TVSquad

Stewart did a great job. The show was the best in years - at least for the first hour+. Once they stopped the funny bits (Ben Stiller, Steve Carrell/Will Ferrel, Cowboy montage), the show came to a screeching halt. Stewart was the only thing that kept some life to it.

The interperative dance numbers were insufferable. The ridiculous amount of montages interminable (but led to Stewart's best line - "we've run out of clips. If anyone has any film clips, please send them in.").

The biggest problem with the Oscars is they spend too much time reminding everyone how special they are, then don't give the people who win awards enough time to have their moment to shine. To cut off the best picture winners before they get to speak is ridiculous.

As for Leno, I think you are right. Too many people want the safe bet. In the words of Peter Griffin - "If Jay Leno makes you laugh, chances are I don't care for you as a person."

Reply

It seemed the audience was either too dense or too full of themselves to really laugh at many of his jokes during the opening. Though, they thought Ben Stiller's momentarily amusing green screen outfit was the funniest thing of all time.

Reply

I agree with you about Jay Leno. I was thinking the exact same thing before I even got to your closing comments. Maybe I'm biased because I watch him over Letterman when I'm in the late night mood.

Reply

I must second the question: "What the hell where they expecting?" and couple it with another question: "What the hell do people want?" I've already read several reviews of Jon Stewart's Oscar hosting performance and, in particular, reviews of the first several minutes of the broadcast,in which claims are being made again and again that the audience "sat still", "twittered nervously in their seats", "or looked visibly annoyed". Even if that were true, who cares? Anyone with half an antenna can attest to the fact that it certainly looked AND definitely sounded as if the audience thoroughly enjoyed Jon Stewart from beginning to end. Come on, you critics. Admit it. Jon Stewart did fabulously well, was hilariously innovative, is an utter professional, and he is so very important for America now. Everyone sitting in the Kodak theater was fair game for his playful teasing, and none of it was out of line or uncalled for, was it? Why should he be careful around the bloated egos of, say, a Felicity Huffman or a Steven Spielberg? The negative reviews are simply being spewed by people who want Jon Stewart to have failed, and probably want every other other person to fail as well. Or, maybe they just didn't get the jokes. Jon Stewart had a successful night. Give that to him. He deserves it!

Cissie Simpson
Duesseldorf, Germany

Reply

I agree with you, Joel. The Oscar host critics always turn it into a ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ situation. It becomes all about the host and not the value of the show as a whole entertainment package. In those terms, I’d say this show sorely lacked. I thought that Jon was great, but the pomposity of the rest of the show put me on edge. It seems incredibly arrogant that after an endless montage about how Hollywood addresses ‘the issues’, they cut off the best picture winner’s speech for a film that was attempting to address some. Doubly so after they let the Academy President and go on and on during his speech.

Reply

I like Jon Stewart and thought he did a commendable job. I especially enjoyed the subtle jabs at the movie industry and its pompous collective.

On another note, I almost felt bad Hollywood resorted to begging the public to go back to movie theaters and quit stealing.

Almost.

Reply

He had some really good one-liners, a lot of which fell on the stupid crowd. A comic can look like he's bombing if the crowd isn't laughing, even if he is throwing some gems up there(the Baldwin reference to 'two good brothers' falling on deaf ears, for one example)

I think he did fine and had a couple good digs at the Oscar process itself(we're going to have a montage about montages)

Reply

Jon Stewart did a hell of a job. I have read nearly every review that I can find, and it's either:

1. He did horrible.

or

2. He is the next Bob Hope/Johnny Carson.

What the hell did people expect? Jon Stewart is a political guy, so the opinion is based on what side of the river you're on. If your a Republican, you expected him to go after Bush, tear down the administration, quip about the War in Iraq. That's what they expected, that's what they wanted so they could all go on Fox News and claim how liberal Hollywood is and how Jon Stewart has no respect for the Oscars, using the oppurtunity to bash Bush (a la Michael Moore)...

But he didn't. He gave few quick ones (Jon Stewart style) able to be caught only by people who can think as quick as he does. But he didn't do what the Neo-Cons wanted him so bad to do. Which only proves how smart Stewart is.

He did his job. He kept me laughing the whole time. He took shots at people who needed it. Now he'll go back to his work at being America's best resource for news.

Reply

I was listening to Matt Drudge's Sunday night radio program. He interviewed Ann Coulter about the Oscars. Coulter said Jon Stewart was great. That is why the reviews were mixed.

Hollywood wanted him on to bash Bush. But if he did that it would be very bad for the Oscars. Damned if you, damned if you don't. So it was the executive producers fault for hiring him, not Stewart's fault. It is also the executive producers fault for playing music during the speeches. Get the old man out.

Reply

Jon did great - he hit the right notes. The Oscar History clips are pointless, boring and unbearably long.

Reply

From what I saw, John Stewart was great. And the question posed, what were they expecting, was the right one.
Stewart makes his career in letting the air out of self important blowhards, and the Oscars is where the most pompus of blowhards gather to congratulate themselves. That montage on the biopics where they patted themselves on the back for playing historically important people? It should have been called '101 people who are more important than actors, or 101 biographies you should be reading instead of watching this' You almost want to fault Stewart for letting things like that fly without comment, but of course he couldn't because it would have gone over everyone's self important heads.

I think the producers were trying to match him up with the 'issue oriented' left wing movies.

Reply

I think he did a fantastic job!! He was really funny and like someone else said he had a lot of good one-liners.. the best where right after The Three 6 Mafia won an Oscar.. "And for those of you keeping scores at home, Martin Scorsese: 0 Oscars. The Three 6 Mafia: 1 Oscar"

Reply

The writer at Salon asked how Jon Stewart could "suck so hard." As a longtime Salon supporter, I gotta say that Salon would know something about sucking so hard these days. Man, they just piss and moan about everything...

Reply

Here's why the critics were nasty: like the rest of us, they were watching the TV. The audience mics were mixed very low. There was far more laughter than the sound engineers let through. Critics, preternaturally determined to hack and slash, assumed Stewart was bombing.

We had people over, ate good Italian food, drank wine, and laughed most of the way through in fine time-shifting TiVo style. The opening skit was sharp (and presented Mel Gibson as no longer outre), Stewart remained calm and intelligent, numerous bits were flat hilarious (Stiller's green suit, makeup, the gay cowboy montage), and the entire show was worth it for Lily Tomlin and Meryl Streep's Altmanesque routine. It's amazing how few recognize that, for the Oscars, there was quite a bit of brilliance.

Jadedness is the fashionable pose. And that fits. Hollywood is about fantasizing the world in your own image.

Reply

What kind of comment is it to say that someone looked, "a little nervous?" If intent on slamming Stewart, surely one with the rhetorical talent of Alessandra Stanley could have used more powerful language. Perhaps she was merely (if not wholly "incorrectly" in my opinion) trying to say that she had expected more "cutesy humor" from the Daily Show host. Don't get me wrong, I'm with the masses on this one: J.S. was great. I just think Ms. Stanley wrote what she wrote to be "a little different."

Reply

The show was an interminable bore; naturally, the host is going to take the blame. If they cut it two two hours -- just the major awards and no fluff -- I could host it and get rave reviews.

Reply

The Cintra Wilson article was terrible. Does she not have an editor? There's a good piece at the Washington Post that suggests the problem wasn't Jon Stewart--it's Hollywood and its inability to see its own reflection. I was worried about Stewart hosting for that reason--his humor is so incisive and so unsparing, not at all like the gentle teasing an Oscar audience expects out of its host. In a year when all of these apparently insightful and socially conscious movies were made, what movie won best picture? The one that mounted a the biggest publicity campaign, including sending out an unprecedented number of screeners to members of the Academy. Maybe it was the best pic of the year--can't say; didn't see 'em all--but do we really think this is a coincidence? But on Oscar night, we're supposed to pretend like it's not, and Jon Stewart's not the right comedian for that.

Reply

what the heck were these people watching? Seems these commentators had their negative critiques ready a week ago. Jon Stewart was great and the audience loved him. Here's a tip, Jon Stewart's toe-nail clippings are wittier than any of them.

Reply

Jon Stewart did a great job considering he had both hands tied behind his back. The show has to be cut to two hours max. by eliminating the non-star portions of the show. People want to watch the stars.

Reply

Gee, he looked nervous? Only a zillion people watching all over the world. I thought he looked amazingly cool and was hysterically funny. I think the left wanted him to be more political and the right thought he was too political. A no win job

Reply