Ratings were up 10% from last year, and polls indicate that viewers of the Oscars last night mostly enjoyed the telecast and would like Hugh Jackman back to host next year. So why am I still harping on the negatives? Well, no matter how many entertaining elements of the ceremony people remind me of, I have to argue that while the awards themselves were great, the television show was not. And unfortunately, I was not inside the Kodak auditorium where I might have better appreciated the things we all at home should have been able to appreciate. And anything I found entertaining from where I sat in my apartment was pretty much thanks to talented presenters and winners, such as Philippe Petit, Tina Fey, Janusz Kaminski, Dustin Lance Black, Kunio Kato and Danny Boyle.

And I’m not the only one who has complaints. Below you’ll find some criticisms from bloggers who either thought the show was completely terrible or thought it was mostly good with only a few minor gripes.

• “Let’s start with the stage,” writes Sara Vilkomerson at The New York Observer, “with the 92,000-Swarovski-crystal curtain which looked like something that got thrown up straight from Moonstruck-era Cher’s brain—razzle dazzle doesn’t begin to describe it.
• Patrick Goldstein, of The Big Picture, is thoroughly negative: “From Jackman’s strangely self-conscious low-rent opening musical number to Ben Stiller’s very inside-the-Beltway spoof of Joaquin Phoenix’s recent appearance on David Letterman’s late-night show, the awards had a tone problem–they tried to be something for everyone, coming off like a movie script that had its edginess and guts airbrushed out by too many studio notes. It was hard to find any focused narrative for the awards, which were busy veering wildly from making fun of serious movies (mocking “The Reader,” for example) to being entirely too reverential about the past, treating a banal montage of supporting actress “thank you” speeches as if they were lost outtakes from ‘Citizen Kane.’”
• Charles Taylor has a similar issue with the Academy’s tone at The Wrap: “Granted, the only thing you can do with a piece of scenery-chewing like Meryl Streep’s atrocious turn in ‘Doubt’ is to laugh at it — for one thing, because it’s the kind of overacting that’s always a guaranteed nominee. But when the Academy doesn’t even have the integrity needed to stand behind its own taste, you wonder why you should bother giving it any attention.”
• “The lighting inside the venue was terrible,” writes The Playlist. “Notice how there wasn’t a variety of cutaways during the show and they kept showing reactions of the same people? This is because any further than four rows black and talent were grossly underlit. One such cutaway early in the show to Sophia Loren proved this and they rarely went back past those rows after that.”
• More on the bad direction from Marshall Fine at Hollywood and Fine: “Daniel Craig and Sarah Jessica Parker stood in front of a set within which were hung several video screens, which showed the designs the presenters were talking about. But the viewing audience never got the direct feed of those video images — and was forced to try to discern what was on screens that were seen in miniature in the background. Were Condon and Marks afraid that showing the actual images would distract from their genius production design (which, of course, is what we all tune in for, right)?”
• And more, at Entertainment Weekly: “You just had to go there, huh, Mr. Oscar Telecast Director? While Jennifer Aniston did her bit with Jack Black, you cut to Brangelina — not once, but twice! And here we thought the Oscars were above tabloid-style pandering.”
• “The all-female line-ups introducing the nominees for Best Supporting Actress and Best Actress went on way too long and felt a bit Vagina Monologue-ish …,” complains Erik Davis, at Cinematical.
• The Envelope’s Mary McNamara criticizes all the musical numbers collectively: “Now I’m sorry, but didn’t we decide, like as a nation, that Big Dance numbers were a blight on the Oscars telecast? Weren’t they, in fact, the first thing to go in the ’90s when the show swept past the four-hour mark and everyone decided that things had Gone Too Far?”
• “Let’s just say that last night Hugh Jackman did for Wolverine what Hayden Christensen did for Darth Vader,” writes Big Hollywood’s John Nolte in his list of lowlights.
• “Also, John Legend?” asks Dan Kois at Vulture, regarding another musical performance. “We’d be hard-pressed to think of a singer whose voice and style were less like Peter Gabriel’s, although we suppose they could have asked Ghostface or Big & Rich. Actually, a Big, Ghostface, and Rich trio would have been better than this.
• Even Philippe Petit wasn’t entirely safe from criticism (even if joked). Aaron Hillis at GreenCine Daily writes, “Why didn’t Man on Wire’s Philippe Petit put the “fun” back in funambulism by tiptoeing up to the stage from the farthest balcony? Regardless, balancing an Oscar on your chin gets you in the highlights reel for the next six decades.”