the show received a negative reception from most media publications. john j. o'connor of "the new york times" wrote, "instead of keeping things moving smartly, mr. letterman stuck with his late-night shtick, too often leaving the show's pacing in shambles." he also added, "within the show's first half-hour, with no strong hand at the helm, the audience simply sagged. applause died long before most winners even reached the podium." television critic john carman of the "san francisco chronicle" commented, "last night on abc, no one got it. hollywood's big event was wonderfully littered by technical errors, bad taste, low comedy and lower necklines." moreover, he remarked, "letterman, the rookie host, was off his game in his opening monologue. maybe it was the big auditorium. or a billion people in the television audience." film critic andrew sarris of "the new york observer" quipped, "not only was he not witty or funny, he never knew when to let bad enough alone." he concluded, "as the evening dragged on, it became obvious that mr. letterman had no gift for ad-libbing through the few unpredictable opportunities in a 'live' event like the oscars." "people" named the ceremony as one of the worst television broadcasts of 1995, remarking that letterman was "a cranky skeptic [who] visit[ed] the high temple of show business, mock[ed] the gold-plated statuary and display[ed] insufficient reverence for the gods. (tom hanks assisting with a stupid pet trick?!) we know who the winner wasn't."