The 83rd Annual Academy Awards

I only saw Melissa Leo in "The Fighter". Her character made me feel as if I was walking on eggshells, and so she certainly deserved her win.

As I understand it, a lot of people were irritated that the expected winners all won, and that James Franco and Anne Hathaway hosted: the common meme is that their opening montage was funny but they fell flat afterwards. Well I liked their performance; it was especially cool when Franco appeared dressed as Marilyn Monroe.

I've seen very few of the nominees, so my judgment was biased, although I did consider "The King's Speech" the best choice. Movies that got totally snubbed include "Mother and Child", "The Good Heart", "Please Give", "Get Low" and "Fair Game".

All in all, I liked the show. Probably the best part of the broadcast was when Charles Ferguson, accepting his Oscar for "Inside Job" (about the causes of the financial crisis), noted that none of the people responsible for the crisis have gotten indicted.

Yeah, where was Anne Hathaway when Kirk Douglas was making movies?

After panning last years Academy Awards program, I was quite pleased with this year's efforts on a number of levels. Hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco were a refreshing duo after last years debacle. I felt that it was a mistake last year to have co-hosts but Anne and James gave it their best and succeeded in every respect. I guess you have to have the right co-hosts. The writing was also crisper and there were no lame insulting jokes which, last year, only made the audience and viewers cringe and feel uncomfortable and left a bitter aftertaste. I apologize for comparing this year to last year's but can't help it because this year's show let's us all know how enjoyable and fun the program can be in the right hands. It appears as if The Academy listened to the critics from last year's program and made several changes which only enhanced this year's program.

The Memorial was especially touching and respectful this year and I was pleased to see that a perfect song was added and that, for the first time, the audience showed respect by not clapping at familiar names. I would love to know if, during the break or in written communications, the audience was told to not applaud or if they held the applause because Celine Dion was singing. In any event, it was about time. I agree with other reviewers that a few notable names were omitted.

I liked the tasteful homage to some of the old films, performers and hosts. Think that should be a staple of the Oscars. Good form to have Sandra Bullock, the highlight of last year's show, present the Best Actor award. I am also glad that the program did not try to do something weird with the best film scores and just showed how they sounded in and impacted the films.

I gave this year's Academy Awards an "8" and would have given it a higher rating except the sound mixing was messed up on the music, at least on my home theater system - not sure if that was due to editing a certain comment earlier. I also missed the thumbnail descriptions of the documentaries and international films. Can't recall if they were included last year.

All in all, though, this year's program was a noble effort and breezy show which only tended to enhance the suspense of the awards presentation.

I shouldn't say this is the worst Oscars telecast ever simply because I have not seen them all, but I can definitely say beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is probably the single worst Oscars telecast that I have watched.

The main problem was co-host James Franco. His co-host was left to try to clean up after him and make the best of an awful show without any help from his whatsoever. The opening number was kind of okay but after that it seemed like he was a bored and incredibly boring, drunk and-or high idiot who didn't have a clue what he was doing and didn't care how bad he did or how bad the show got.

I hope they never have him back. I think he was easily worse than the worst Whoopi Goldberg hosting job and I would have thought that would be impossible.

I have looked forward to the Academy Awards telecast every year for as long as I can remember and I am 57. The best part of this particular year was replaying Bob Hope EmCeeing ("Master of Ceremonies"), and being introduced by one of the very best more recent EmCee's, Billy Crystal. However, showing those two, merely made the point that this year was a disaster.

It was not the fault of Anne Hathaway and James Franco, I don't believe. It was the writing behind it all. Hathaway and Franco tried so hard. And a good EmCee should never have to do that. By comparison to the telecasts of the Golden Globes, SAGs, and BAFTA Award shows of this year, the "Oscars" were pretty pitiful. The writers took away so many of the awards formerly given at the big night, and put them in special, separate ceremonies. One would think that this would shorten the length of the "Oscar Night" show, yet it did not. I found it an especially *bad* decision that they separated out the "Lifetime Achievement Award" and the "Irving Thalberg Award" from that special night. It was a disgrace.

I also found it irritating that Halle Berry got to give a special "In memoriam" to her idol, Lena Horne, yet there was nothing special for that absolutely, spectacularly special movie musician, John Barry. Jane Seymour was a personal friend. She could have been asked to give a special tribute to him. The BAFTA show had one of his award winning pieces behind their montage of those who passed away. I know Barry was English, but he won four Oscars, and countless other music, film, and television music awards here in the USA.

Here is a thought for next year...Tina Fey. Or Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin (both have been in movies). Or Tina Fey and Steve Carell (both have been in movies). Or Tina Fey and *anybody else*!!!. Those people are naturally funny, can wing it like Crystal used to, they can write their own stuff, or make someone else's funny, and they all know how to behave as Master (or Mistress) of Ceremonies!!!!

The only times I tune into the Oscars is to find out who wins the acting awards and who made and who didn't make the In Memoriam tribute.

I suppose the reason why some acting luminaries are omitted is that too much emphasis is laid on to the deceased, who because of their occupations (screen writers, hairdressers, wardrobe, cinematography, and so forth) must be considered relevant, even though their screen time (aside from the credits at the beginning and/or ending of the film)are, to me, at least, unimportant. For example, I have barely heard of Theoni V. Aldredge, aside from the fact he created the costumes for the "Ghostbusters" movies.

The Oscars are all about the movie industry - the actors, the composers, the directors, that is all I care about. John Barry, Blake Edwards and the other featured in the directing/music category deserve to be remembered.

Then we come to the stars themselves: the overlooked:

Peter Graves - Leslie Nielsen (a co-star of his in the Airplane movies) was remembered, yet he was not. Betty Garrett Corey Haim Lisa Blount Kenneth Mars Janet MacLachlan Rue McClanahan George DiCenzo James Gammon Michele Nicastro and others supposedly too nondescript to rate an honour.

There may be others, lost and eventually forgotten, but the contributions of most of these stars of the stage, the screen and TV are, perhaps, of more importance than those whose connections to the movie-making medium are, tangential, to say the least.