 p.m. show time is what did me in -- that, and the thought of getting out of my comfy t-shirt and jeans and wearing some kind of evening attire. I may enjoy watching the exploits of Carrie Bradshaw and company, but my own days of strutting around in designer duds and strappy sandals are long gone. And I didn't relish the idea of coming home after midnight. At my age, I need all the beauty sleep I can get!

So we purchased four tickets for the show's first matinee, which started at noon.

Mary Ellen and I have been going to these matinees together for well over a year, and we are often the only people in the theater. That was NOT the case yesterday. The ArcLight was already bustling when I arrived at 11:30. As I waited in the cafe for the rest of our party, I saw more and more women enter the place. I even ran into another friend while I was waiting. She had come with her sister, business partner, mother and sister's mother-in-law.

We were shuffled into Auditorium #16, which was one of three theaters running the movie at various times. The usher seemed incredulous when he told me that our showing had been sold out for a week. I looked around and saw an audience that was nearly 100% female. (One of my friends said she counted three males in the theater... I was certain they must have been the ushers.) These women were NOT the ArcLight's usual market of respectful film buffs. They merrily chattered right through the pre-show announcements, and they hooted and applauded some of the trailers for coming attractions ("Mamma Mia" with Meryl Streep, Colin Firth and Pierce Brosnan is going to be big with this crowd.)

And then, the movie started.

As I noted previously, the critics are not being kind to the big screen treatment of Sex and the City, and I can see why. If you were not a fan of the show, you might find a large portion of it boring, especially if you're a guy. In real life, the male characters would be considered wimps (yes, even Big!)... but SATC has very little relation to real life. It's female fantasy. The ladies of SATC have not been affected by the economy; no one is worried about troubles on Wall Street, no one has stopped buying $500 shoes, and the only time someone complains that something is too expensive is when Samantha is outbid on a ring at a jewelry auction, because $50,000 was her limit.

That said, I AM a huge fan of the TV series, and I LOVED every minute of the movie.  That's why I'm not writing a review here; I did not want to think critically while viewing it. I was enjoying the fantasy too much.

And judging from the laughter, applause and tears in that theater, the rest of the audience of women loved it, too.

I ran into my friend Faith again last night at dinner, which is weird because we hardly ever see each other any more, and we figure that bumping into one another twice in a day is the universe's way of telling us we needed to make a lunch date. We talked about the movie and she loved it as much as I did; so much that we both want to see it again.  I have a feeling our lunch will be back at the ArcLight.

The Moms' Movie Club

In one of my former lives, I was a movie buff. Thanks to media jobs and membership in the WGA Film Society, I saw just about every quality film as soon as it came out (sometimes before release), and in the spring, I could make informed guesses at my friends' Academy Awards parties.

That changed when I got married and became a parent. My husband doesn't care about going to the movies (unless it's got "Star Trek," or "X-Men" or "Bourne" in the title). He especially hates it when a film makes him cry -- so even if I do manage to drag him out to something I want to see, it had better not be too serious.

I started indoctrinating my daughter into the movie-going habit as soon as she was old enough to sit still for one (I think the first one was "The Parent Trap," 1998 -- she was 2). So until she got too busy with gymnastics, I was very familiar with the entire oeuvre of G and PG-rated films.

But that still left me at a loss when the Oscar nominations came in.

That's why I was surprised last week, when I read Entertainment Weekly's "25 Movies to See Now -- Whether or Not the Show Goes On." That's because this year, I've actually seen quite a few of them:

1. No Country for Old Men
2. Atonement
3. Juno
4. Michael Clayton
5. There Will Be Blood
6. Into the Wild
7. American Gangster
8. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
9. Sweeney Todd
10. Charlie Wilson's War
11. The Kite Runner
12. Away From Her
13. Eastern Promises
14. La Vie en Rose
15. I'm Not There
16. A Mighty Heart
17. Gone Baby Gone
18. The Assassination of Jesse James
19. Lars and the Real Girl
20. Hairspray
21. 3:10 to Yuma
22. The Savages
23. Enchanted
24. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
25. Ratatouille

Now, three of those (Enchanted, Ratatouille and Hairspray) are films I saw with Megan. But the rest are adult, inappropriate material for a child. You see, in 2006 I got smart and took time just for me -- to get out and see a few movies (including some that would NEVER be on anyone's Oscar list, like SuperBad). I even managed to enlist some of my friends to play hooky from mom duties and catch an 11:00 a.m. matinee with me (which gets us out in time to pick the kids up from school -- maybe even catch a quick lunch together).

I call it the Moms' Movie Club, and last week, we had our first meeting of 2008, at the fabulous Sherman Oaks ArcLight Cinema, to see the Keira Knightley/James McAvoy romance, Atonement (see what I thought of it on my review blog, here). We had so much fun, we returned to the scene of the crime Friday for Sweeney Todd (review to come later this week).

I'm thinking of making this a weekly event, butr am unsure if my friend will always be able to join me. So SoCal moms: Anyone interested in catching a flick with me this Friday? I'm torn between Charlie Wilson's War (another film on the list) -- or going in a completely different direction, with lighter fare (27 Dresses or Mad Money). All start around noon and will end around 2:00.

If you're interested, drop me a line or a tweet - and be sure to let me know your preference!

It Wasn't About the Books

All right, I admit it. My interest in running out to see the new Jane Austen movie, "Becoming Jane," had little to do with my intimate knowledge of her literary output.

Although I purchased a volume containing her complete works with the intention of reading them all this year, I have yet to crack it open. I do, however, love watching movies based on her work: "Clueless," "Pride and Prejudice," "Sense and Sensibility" -- and of course, "Bridget Jones' Diary," which I once described as the ultimate chick flick.

But that's not the reason I felt compelled to see "Becoming Jane" on opening weekend. Besides, this movie isn't based on one of her beloved novels -- although there are elements in the story that draw from them.

I did murmur something to my husband about hoping to catch some glimpses of Bath, where she made her home. After all, the Jane Austen Centre there is one of the places we did not get to see when we were there earlier this year.

It's a good thing that wasn't the real reason, because this movie doesn't take place in Bath, but in Hampshire, which apparently was where Miss Austen was born and raised. (She must have moved to Bath after she become a published author.) I'm not even sure how many views of Hampshire I got to see in the movie, as the credits indicate that much of it was shot in Ireland.

And yes, I was curious about how young American actress Anne Hathaway would fare as that most English of writers. I remember the British press furor when Renee Zellweger was cast as Bridget Jones, but do not recall any such brouhaha over this movie. I've liked Hathaway since she charmed my daughter and me in "The Princess Diary," and even thought she did well last year opposite Meryl Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada." But I wasn't sure I was going to like her as an 18th century Brit.

But truth be told, none of those reasons would be enough to get me to drive down to Hollywood (because it's only playing in one theater in the Valley and the times were inconvenient) to catch a romance that had garnered some mixed reviews.

No, I confess that the reason I could not wait to see this movie was the young man who is co-starring as Hathaway's love interest: James McAvoy. I haven't even seen any of his other films (like "The Last King of Scotland," and "The Chronicles of Narnia," although I may have to catch up with them now on DVD). I became a dirty old woman watching his performance during two seasons of a British TV series called "Shameless," where he played an absolutely adorable car thief.

So that's the real reason why I ended up in Hollywood on Saturday morning with a lot of other women (and a few men) of varying ages. I would guess that most of them came for the Austen-ness of the story. And fortunately, it was pretty Austen-like.

The Jane Austen in the movie, a poor parson's daughter, "needs to be married," her mother laments. She's too intelligent, too outspoken and too independent. And she has no interest in the wealthy suitor who could assure her a comfortable future. Furthermore, she denies having any interest in her neighbor's visiting cousin, a law student who can only be described as a Bad Boy. Of course, we know that he will turn out to be the love of her life. We know it by the energy she puts into pretending to hate him. (Can you say "Mr. Darcy"?)

Hathaway makes a surprisingly credible Jane. I did not have my husband there to criticize her English accent (one of his favorite sports when Americans play Brits), but as "Becoming Jane" was produced by BBC Films, I'm pretty sure they would not have given her the role if she couldn't talk the talk. And she had genuine chemistry with McAvoy.

The rest of the cast was also first-rate, beginning with James Cromwell and Julie Walters as Jane's father and mother (and including the great Maggie Smith and Ian Richardson in small - but important - roles).

I think my lack of knowledge of the real Jane's life made the movie more enjoyable, as the love story portrayed in the film is completely fictional. I did read somewhere that the real Miss Austen did meet the real Tom Lefroy -- McAvoy's character -- once. But there is no evidence that any part of the story is true, other than the circumstances of Austen's family. And since it is a well known fact that Jane Austen never married, I knew going in to the film that the romance wasn't going to end happily.

But that's okay, because Jane lives her short life on her own terms, and there's happiness in that, even if a few tears get jerked along the way.

I'd Like to Thank the Academy...

Wow. The Oscars are finally over.

I've blogged before about how irritating it is that everything that is broadcast "live" is only tape delayed here on the West Coast - even events that originate here. There are a few exceptions: one is the Super Bowl. The other is the Academy Awards.

Thank goodness they started at 5:30 p.m.! What were they -- one hour longer than scheduled this year? Does anyone out on the East Coast stay up for the whole thing? I don't think I could. By their 9:30 finish, I was ready.

As for the awards themselves -- I wasn't unhappy. This is the first year in a long time when I actually got to see a couple of the nominated films ("The Queen," and "Little Miss Sunshine.") It was great to see Scorsese finally win. I felt bad for Eddie Murphy and Peter O'Toole, but happy for Alan Arkin and Forrest Whittaker. Jennifer Hudson and Helen Mirren were amazing in their nominated roles. I  enjoyed the montages about the movies -- especially the tribute to the screenwriter. I know. I'm weird that way.

We had a busy weekend, starting on Friday with Megan's gymnastics meet in San Diego. Documenting her accomplishments on film is a challenge -- you can't use the flash while the competition is on (it could affect the athletes' ability to see what they're doing) and the light is frequently poor. That's one of the reasons my husband gave me for buying his cool new camera. So now, he's experimenting. On Friday, he thought he would try setting it for the fastest speed he could, so he could try and capture her in action. The results were very grainy (which he expected) and he wasn't happy with this photo -- but I include this photo because I was amazed to see how high Megan's jump on the beam actually is. (And Megan says she didn't jump as high as usual!)

She was scored an 8.95 on beam, which I thought was pretty good -- especially as she's only been competing at this level for a couple of months. She went home with third place medals in beam and floor... and looked happier than any of tonight's Oscar winners (even Marty Scorsese).

Socal Weekend: With Tara Reid and Bowling -- It's Bound to Be FUN

In my never-ending quest for good SoCal material, I signed up at a website that recruits locals to be extras in film and TV productions -- and promptly forgot about it. So I was a little bit surprised to receive this email yesterday.

Believe it or not, with it being spring break and all, I reflexively considered this for a brief moment -- and then remembered I'm almost 50. And that my kid is home for the week, too. (Not to mention the fact that being an extra is really BORING.)

(Note: I am cutting and pasting into the post AS IS, as a, er, public service... no editorial comment from me! So don't blame me for the poor spelling and grammar.)

From: Free TV Tickets
Date: Friday, April 7, 2005
Subject: Last Minute! ***MOVIE This coming TUESDAY*** w/Tara Reid

MOVIE * MOVIE * MOVIE

* This Tues., Wed., Friday *

Simi Valley, Southern Calif.

Hey Friends...

Here's a out of the blue cool surprise.....

Just got a zany film in for this coming week in the Simi Valley area.

A Bowling comedy starring Tara Reid. So you know this is going to be a FUN set.

7/10 SPLIT is a new comedy abut three best friends, down on their luck in Los Angeles, who decide to make a run at the PBA!

It's a CRAZY bowling comedy...

Think Elvis Presley MEETS the Tiger Woods of Pro-bowling!

The hours are pretty off the wall also....

10 PM til 2 PM is the commitment due to "Continuity" (matching one scene with the same person in the next scene).

BUT they will be filming till 5 in the morning if you want to stay longer.

With stars like Tara Reid, who's going to want to leave.

This production company is pretty off the wall FUN.

I think this is going to be one of those really silly and fun filmings that everyone's going to have a blast.

You can come one or all days...

BUT you can only sign up for one day online. We'll let you sign up for more days on the set.

Everyone MUST be 18 or Older

Tue.........Apr. 11.................(Midwestern Look and Dress)

Wed........Apr. 12.................(Hip LA Night Club/Bowling Alley Attire)

Fri...........Apr. 14................(High-Fashion Show Look!)

This is a come for fun and be in a movie event.

This is NOT a paid extra gig, so things are going to be pretty relaxed and fun.

We can only invite 50 people each night...so first come first serve.

Other co-stars joining TARA on the set:

1. RAY WISE (GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK)

2. ROSS PATTERSON

3. ROBIN LIVELY

Oh, by the way...

They'd like most everyone to bring an extra shirt to the set that they don't mind riping one of the sleeves off of.

It's a long story...but it's important to one of the strange scenes in the film.

**** HOW TO SIGN UP FOR 7-10 SPLIT ****
We don't have time right now to put this up on our BeInAMovie.com website...

So if you Do and CAN attend one or more of the three days

Put your name on our

TVTix.com WISH LIST

and we will get in touch with you on MONDAY and give you all the details.

Here's the link for info and "sign up".

http://tvtix.com/show.php?eventID=310&scheduleID=11774

****P.S. About the ATLANTA, GA film****
WE ARE MARSHAL

We are still waiting for the final small details like: arrival times, exact location, what to wear etc.

We were hoping to start sign up this weekend ....
BUT looks like it will be towards the end of next week.
So hang in there ATLANTA,
it's worth the wait.
Filming will be in mid May and June
With some really awesome awsome stars like:

Matthew McConaughey and Matthew Fox.

Pretty Cool!.

Have a great weekend all...

Socal Mom at the Movies

SOCAL MOM AT THE MOVIES
	Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
	© 2005 by Donna Schwartz Mills Courtesy of the Family-Content Syndicate

Studio: Warner Brothers
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images.
Mom Rating: 5 out of 5
Kid Rating: 4 out of 5
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes, Miranda Richardson
Writer: Steve Kloves
Director: Mike Newell

This week, we're breaking our own rule about not reviewing movies rated PG-13. That's because the film in question is the latest adventure of teenage wizard Harry Potter.

As a parent, you will be relieved to know that the producers did not achieve this rating by "sexing up" the story, which was told in J.K. Rowling's fourth book. You won't find nudity or profanity here (other than a few mild British expletives like "bloody git" and "piss off," which doesn't mean quite the same thing in the U.K.)

But the movie does not shy away from any of the truly terrifying events portrayed in the book, beginning with the murder of an innocent estate caretaker who has the misfortune to stumble onto a meeting between Lord Voldemort and his followers. There is a rampage of sinister "Death Eaters," a violent confrontation with a dragon, the near drowning of some of the series' most beloved characters, and another death.

In other words, this is definitely NOT a film your youngest children will enjoy, and I would caution you to use your judgment before bringing your preteens, too. I warned my 9-year-old that the images would be frightening, more so than any of the previous Potter films, and let her know that my arm would be available for her to squeeze if she needed to do so. She did.

But she also got to see Harry and his friends in an exciting, thrilling tale of adventure, as Harry is selected to compete in the "Tri-Wizard Tournament," a kind of Olympic games for magical folk. As Hogwarts is hosting the event, we are introduced to wizarding students from other European countries, some of whom become romantic interests for our main characters. This time around, our 14-year-old heroes are not just grappling with the epic fight between good and evil but also with something even more frightening: dealing with the opposite sex. A lot of kids (and their parents) will be able to relate to Harry's agony as he gathers up the nerve to ask a pretty classmate to a dance. Scenes like this -- funny and sweet and very real -- remind us that despite his magical powers, Harry is just like us.

The stellar supporting cast of the previous films is back. Although we do not get to see as much of Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman and Robbie Coltrane as we did in the first three films, they are all such entertaining performers that they don't have to do too much. Gary Oldman is back for a moment (as his character, Sirius Black, is a fugitive). Much of the film's drama rests upon the newcomers: Miranda Richardson as a deliciously nasty reporter and Brendan Gleeson as Hogwarts' latest Defense Against the Dark Arts professor, Alaster "Mad Eye" Moody. Gleeson delightfully steals every scene he's in -- he looks like he's having fun, and we do, too.

We don't get to see Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort until the final act of the film. He is wonderfully malevolent and provides its most frightening moments.

Screenwriter Steve Kloves has done a masterful job of distilling Rowling's 700+ page novel into a tight two and a half hours, which actually feels a lot shorter, thanks to veteran director Mike Newell's ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") tight pacing, which provides plenty of laughs inbetween the thrills.

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is the best film in the series so far, and a must-see for you and your older children.

Donna Schwartz Mills took film classes in college and spent 13 years working in the entertainment industry before "retiring" to marry a "non-pro" (Variety's term for anyone in any other business) and become a mom. Today, she's lucky if she can attend two "grown up" films per year -- but she feeds her movie habit by dragging her little girl to every family film that comes out, often on opening day. She says she can't wait for her daughter to turn 17.

Donna is owner of Family-Content.com, the home of free and low-cost content solutions for family friendly websites and ezines.

Family Film Review: The Pacifier

SOCAL MOM AT THE MOVIES
	The Pacifier
	© 2005 by Donna Schwartz Mills Courtesy of the Family-Content Syndicate

Studio: Walt Disney
MPAA Rating: for action violence, language and rude humor.
Mom Rating: 3 out of 5
Kid Rating: 4 out of 5
Cast: Vin Diesel, Lauren Graham, Faith Ford, Brittany Snow, Max Thieriot, Brad Garrett, Carol Kane
Writers: Robert Garant, Thomas Lennon
Director: Adam Shankman

Let me start by stating the obvious: this movie is not going to win any awards. The premise of a Navy Seal sent to protect a family consisting of five out-of-control kids is as predictable as a poopy diaper gag, and it's such an obvious ploy for Vin Diesel to expand his action-hero fan base into the family audience (a la Arnie in "Kindergarten Cop") that I had no desire to see it.

But the previews tickled my 9-year-old daughter so much that it was placed at the top her her "must-see" list, and you know what? I kind of liked it.

The professional critics will tell you it's cliched (it is), unbelievable (true) and fluff. The suspension of disbelief you have to attain to get into it is huge (a babysitter who shops at Costco while the troop of girls in his care are selling their cookies in the parking lot? Without any supervision? A weapon sought by terrorists is hidden in a home and the government doesn't move the entire family to a safe house?)

However, in my book, fluff is OK for a family film -- as long as it doesn't try to be anything else and it holds your interest. And this does, thanks to the unique charm of Vin Diesel and a cast of TV veterans who know how to do a lot with a little.

Not all parents will find this movie appropriate for their children. Its PG rating was earned honestly. The film starts with an action sequence that ends with the death of the family's father, a security expert who created a program that can render a country's nuclear arsenal useless. There are more violent scenes sprinkled throughout the film, ranging from a fight sequence between Diesel and a couple of ninjas to a disturbing (but funny) bit where the youngest daughter's scout troop beats up and hogties a troop of boys. I laughed at that -- but felt guilty while I was doing it. (The violence is the cartoon sort -- while some participants die, there is no memorable blood or other consequences.)

This movie also contains some bathroom humor, centered around poop. Lots and lots of poop. If you don't find this kind of thing funny, you are a more mature person than your children. This is the kind of thing they will remember and talk about with their friends.

Diesel plays Navy Seal Shane Wolf, who had been assigned to rescue the security expert from terrorists who tried to steal his program. The fact that the man died on his watch weighs heavily on him, and when he is then assigned to protect the man's family, he knows he must make good. You see, everyone thinks the late inventor hid his program somewhere in his house -- the same house he shared with his wife and five children.

Shane is sent to protect them against the various agents and ninjas who are watching the house and trying to steal the program, and to find it himself.

Oh yes -- the mother has to fly to Switzerland because the key to the program may be in a safe deposit box there, and she is delayed for over two weeks because she does not know the password her husband had left to allow her entry to its contents.

And the nanny quits, which leaves Shane in charge of the entire brood, who are told they will do it "my way, not highway." (The kids have no idea what that means, and neither do I).

Did I mention that Shane hates kids? And doesn't know how to change a diaper?

The kids are all troubled. The teenage boy and girl have been cutting classes, and the boy is bullied by the entire wrestling team, led by its coach (who is also their K-12 school's vice principal, played with comic relish by "Everyone Loves Raymond's" Brad Garrett). He's really harmless, and besides, "He has tenure," sighs school principal Lauren Graham, who coincidentally is a retired CPO, having served four years at a naval base before college. (When I took screenwriting in college, I was told that the audience would forgive you just ONE coincidence. Apparently, the guys who wrote this script missed that lesson.)

The middle child, an 8-year-old girl, has scout meetings three times a week (HUH? That's just nuts!) and has to deal with a troop of boys who declare a turf war over the Costco parking lot where both are trying to raise funds. The toddler can't sleep until someone sings and dances for him at night, and the baby -- well, the baby doesn't have any problems and only seems to be there so that Shane can do funny stuff with diapers and baby powder.

Fortunately, the child actors, led by Brittany Snow ("American Dreams") as the oldest daughter, are sweet and appealing, even when they are in their "acting out" hostile phase. In addition to Garrett and Graham, the cast includes Faith Ford as the mom and Carol Kane as the nanny, who seems to be channeling an older -- and bitter -- version of Simka, the character she played on "Taxi." These guys can all steal a scene with their eyes closed, and they ably support the action for Diesel and the kids.

By the end of the movie, Shane solves the kids' problems, saves the world and discovers he likes children after all... all in the course of two weeks.

Not too believable -- but a fun 90 minutes at the movies all the same.

Donna Schwartz Mills took film classes in college and spent 13 years working in the entertainment industry before "retiring" to marry a "non-pro" (Variety's term for anyone in any other business) and become a mom. Today, she's lucky if she can attend two "grown up" films per year -- but she feeds her movie habit by dragging her little girl to every family film she can get away with, often on opening day. She says she can't wait for her daughter to turn 17.

Donna is owner of Family-Content.com, the home of free and low-cost content solutions for family friendly websites and ezines.

Oscar Update

Our friend won - HOORAY!

And the guy who "dissed" me (as Jen put it) did not.

A satisfying outcome.

Predict the Winners, Win Prizes

Think you're good at predicting the Oscar winners? Put your money where your mouth is (and possibly win a 37" Plasma monitor worth $3700!) here:

http://predict.oscar.go.com/predict/

Then, let me know how you do!

Rate the stars' looks at http://www.ontheredcarpet.com

The Oscars

So we watched "Ray" last night.

The consensus was: It was looooooong. And a good biopic, but ultimately not that exciting. It did a good job of hitting the marks of the first half of Ray Charles' life -- and you can't help but love the music, which made it go faster.

And that bodes well for our nominated friend, as the production sound engineers on musical films tend to win in their category. (We are all already planning on dropping in on him -- poor guy -- so we can snap our photos holding his prize. He already has an Emmy, which is probably the prettiest of the entertainment trophies -- but Oscar is iconic. And it is the closest I will ever come to one.)

As for Best Picture: Mind you that the only other nominated film we've seen this year was "The Aviator," and if I had to vote between the two, I would pick the former. I think it was a better film. (But from all I've heard, "Million Dollar Baby" has it sewn up. So the best I can hope for with that one is that they finally honor Martin Scorsese. Then again, the experts all think Clint will get another Best Director award this year, and I can't argue with that. I have a friend who has worked with Clint on many films and she absolutely adores him.)

Jamie Foxx was amazing and I look forward to seeing him win his award tonight (much as I love Johnny Depp, I think all the experts are right that his is Foxx's year -- at least, in the Best Actor category).

And I think it's a shame that none of the women in "Ray" received Supporting Actress nods (although I guess that was a crowded field -- the women who did get nominated gave terrific performances by all accounts). I know we'll see more from Kerry Washington -- and I have always loved Regina King, who is good even in bad material (if you don't believe me, watch "A Cinderella Story" with your kids. King is magic.)

BTW -- The next storm is still poised over the Pacific somewhere... but last night we got a reminder of the kind of disaster we actually expect out here, in the form of a teeny tiny earthquake that hit while we were watching the movie. It was only a 2.9 centered a mile southeast of Encino (my husband, the geologist, was on the USGS website almost immediately, because that is what he does). I don't usually even feel them when they are that small and far away... but for some reason, last night we did.