I hope I'm not taking this wrong, but whoever wrote this article for the USAToday seems to be living in a different universe. They absolutely trash Chris Rock. I thought he did a fine job and apparently the ratings for the Oscar were the best in four years. I guess the numbers don't lie.
Apparently the academy thought using hipster favorite Chris Rock as host and giving short shrift to the lower-profile awards would re-energize the Oscar show, turning it from a dowdy matron into a hot, younger-demo hit. Instead, ABC's three-hour plus broadcast of the Academy Awards Sunday seemed tailor-made to bore the young, embarrass the old and chase away even the most dedicated Oscar fan.
Yes, it moved faster — but where exactly did it think it was going?
To be sure, Rock is one of the funniest, smartest, most talented comics in America. What he clearly wasn't, as the academy must surely now realize, was a smart choice to host the Oscars. His act may have worked in the hall (and to be fair, the crowd did seem to be with him), but it didn't work on TV.
Loud, snide and dismissive, he wasn't just a disappointment; he ranks up there with the worst hosts ever — particularly when you factor in the expectations. When the show ran a salute to Johnny Carson's years as host, the comparison was so painful, it made you think the academy would have been better off just letting a computer-generated Carson host again.
(more)
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20050228/d_oscarbianco28.art.htm