I read this article by Roger Ebert today in the paper and this clause in the paragraph about the likelihood of Hilary Swank winning best actress so irritated me: "She isn't the most beautiful actress in Hollywood..."

Who is he to judge? How does he define "beautiful?" Just how does he perceive his own looks? Handsome? And what does her beauty or lack of it have to do with winning an Oscar anyway? Does he think the criteria is the same as for the Miss America contest?

Honestly, a lot of the time his columns annoy me, but this was more than usual. That one comment takes the cake. He has been complaining recently that other reviewers have revealed the plot for Million Dollar Baby, and then a couple of weeks ago he did the same thing. I guess since he saw the movie back in December, and he was not the first one to blow the secret, he thought it was OK. (It wasn't.)

Anyway, we saw the movie over the weekend. It was very good, one of those rare movies that is worth the steep price of admission and snacks rather than waiting for the DVD, and it probably deserves to win all it was nominated for, although I have not seen many of the other contenders this year. I'm not going to write much else, except don't go to see it if you are looking for an escape, are already in a sad or bad mood, or prefer to see something light.