I gritted my teeth for over three hours watching this embarrassing excuse for an awards show, until the final insult: "Brokeback Mountain" did not take the Best Picture award. That was the only reason I watched, for the euphoric moment when Ang and the Gang would swarm the stage in a supreme moment of validation. I was denied even that. "Crash" was no doubt well-meaning, but audiences had passed judgment on that one almost a year ago. "Brokeback" was everybody's darling. Had it won, I might have been able to forgive Jon Stewart his increible-shrinking-comic act, or Reese Witherspoon her oh-so unspontaneous dollop of acceptance tripe, or even the ignominy of being asked to sympathize with pimps in a "song" so bad a ten-year-old would have had the sense to disown it. Oh, well, there's always the MTV awards. I'm betting on "Brokeback" in the best kiss category, and the Academy Awards in the best kiss-off.

I loved this article. I can't even be that hard and sarcastic. However, you left out a few attacks. First, what the hell was Jennifer Aniston doing there? She does not have the credentials. It must have been a negotiated arrangement from Brad to relieve himself of any guilt of dumping her. She even had to go up alone, because no one wanted to be associated with a TeeeeeVeeeee actress turned bad film actress.

Second, doesn't Best Film award usually go to the film that also won Best Director? The fact that it did not happen this year proves how political the whole process is. No group looked more shocked about getting Best Film, than the group from Crash. Sure, it was a good film, but what was the take away - that there is racism in America - tell us something we don't know.

Next, I hated The Constant Gardener. It should have been a documentary on the Discovery Channel. I did not think that Michelle Williams would get Best Supporting Actress, because I know how Hollywood thinks ("She's too young, too unseasoned, has not provided us with enough sweat, it does not matter if her perfomance was the "best", you gotta earn it, not deserve it"). Heath and Jake did not get it for the same reasoning, but why the hell did they have to give it to Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener, because she has done 20 films instead of 5???

Last, I can forgive Jon Stewart, because I know that he was being controlled, instead of being himself. The ultimate boredom came from the actors themselves, most who seemed to be going through the routine and bored with the whole ceremony itself.

I'm sorry but where does Cintra get the idea that Jon Stewart bombed? He did a very good job in a venue that is usually comedy death. He fared far far better than previous hosts Chris Rock or David Letterman, and I found him much funnier than anything Billy Crystal has ever done. He started out slow, and I could see that he was a bit nervous when his first couple jokes bombed, but he picked up momentum halfway through the opening monolouge, and scored some very funny jokes. (Capote: smashing the sterotype that all gay men are rugged virile cowboys, and showing that some are actually effete New York intellectuals, Munich: trilogy!) He got better as the show progressed, the "hetro" western montage was quite funny as was the Colbert voiced attack ads for "best actress." Overall I enjoyed the Oscars this year, they're always too long and pretentious, but for what it was I thought it was fine. This was the first time since I can remember that all five of the best picture nominees could stand on their own as legitimately good films worthy of their recognition, and there were no real muggings in any of the big catergories. Personally I would have given Best Supporting Actor to William Hurt, for what I thought was a really tricky performance that could have been campy and over the top, but was a pitch perfect mix of humor and pure menace. However, Clooney saying that he was "proud to be out of touch" was worth him getting it, especially in light of all the repeated "heartland vs. hollywood" posturing on TV news last week. For my money, Capote was the best of the five.

I wish you would get off the tinsletown/motion picture hating bandwagon long enough to appreciate a show such as the Oscars for what it is . . . a freak show, a car wreck, plastic surgery on tv – we watch it out of morbid curiosity. We love it because we get to see those who are richer,prettier and more famous (in some cases smarter, more talented and more creative) than we could ever hope to be, make fools of themselves. We wait for them to fall, say something dumb, or wear something tacky or ill-fitting and then we get to cackle and tease and feel some absurd sense of superiority for a split second – this goes double for entertainment journalists. Calling the Oscars ridiculous, making fun of the interpretive dance pieces or the dialogue is like critiquing the acting prowess of the cast of Days of our Lives. It’s too easy. Come on. I understand a large part of oscar fun is making fun of its participants the next day but my god you guys like hate these people? it's weird.

And as for the movies, personally I liked Crash because of it’s fanciful coincidences, jarring events and the mosaic of characters and scenes that eventually form a meaningful (while admittedly maudlin from some angles) picture. PT Anderson made this puzzle-like quality popular in movies such as Magnolia and Boogie Nights. It's ok to love his movies because the focus lies on the underbelly of society, druggies and porn stars. But, while Crash was as artistically appealing and smart, it sucks because it touches on such a banal moral issue. We get it – you’re not fallin’ for that and we sure are idiots if we do. Make sure those who dare to make a movie around an issue so trite as racism know that your not taking the bait! After all you’re too goddamn smart for that!