> As for the ceremony itself, I know a lot of people thought Chris Rock made a great host, and the ratings were up this year which means we'll probably be stuck with him again in the future, but I thought he was the worst Oscar host imaginable. I did laugh at, if memory serves, three of his jokes. But I laughed more at Robin Williams during his one minute on the stage. I wish he'd just host the whole show.

Funny, since as bad as Rock was I think Williams would be my pick for worst imaginable host. Either that or Whoopi again. Rock was certainly better than she was.

I did think the actual ceremony was awful this year. No separate montage for Brando? Crazy.

And that crap in the audience was a joke. If they want the telecast to be two hours long, they might as well just cut out all the awards except the four acting, picture, and director.

How come they axed the clips from the Best Picture nominees but kept all the song performances? Where were all the pointless montages? I don't get it.

The Oscars happen once a year. Those of who watch it know how long it's going to be. We like the pointless montages, rambling speeches, and other odd things. I hate this streamlining, no chances approach. I mean, there are roughly 450 other awards shows televised every year these days. The Oscars used to be distinct. I get the feeling they're trying to make them as dull and listless as possible.

Remember when Letterman hosted it? Remember how awful it was? At least he was trying! Chris Rock phoned the show in, told some incredibly dull jokes and then did nothing else. No great entrance, no wacky stuff, nothing.

What a disappointment. Especially considering that the actual awards were actually awarded to the correct reciepients this time, more or less. No huge mistakes. It must be a yin-yang thing: good awards means bad presentation.

Ste "Rambling and incoherent" phen