The Oscars: Winners, Losers, and Analysis

  • Publish Date: March 8, 2010
  • Comments: ↓ 21 user comments

A world of "Hurt"

Films with Most Oscar Wins
1 The Hurt Locker 6 wins
2 Avatar 3 wins
3 Precious 2 wins
  Up 2 wins

Sunday night (and Monday morning, if you live in the Eastern time zone), the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences handed out its Oscar awards for the 82nd time, and Metacritic's highest-scoring film of 2009 -- The Hurt Locker -- was honored as the top film of the year.

In a moment, we'll reveal how accurate the experts -- and Metacritic users -- were in making their predictions, and we'll also sample the critical reaction to the broadcast itself, and the performance of hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin in particular. But first, let's look at the evening's winners and losers.

The winners... and the surprises

Out of The Hurt Locker's year-leading six wins, the one for Kathryn Bigelow as best director was the most expected, as well as the most groundbreaking -- Bigelow is the first woman to win that award. The film's wins for best picture, editing, and -- to a lesser extent -- best original screenplay (which a number of experts had going to Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds) were also anticipated by many experts, though the wins for the two sound categories were by no means a sure thing.

Avatar's total of three victories is lower than what was forecasted by many prognosticators and hoped for by many fans; while the film was virtually guaranteed to win the art direction and visual effects awards, many experts figured that Avatar would also collect several additional awards, technical or otherwise. The single other trophy the film earned -- for cinematography -- actually wasn't a lock going in, since The Hurt Locker's Barry Ackroyd was also a frontrunner.

One of the few surprises of the evening was Geoffrey Fletcher's victory for his Precious screenplay. The award for adapted screenplay was widely expected to go to Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for their work adapting Walter Kirn's novel into the film Up in the Air. Instead, that George Clooney dramedy -- once pegged as a major Oscar contender -- went home empty-handed.

The other major surprise was in a relatively minor category. Most experts had "A Matter of Loaf and Death," the latest Wallace and Gromit animated short from previous Oscar-winner Nick Park, taking home this year's trophy; instead, the award went to the more cutting-edge "Logorama" by French design collective H5.

Listed below are this year's winners in each of the 24 categories.

82nd Annual Academy Award Winners
Category Winner
Best Picture The Hurt Locker
Director Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Lead Actress Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Lead Actor Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Supporting Actress Mo’Nique, Precious
Supporting Actor Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
Original Screenplay Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
Adapted Screenplay Geoffrey Fletcher, Precious
Animated Feature Up
Animated Short Logorama
Documentary Feature The Cove
Documentary Short Music by Prudence
Foreign-Language Feature El Secreto de Sus Ojos (The Secret In Their Eyes) (Argentina)
Live-Action Short The New Tenants
Original Score Michael Giacchino, Up
Original Song Ryan Bingham and T-Bone Burnett, "The Weary Kind," Crazy Heart
Art Direction Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg and Kim Sinclair, Avatar
Cinematography Mauro Fiore, Avatar
Costume Design Sandy Powell, The Young Victoria
Film Editing Chris Innis and Bob Murawski, The Hurt Locker
Makeup Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow, Star Trek
Sound Editing Paul N.J. Ottosson , The Hurt Locker
Sound Mixing Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett, The Hurt Locker
Visual Effects Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones, Avatar

How accurate were the predictions?

While we certainly didn't tabulate the predictions of every "expert" on the web, we sorted through enough guesses to know that nobody had all 24 races accurately pegged. Writing for the website In Contention, Guy Lodge performed better than the other experts we tracked, with correct picks in 20 out of 24 races. His colleague Kristopher Tapley was not far behind, with 19 accurate predictions -- a number matched by several other pundits. Metacritic users, however, fared less well, forecasting just 14 of the 24 categories correctly. But there were several experts who performed even more poorly than Metacritic users, including Rolling Stone's Peter Travers, who had only 11 correct selections.

Most-Successful Oscar Prognosticators
Expert Site/Publication Correct Picks (out of 24 possible)
Guy Lodge In Contention 20 (83%)
Dave Karger Entertainment Weekly 19 (79%)
Kristopher Tapley In Contention 19 (79%)
Lane Brown Vulture (New York) 19 (79%)
Steve Pond The Wrap 19 (79%)
Sasha Stone Awards Daily 19 (79%)
Peter Knegt indieWIRE 18 (75%)
Metacritic User Poll
14 (58%)

How was the telecast?

This year's Academy Awards broadcast was short on surprises and long on, well, length, running over a half hour past its scheduled end point. That running time, and the overall pacing of the telecast, drew criticism, though the portion of the ceremony that drew the most fire from reviewers was the presentation of the original score nominees via interpretive dance routines that had little, if anything, to do with the movies the scores came from. (Commenters on the internet, however, seem most concerned with the omission of Farrah Fawcett from the annual "In Memoriam" clip reel.)

The mid-show tribute to late director John Hughes, on the other hand, was a bit more successful in the eyes of most critics, and reviewers liked hosts Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin individually, even if they didn't always enjoy the material they were given -- or their chemistry. What else did reviewers like or dislike? Let's check what a few of them are writing the morning after the broadcast.

Well, it turns out that most reviewers disliked the program. For example, Daniel Fienberg writes in HitFix:

Nobody can accuse Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman, this year's producers, of not trying new things, with the problem being that every new thing they tried stood out like "The Blind Side" in the 10-film Best Picture race.

Star-Ledger critic Alan Sepinwall writes that the broadcast "wasn't very good," and calls out Hamish Hamilton for his basically incompetent direction. Of the hosts, he adds:

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin weren't terrible hosts, but nor were they particularly memorable. These are two of the funniest men on the planet, but they seemed uncomfortable swapping generic one-liners in the opening monologue, then vanished for long stretches of the show.

Time's James Poniewozik agrees with Sepinwall about virtually everything, writing that "despite some attempts at freshening it up, it was also not very good in pretty much exactly the ways that we're used to old-fashioned Oscarcasts being not very good." Poniewozik also cites the "confused or tacky directing choices," and finds that having two hosts "added up to something less than the sum of their parts."

In TV Squad, Danny Gallagher points to the "sheer number of technical errors, gaffs, boo-boos, mistakes and just flat out screw-ups" that marred this year's telecast, and adds that the ceremony further suffered from being "over-scripted." Mary McNamara, in the Los Angeles Times, also blames the show's staging, and concludes:

This year's Oscars seemed to suffer from a crisis of confidence. Although studded with entertaining and emotional moments, it just never seemed to get going.

Not every critic is quite so negative. The Washington Post's Hank Stuever calls the broadcast "Quick-paced, businesslike (and only a teensy bit boring) ... it moved along with precision and smart decisions." And while Maureen Ryan, in the Chicago Tribune, notes that sharing the hosting duties "never seemed to come all that naturally" to Martin and Baldwin, she adds, "The broadcast as a whole had a bit more vim and sparkle than it has in past years."

USA Today's Robert Bianco falls somewhere in the middle, noting that "the show seemed to whipsaw between good and bad ideas." He concludes:

The upshot Sunday on ABC was a show that felt a little busier, a lot longer, and at times maybe marginally fresher, but only in those moments where producers Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman didn't give themselves over to camp excess.

Matthew Gilbert, in the Boston Globe, also finds the broadcast "a real mixed bag," but has generally high praise for the hosts:

Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin were a dynamic duo ... The material wasn’t brilliant ... but the delivery was expert and warmly conversational, like one of those old-school comedy teams.

While some critics like the new presentation of the acting nominees, in which a colleague spoke on behalf of each one individually, David Bianculli finds the segment "also a bit creepy, like somewhat of a funeral." The Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik agrees, calling the tributes "absolute goop." Of the broadcast as a whole, Zurawik called it "a mess" and "one of the most misguided Oscar telecasts" he has ever seen.

Out of all the presenters, the pairing of Tina Fey and Robert Downey Jr. drew the most praise (on the flip side was Twilight's Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner's lackluster introduction to the pointless "horror" film montage), while Mo'Nique and Sandra Bullock were responsible for the most memorable acceptance speeches of the night -- well, the ones that were memorable in a good way. (The Kanye West-esque moment during the speech for Music by Prudence's documentary short victory was memorable for a different reason.) However, critics as a group are not fond of the shorter time limits for acceptance speeches this year, and would rather find other aspects of the broadcast to trim back instead.

Early overnight ratings for the telecast, by the way, are up by about 20% compared to last year's show. This increase was expected, due to the popularity of some of the nominated films (Avatar, for example) and the fact that other awards shows over the past few months also saw ratings increases. A more accurate ratings assessment should be announced later Monday afternoon.

What do you think?

Were you happy with the Academy's selections? Did you like the broadcast, and Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as hosts? Let us know in the comments section below.

We're sorry, but comments are closed for this article.

Comments (21)

  • Buck  

    You guys are a bunch of whiners. The show was great.

  • Feedback  

    I think the Academy should not telecast neither of the three Short film categories. No one really cares about them. They can be presented at the beginning of the night without being telecasted.

    This should be the order of the awards: 1. Animated Feature
    2-3. Documentary and Foreign Language Film
    4. Supporting Actress
    5-6. Original Screenplay and Adapted Screenplay
    7. Supporting Actor
    8-9. Sound Editing and Sound Mixing
    10. Original Score
    11-12. Make-Up Design and Costume Design
    13. Leading Actress
    14-15. Visual Effects and Art Direction
    16. Leading Actor
    17-18. Cinematography and Film Editing
    19. Original Song
    20-21. Director and Picture

  • Zutron  

    A charming host or two, major awards and a few minutes of thanks for each one takes 3 hours-- so why, year after year, do they keep throwing in xy&z and then fretting over how long it is? I bet a lot of people did what I did: I started the thing on my dvr, began watching an hour and a half into it and finished pretty much when the show ended. Worked for me.

  • Marcus  

    Nate, that "Weird guy who was with Tarrantino" is Oscar winning Spanish Director Pedro Almodovar. If you're going to say that the Oscars should be an intelligent show about the best movies of the year, you should at least know that Almodovar made one of the best movies of the year...

  • TheSundanceKid  

    I may be in the minority but I liked it, always have, always will. I think it was ironic to include 10 Best Picture nominees to bring in a younger, wider audience the year the most successful film of all time was considered the favourite. That certainly didn't help the running time but seems to have boosted viewing figures. The hosts did what they could with what they were given and remember they only really poke fun at that years nominees (Billy Crystal ended up praying to see Jack Nicholson sat in the front row to give him material). The Meryl Streep, George Clooney and Helen Mirren jokes were funny, as was Martin's black child quip.
    I look forward to seeing which 5 big stars appear on stage to introduce the acting nominees but I think it will become tiring when 5 lesser known nominees are nominated (who will come out for next years Gabourey with no Oprah onboard?) The dance section, whilst brilliant in its own right, was out of place and if the producers want more of a show why not bring back the original song performances. Presenters are a mixed bag these days but thankfully for every Miley Cyrus and Kristen Stewart we have the magnificent Robert Downey Jnr and Tina Fey (who stole the whole thing for the second year running). She should host next year...

  • Krantheman  

    I agree what most of you are saying; Hurt Locker did deserve best Screenplay and Director. We all know Bigelow was capable of such classics as 'Point Blank' and others, so I honestly think it is a great moment for her time to shine........ and that whole night was a big 'F-You' to Jim Cameron who a few years ago was his ex-wife. U guys know what i'm sayin!??!!!

  • susan  

    Let's not forget NPH's fantastic and hilarious opening song! That actually drew me into watch, even though I knew he wasn't hosting (but maybe he should??). I liked many of the jokes that Martin and Baldwin delivered, but sometimes the timing was a bit off and unbalanced. However, and this is probably due to their familiarity with her, I thought all their jokes at Meryl Streep were fantastic, and the bit with George Clooney was hilariously awkward. Tina Fey and Robert Downey, Jr, Ben Stiller, and Cameron Diaz and Steve Carell (with the whole "this was originally written for Jude Law bit) were highlights in presenting. The dancing was misplaced but wonderful to watch, and the tributes to the actors felt like overkill. Yes we all love actors. But aren't a few other categories at this awards show? Overall, a mixed-bag. But what else is new?

  • Mitch Sloan  

    Yeah, Brandon clearly hasn't seen "The Jerk". We need more politically incorrect movies like The Jerk, Blazzing Saddles, etc. - movies that make fun of that sort of thing.

  • Sharon Daley  

    I thought that the 2010 Oscar Show was the most boring thing I have seen on TV in a long time. Last year's show with Hugh Jackman singing and dancing was fabulous. I know a lot of people who DVR'd just that segment and replay it on a regular basis. The highlight of the 2010 show was James Taylor 's tribute to the film industries deceased. They need Quincey Jones or the producer of American Idol's season finale to produce the Oscars. I thought this years show was so utterly boring that I could not wait to go to bed The off color humor of Martin and Baldwin was in bad taste. Please go the distance next year!!

  • Ray180  

    Brandon - You obviously haven't seen "The Jerk" which was the source of Steve Martin's joke about starting life as a poor black child. It was his first feature film as the star and begins with him explaining his adoption by African American sharecroppers. Very funny movie. You really should see it.

    I understand the use of younger presenters in order to attract younger viewers. Sometimes it worked (Amanda Seyfried) and sometimes it didn't (Kristen Stewart). I liked Martin and Baldwin separately, but not together so much. I liked Neil Patrick Harris' intro, Tina Fey/Downey Jr., Ben Stiller, and not much else. I hated the dance routine and horror montage. I'm still undecided on the personal intros for the acting categories and the TEN long drawn-out best picture overviews. Overall, I give it a B-.

What Our Users Are Talking About

  1. /feature/music-releases-for-week-of-february-13-2017 Image
    Music Monday (2/13): This Week's New Albums + Videos
    February 13, 2017 - 2 comments
    1. JasonDietz : @michaeln: It should come out sometime this year, though there's still no firm date. He reportedly finished recording... Read »
    2. michaeln : What ever happened to that LP that Beck said would launch soon after his last one? Read »
  2. /feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2016-releases Image
    Metacritic's 7th Annual Game Publisher Rankings
    February 13, 2017 - 4 comments
    1. LamontRaymond : @SilexEco - which is why they call it a "Publisher Ranking" - Sony is a publisher..... Next stop, rocket science. Read »
    2. SilexEco : Electronic Arts?????? Sony???? Sony has been never created any game, only their second/third-parties. Go home... Read »
    3. Twarone : As usual, quite an interesting list. A couple of suggestions to make things bit more fair (that actually wouldn't... Read »
    4. TheRealBryan : Damn EA winning was quite a shock. Read »
  3. /feature/predict-2017-oscar-winners Image
    Make Your 2017 Oscar Predictions!
    February 1, 2017 - 4 comments
    1. 3-16-2016 : The Witch (2016) for Best Picture of ALL TIME!! Read »
    2. Abdoolblyat : The Witch (2016) for Best Picture of ALL TIME!! Read »
    3. getwiththetimes : The Witch (2016) for Best Picture of ALL TIME!! Read »
  4. /feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2015-releases Image
    Metacritic's 6th Annual Game Publisher Rankings
    February 4, 2016 - 5 comments
    1. alvargon : ┬┐Where is CD Project Red? Read »