Charlie and I went to see it (in the fabulous Lounge) - a really impressive film, brilliantly done, but very harrowing and might have been better if it had been slightly less relentlessly one dimensional.

I did feel, however, it should have been nominated in several Oscar categories including young Tom Holland for Best Actor and Naomi Watts - incredible as his Mum. Ewan MacGregor very good too. Spectacular camera work and effects.

It was actually a very nice day; breakfast (Full English - I only allow myself one a week) with Becky - Alex's ex girlfriend. I always used to teach my girlfriends and boyfriends (when I was young enough to have them) to remain friends with all their ex's (or it wasn't really love); I never anticipated being friends with so many young people in my old age.

Even more clear when my tickets for the Impossible were cheaper for me (Senior and looks even older) than for Charlie (Adult - still looks like a teenager).

It really is a very good film and I cannot understand how it didn't get many nominations; technically it's spectacular (I gather the tsunami scenes were mainly models and not much special effects; they look extraordinary) and the acting is wonderful. I suspect Hollywood doesn't like non-CGI or actual ACTING (they prefer caricatures and photocopies). But surely our BAFTAs should have honoured this movie?

Could someone explain why they didn't?