Either Tom O'Neil is psychic or he pre-wrote his review abouit Jon Stewart's hosting. Just about everything he wrote, he had already said prior to the awards on E's pre-Oscar show.

"Do they have any idea how viscerally meaningful that scene in the movie was to millions of people? Bad taste. And they gave gay people a montage of western scenes that can be interpreted, out of context, as homo erotic. As if to say that that is all Gay people deserve. Don't ask, don't tell. Just allow them a suggestion of love. "

I think you missed the point there, Ed. If that's propagating a stereotype, then Brokeback created a whole new type of stereotype - that's what Hollywood creates, and film viewers enforce and reinforce by watching the movie. Plus, it was just a joke.

" . . . a sense of the Oscar as symbol of something truly huge and grand looming high above our culture as the whole world, and history, looked on.

Too bad he didn't do more of that and inspire us with a sense of majesty about the whole night. That's one of two areas where he failed and was always destined to, I suspect. Superb talent that he is, he was hopelessly miscast.

Great hosts inspire us with a sense of awe and wonder about the event, giving us a feeling that we are privileged to be tuned in to history happening before our bedazzled eyes. Hosts need to be unabashed Oscar fans eager to share their giddy thrill with us all."

Tom - holy smokes, howzabout a bit of hyperbole?! You know, I've been watching the Oscars for the last 30 plus years, I love watching them and I'm proud to say it . . . but I don't expect the Oscars to inspire me with a sense of awe, wonder and majesty, nor do I see the Oscars as something truly huge and grand looming high above our culture, fer cryin' out loud. I feel a bit sadly for someone who truly does expect that, and would say to them that maybe they need to get a life . . .

However, I DO think that that AMPAS, the Oscars and the industry being celebrated on Oscar night absolutely can hold up a mirror and encourage our better natures as humans, as well as help us to feel part of a universal community of folks trying to do the best they can each and every day. I also think that it's important that the Oscars entertain us, and Jon Stewart walked the line (no pun intended) brilliantly between being too obsequeous and too snarky. I wouldn't want a host to act like we're in the Sistine Chapel of Film and he's the Pope.

The reason the viewing audience likes a host like Jon Stewart is that he IS an outsider, as are we. If the insiders didn't like him, a) why did they pick him? and b) then they should get an insider host and not broadcast their awards dinner to the outside world. Yes, Billy Crystal was excellent; when he first hosted with his song montages - a lot of people weren't totally won over immediately. Steve Martin, another one of my favorites wasn't a complete hit either - it seems like some are practicing revisionist history at Jon's expense. However, Billy's schtick is beginning to grow some whiskers on it - it's good to have new, funny, smart blood hosting the show - I say bring Jon back again next year! Or if not, just get Billy Bush or Mary Hart and have them kiss up to everyone in the Kodak Theatre for three and a half hours . . .

I agree with previous posters that Jon Stewart certainly doesn't deserve the bashing he got from some critics (amd certainly not a B-; i'd give him a A- or at least a B+). Yes, he had some low, unfunny moments, yes, his ad libs were surely better that his monologue, but when he got it right (which he often did), he got me laughing out loud with one-liners I still smile when I think of. The jokes about Russell Crowe ("I'm surprised Cinderella Man didn't win [best makeup]; imagine how hard it must have been making Russell Crowe look like he just got into a fight") and Steven Spielbeg ("Schindler's List...Munich. I think I speak for all Jews when I say...I can't wait to see what happens to us next!") are only two out of many examples. His superb bit after Three 6 Mafia won best song was the one time (and not just this year) when that pompous, terribly self-important Oscar show finally loosened up and became a true party. And who could forget those hilarious "negative ads", for me the absolute highlight of this year's show (oh, well, along with that marvellous Lilly Tomlin-Meryl Streep number...)

Dos Tom have anything good to say about anything? Steve Martin is the best host I've ever seen, but that does not mean we should just bag on everyone. Stewart was great to me, no problems, but then i aint someone who takes the oscars so serious like Hollywood insiders.

Tom, isn't it a bit early to say that Jon Stewart won't be invited back? Gil Cates and the stage designer attempted to create a return to Hollywood glamour - Stewart complimented the theme by being a classy host, and possibly the most gracious host the Oscars have seen in a number of years. And while he "didn't communicate the intimacy and affection great hosts have," we should keep in mind this was his first year. Thank goodness he didn't feel the need to be over the top. I've no doubt if he is invited back, he'll feel more "at home" in the Kodak Theater and be able to deliver whatever critics feel was lacking last night.

Jon Stewart did a great job. What is this nonsense in all of these newspapers? Criticising Jon Stewart because he wasn't able to squeeze enough laughs out of that ridiculous, self-important crowd? I've never agreed with people that argue that Hollywood is "out of touch" with the average American but I may now. I also used to think that George Clooney was kind of a cool guy. Now I'm not so sure. In 1939, what? It's 2006! That's out of touch.

Jon Stewart is the best. Can't wait to see him back on his own show in about a half-hour.

It is interesting to see the critics base Jon Stewart's performance from the audience's reation when just like last year this crowd is so full of themselves or just have to be "too cool" to laugh. Even the jokes like "Here some of you will actually vote for a winner" was making me laugh out loud even if the audience in the Kodak, didn't get it, or didn't care...

I think the disconnect with Hollywood isn't a liberal/conservative, Democrat/Repubilcan issue... I think that crowd with their $150,000 goody bags and 24 hours of attention of every detail of their lives has turned them (along with hanger-on geeks like the Post's Tom Shales) into corporarte whore clones with such vacant personalities that no host is going to ever be able to create a show like Johnny Carson did in the 70's when their were actually true personalities in Hollywood.

Take that, Jack...

I thought Jon did a fantastic job. His only short coming ( if you may call it that) was that his comedy seemed to fly right over the heads of the hollywood stars. He did not go overboard on attacking the stars or academy to burn bridges in hollywood, but t the same time drew out some of the best crticisms in hollywood that hollywood seems to ignore. Most importantly, he hosted the show with grace and class, something that was severly lacking from last year. He was the best host in years and I would love to seem him return to host many years to come. Frankly it is the only reason I watched the oscars this year after so many terrible hosts like steve martin, whoopie goldberg, and cris rock.
I am however, still waiting for Robin Williams to take the stage.

Having not seen one movie in any of the nominated categories my sole purpose for turning in was to see Jon Stewart. Yes he was toned down from The Daily Show I think you have to be considering that he was facing a National (including Fox News Watching) audience. That said I thought he was excellent. If the audience on the main floor are so full of themselves that they cannot get him than they are no different than those in Washington that they disdain.

I agree that much of Stewart's material was a little too intellectual for the Hollywood glitterati. For all the pomp and pretension they purvey for the latest social causes, too often we forget that by and large they are people who are paid massive sums of money to pretend to be someone else. Stewart's brand of humor is unique in that one minute he panders to the lowest denominator with poop and Jew jokes, but the next he is a political machine gun with all the intellect and articulation of Dennis Miller on a good night. Few are as quick on their mental feet as Jon, who seemed much more in his element when ad-libbing than with some of the scripted parts. Clearly many of his detractors failed to recognize that the pre-taped bits, such as the "gay westerns" montage and the "attack ads" on other nominees, were conceived and carried out by Stewart and his band of writers and comedians. While suggesting that Stewart offered nothing to the show, they were also quick to point these bits out as outrageous highlights. Additionally, with George Clooney's appearance in bed with Stewart in the opening montage, there is little question in this viewer's mind that Clooney's statements during his acceptance were crafted with full knowledge of Stewart's feigned "attack" on Hollywood. The truth is, few of those who criticized Stewart's performance understood it. While that may not bode well for Stewart in the future, he can take comfort that he outsmarted them all.

Stewart was fantastic!

Why are the press bored with the perfomance of Jon Stewart? It is the first time in many years that i tuned in to the Oscars, Jon Stewart was one of the main reasons I did. He is very funny and had his best moments when he went off script such as " I think now, it is easier for a pimp".

I think the press who bashed Jon-don't get his dry wit and humor. It is the first Oscars in a looong time where I howled with laughter at a host's jokes. The academy needs to lighten up and take itself less seriously. I was in the "biz" myself for about 10 years and have not even found myself interested in most of the academy's shows. The acadamy needs to get real.

The shows are inherintly long and boring and it takes a song like "It's hard to be a pimp" to give some freshnes and excitement to a show that has not changed it style or feeling in the last 50 years. Maybe it is "Hard for Hollywood to be a pimp" to get us to go the movies. Maybe if they had some "fresh meat" instead of the tired old whores like The Pink Panther, Big Mommas' House 2, Bewitched, etc etc. we would actually feel excited about a movie and pay $20 to go see something. Robert Altmen and others talked about the need for stories from the heart but most of Hollywood lacks a soul let alone a heart. Most of the films nominated were what some called "Maverick" films-meaning outside of Hollywood's comfort zone that took a lot of fighting to get them made in the first place. Will this stop Hollywood from greenlighting crappy movies like Pink Panther? Most assuredly, No. But one can dream that someone in Hollywood will get the idea that the reason people tune into their awards show or go to a movie is to hopefully see something fresh,new, and unscripted so maybe they should take the hint and start by being a bit more daring with their movie choices, because in the end-we all win.