Armchair quarterbacks have the Superbowl. Movie geeks have the Academy Awards. Both are a time to come together with friends, eat junk food, drink beer and cheer on your heroes. Both last longer than necessary. And both can be extremely predictable or wildly surprising. The March 26 broadcast was a mixture of the two. First, the predictable:

"AMERICAN BEAUTY" WON BEST PICTURE!

This was actually predictable in a good way. "American Beauty" was one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. This darkly comic look at a suburban family is an instant classic. It took home several of the golden boys Sunday night, including Best Director, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay and Best Cinematography. All richly deserved.

Now, the surprises:

Michael Caine as Best Supporting Actor? "The Matrix" shutting out "Star Wars" for the sound and visual effects awards? Hilary Swank as Best Actress?

Okay, Swank’s victory wasn’t a complete surprise. She’d already won the Golden Globe and several critics’ awards for her work in "Boys Don’t Cry." Even so, I think the Academy should have a rule against giving Oscars to anyone who was once in the cast of "Beverly Hills, 90210."

Plus, I was really rooting for Annette Bening in that category. Not only was she unforgettable as the uber-yuppie wife in "American Beauty," but it would have been a hoot to see the extremely pregnant Bening waddle up to the podium. Perhaps the Academy wanted to spare us the sight of a noted actress going into labor during her acceptance speech.

Had Bening won, "American Beauty" would have been only the fourth movie in history to win all five major prizes: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Screenplay. The others being "It Happened One Night," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" and "Silence of the Lambs." This film is a worthy heir to that legacy, but alas, it was not to be. I can’t complain, though. The movie still made out like a bandit.

My pleasure at seeing "American Beauty" walk away with the top awards was greatly diminished by the coma-inducing length of the ceremony. Four hours and eight minutes? I’ve had entire relationships that took less time. I know that every year some flack whines about the Oscars being too long, but this time we had reason to believe that the show’s producers were actually going to do something about it.

"Oscars 2000" (How long have they been waiting to use that one?) was produced by David and Lili Zanuck, two old pros that have actually made some pretty cool movies. David was the producer of "Jaws" and together, the two of them made "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Rush." Okay, those last two were a little hard to swallow, but David gets a lot of props for producing "Jaws." My point being is that I was hoping that these two could give the show a swift kick in the pants.

They started out strong by nixing the dance numbers. In my opinion, these bits should’ve been axed in the seventies. In recent years, they only seemed to exist to give Debbie Allen something to do. Jettisoning this sequence freed up some time, but the Zanucks chose to fill it with more needless video homages. I like classic film scenes set to music as much as the next guy, but don’t complain about the show’s length and then put in more filler.

The only tribute film they need during this show is the one honoring those artists who are no longer with us. It’s always very poignant and seems appropriate on the night we honor the best in film. But explain to me how you do a memorial for dearly departed actors, writers, directors and producers without even mentioning the great Stanley Kubrick? Was there another tribute film waiting in the wings that was cut for time or were they punishing him after the fact for "Eyes Wide Shut?"

No matter how tedious the proceedings, there’s still something hypnotic about the Oscar telecast. I don’t know if it’s the voyeuristic thrill of live television or my need to observe famous people in formal wear, but I can’t look away. I must watch it all the way to the end, even if it is a school night. In between all the costume designers and sound editors thanking their third grade teachers, you can always find something entertaining. Here’s what I’ll remember from "Oscars 2000":

• Note to Meredith Viera, host of ABC’s Oscar Pre-Show: You are not famous. Shut up and deal with it.
• Acting must not be lucrative enough for Peter Coyote since he was announcing this year’s show. See what happens when you arrest E.T.?
• Angelina Jolie seems to have a very "special" relationship with her brother. Just a little creepy, if you ask me. I love my sister, too, but YEEE!
• I think Warren Beatty forgot his medication. How else do you explain his rambling acceptance speech for the Thalberg Award? If this is how he gives orders on the set, no wonder it takes him so long to make a movie.
• "Blame Canada" was the best performance of a nominated song in the history of the Academy Awards.
• As much as I like John Irving, "Election" should have won Best Adapted Screenplay. That movie was brilliant.
• Somebody shoot Robert Benigni. Twice. In the head.
• You want to know why Haley Joel Osment was always smiling? He was just happy to be up past his bedtime.
• I wouldn’t have wanted to be the guy that had to sit behind Erykah Badu. Did his ticket read "Obstructed View?"

And the biggest question of the night:

WHY WASN’T JIM CARREY NOMINATED FOR "MAN ON THE MOON"?

Overall, it wasn’t so bad. The show was lengthy, but until they dump all the extraneous garbage, cut half the categories and only broadcast the major award winners, it will always be a little bloated. Just think how long it could have been if they’d included that interpretive dance number to "Angela’s Ashes?"

All in all, I’d say the Zanucks did a pretty good job for their first time producing the Oscars. It was certainly more entertaining than "Rush."

And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.