Welly wrote: 
It's like they're almost...human...

 zipper wrote:  

Many actors are tools in real life. Just look at John Wayne or Charlton Heston or Joan Crawford.

 maryte wrote: 
Yes, that was a little strange. I was wondering why they didn't let one Nixon congratulate the other Nixon. I mean, as long as he's up there, why not?

 newwavegurly wrote: 

  I sat there with my jaw open, although I had read Jackman was doing something musical on Broadway I believe? so I shouldn't have been too surprised...I thought it was funny, and very fitting for the times....we needed a little joviality....I only watched thru Penelope Cruz's acceptance, but liked the idea of the 5 previous winners presenting....it was a good turnout for Hollywood, and much more interesting just seeing some of these folks then listening to 2 people reading teleprompter fed cheesy dialogue that they always screw up....  I missed Steve Martin & Tina Fey though, and it sounds like it was a good one.. :(     

 maryte wrote: 
I really liked that whole thing with the 5 actors as well, and thought about how cool it would be to receive your Oscar from that amazing group when you win.

A couple of other flubs:
Sir Ben Kingsley, but not Sir Anthony Hopkins? (This was the announcer, not anyone on stage.)
And Phillip Seymour Hoffman got called Seymour Phillip Hoffman by whomever spoke his tribute (I don't remember which previous winning actor it was that did this). 

I actually enjoyed Hugh Jackman, and thought the opening number was amusing. Though I think that musical number in the middle that Baz Luhrmann produced was kind of silly... and I'm a fan of his films. 

All the stuff in between? Meh. 

 Rod wrote: 

So did I.  It actually seemed more intimate than it's been in the past.  And I really liked have five past winners in the acting categories personally address each of the five nominees and congratulate them, in keeping with the idea that even being nominated is an honour worthy of congratulations (Shirley MacLain was especially sweet and charming with Anne Hathaway).  Only hiccup with that was when Michael Douglas was waxing poetic about how Frank Langella's Nixon was the best he'd ever seen, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Sir Anthony Hopkins - standing on stage with him - had also portrayed Nixon. 

I actually enjoyed the show. I thought Huge Ackman was fun, though not quite on a Billy Crystal level.

I was really pulling for Sean Penn to win best actor. Mickey was great, but I think Sean deserved the award. Both were very moving performances.

Steve Martin and Tina Fey were hilarious.

dmax wrote:
He couldn't really sing. He was definitely into it and had the energy, but the voice! Too much like Billy Crystal.

zipper wrote:

 bokey wrote: 
Oh yeah for sure, Shame it had to come to that though. I have nothing against Sean Penn, I like him as an actor and from what I've seen of him in interviews etc as a man too. I think his nod towards Mickey in his acceptance speach said it all really.

 geordiezimmerman wrote: 

 It's just politics.
The theory behind that is that even though Mickey Rourkes performance was clearly on a higher level than Sean Penns performance (basically playing himself with a  lisp and few mannerisms), Penn was going to win no matter what  as reaction to Californias passing the hate law Proposition 8

dmax wrote:
  agree with you and janis...what a waste of time....i gave up after best supporting actor.  that musicals thing had me rolling my eyes....oy

 AliGator wrote: 
Totally disagree with you. Although I think Sean Penn is great in Milk (although I don't think the movie is that great) I would urge you to see The Wrestler asap. Mickey Rourke should have won the oscar in my opinion.
I dug Penns speach though, I like Sean Penn.

 AliGator wrote: 
I've actually seen him in something. He's memorable. Prolly will be back.

 zipper wrote: 
I'm with you on the Jackman wtf, and I haven't sen The Dark Knight, but I have read that Heath Ledger was incredible. One of Lexington's own (Michael Shannon) was up for the same award, but as our local columnist said in predicting Heath Ledger's win "Michael Shannon will be back."

 dmax wrote: 
My wife was watching so I peeked in. It happened to be at that point so I peeked back out...

 JustJanis wrote: 
Yup. That "Musicals are back" thing took up time so Gabriel couldn't do his song?

And what's more entertaining than watching screenwriter's words play out on a piece of paper - oh, I don't know...how about SHOWING THE SCREENWRITERS?

And, as much as he's Wolverine, or Peter Allen, Jackman isn't an awards ceremony host.

 AliGator wrote: 
The only movie I went to see last year was The Dark Knight, so I cannot venture an opinion on who was worthy. It was good to see Heath Ledger awarded, because he was incredible.

And, you know... it just hit me that each Oscars show that Whoopi hosted was fun. Jackman? wtf?

 zipper wrote: 
But he totally deserved his Oscar.

 JustJanis wrote: 
It always sucks. And Sean Penn is a tool.