LONDON, England - The envelopes have been opened, the statuettes collected and the limos departed.

The biggest shock at this year's Oscars is that low budget, no-star 'Slumdog Millionaire' was even a contender in the first place.

Now all that's left for this year's Oscars is to sift through the results and fathom out what happened - and why.

Oscar results are usually analyzed in terms of expectations and shocks - which winners succeeded and failed to satisfy the pundit's predictions (as I attempted to do a few weeks back – how did your predictions go?).

But 2009 was a year largely devoid of shocks.

Heath Ledger ("The Dark Knight"), Kate Winslet ("The Reader") and Penelope Cruz ("Vicky Cristiana Barcelona") all won in their respective categories as predicted. Likewise, "Slumdog Millionaire" took Best Picture and Best Director (I foolishly suggested "The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button" might nab one of these).

Many commentators have hailed Sean Penn's Best Actor prize for "Milk," for which he beat out favorite Mickey Rourke ("The Wrestler") as a shock. Not so.

There's two types of shocks in the Oscars - unexpected shocks and predicted shocks.

Unexpected shocks are few and far between - say "Brokeback Mountain" losing out on Best Picture to "Crash" in 2006.

It just happens: sometimes the awards season goes on for so long that the front runner simply gets overhauled. Or, Academy voters maybe say to themselves: You know what, we're not going to vote the way everyone reckons we are.

Penn's win, on the other hand, is a predicted shock. Penn won the same Oscar in 2004 for "Mystic River." Every awards body has its own tastes. It's not that the Academy does not like Mickey - they just prefer Sean.

No, this season's biggest shock has been a slow-burn unexpected shock, one that's been so long coming that it's almost failed to register.

"Slumdog Millionaire."

The Oscar success of Danny Boyle's Mumbai-set film has been hailed as a sure bet these past few weeks - "Slumdunk Millionaire," if you will.

But its victories were never certain.

The shock is not just that "Slumdog" won eight Oscars (which puts it on a par with "Gone With the Wind" and "On The Waterfront," and ahead of "Schindler's List" and "Lawrence of Arabia") but that it was even a runner in the race at all.

Remember - this is a low-budget, no-star film that almost went to DVD following the collapse of Warner Independent Pictures (which like CNN is owned by a unit of Time Warner) before it was rescued last summer by Fox Searchlight.

If "Curious," "Slumdog's" closest rival with 13 nominations, had won more awards then it would remind Oscar-watchers of the success of "Forrest Gump." Films like "Milk," "Frost/Nixon" and "The Reader" also have their own Oscar-nominated antecedents.

But "Slumdog" is reminiscent of nothing else that has been this popular in recent Oscars history.

Sometimes the best shocks also hint at a seachange.

What do you think about this year's Oscar winners? Tell us your thoughts.

LONDON, England (CNN) - History is littered with the detritus of terrible Oscar speeches. Gwyneth Paltrow anyone?

Gwyneth Paltrow lost her normal grace when delivering her Oscar acceptance speech.

Winners are inevitably overcome, talk far too long, sob too much and generally just make you want to hit the mute button before your brain melts.

That charismatic, dreamboat of a person you idolized becomes a make-up smudged shadow of their screen glory with all the appeal of a screaming banshee (men and women).

With the Oscars only weeks away and keeping the above in mind, I've decided to pen my own Oscar speech just in case the day ever comes...

"Oh God. WOW. This is LIKE soooo amazing. I am a WINNER, which makes you all LOSERS. Oops, sorry. It makes a lot of you losers. I mean, what I wanted so say, is that this is just, I think, like, probably, the best moment in my life - no offense to my wife – but she knows what I'm all about.

"And that's glory, and now I have it. Being a winner like me takes hard work, it has been back-breaking at times. I mean, some of you guys know what it's like, $15 million a picture doesn't spread that far these days. And working half the year in exotic locations is not what everyone imagines. And then there's the week of humanitarian work a year; God! Sick and hungry people are such a drain aren't they?

"Anyway, I digress, I'd like to thank everyone I've ever known though they've actually contributed nothing to my success - I got me here. I'm the one who does the acting.

"Some critics have called me the acting talent of my generation and, I have to say, I think they're on the money.

"Which is why you losers, sorry, I mean the other people I have been delighted to beat to the best actor nod, shouldn't be too downtrodden. You've done quite well actually. I'm not going to namecheck you all, because frankly, while I know your names, I can't be bothered and I don't really like you.

"I think I'll put old Oscar here on the mantle piece next to the picture of me with Barack Obama. Obviously he and I have a lot in common, like winning, and I like to feel we're on the same page when it comes to policy in the Middle East.

"Anyway, to cap off: I'm the winner here and fully expect to be back next year so don't even bother renting yourself a suit. By the way, do you like mine? Aren't you going to give me the obligatory standing ovation?"

What would you say in your Oscar speech? What is the worst Oscar speech you've seen?

LONDON, England – The dust has settled after yesterday's Oscar nominations. We know everything in terms of the final five in each category - but for many of the awards we are only left with guesswork as to the likely winners come February 22. Oscar likes to surprise - only in hindsight, once the awards have been handed out, can we determine why the Academy voted as it did.

The Oscar nominations for best picture are announced in Beverly Hills Thursday.

Making Oscar predictions is a game for fools - but it's also lot of fun, something we need in the current climate. Give me your suggestions at the bottom of this post - and in the meantime I'd offer the following...

No movie will make a clean sweep. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," with 13 nominations, heads the field, with "Slumdog Millionaire" behind it on 10. This only reflects how "Curious" has acting nominations while "Slumdog" does not: these two are running close.

The certainty in the main categories is Heath Ledger ("The Dark Knight") for best supporting actor  - not just for his performance or because he died but also because he would have won an Oscar eventually. The likeliest challenge? Philip Seymour Hoffman ("Doubt"), who beat Ledger to a best actor Oscar in 2006. But it would be a major upset.

The best actor is Mickey Rourke's to lose for "The Wrestler." Oscar likes a comeback - Rourke's only hindrance is if the prize is taken for granted by everyone, in which case Oscar could choose someone else. Academy winner Sean Penn, who expands his range through the powerful and tender "Milk," is in the wings waiting for him to fall.

The biggest nomination shock is in best actress and the exclusion of Kate Winslet for "Revolutionary Road" (it lost out in best film and director too), for which she won a best actress drama Golden Globe.

Still, the five-time nominee will win her first Oscar for "The Reader," in which she was wrongly pushed for supporting actress. Strongest challenges come from two-time winner Meryl Streep ("Doubt") and Anne Hathaway ("Rachel Getting Married"), who between them have dominated critics' awards.

Best supporting actress is more open (although why no Rosemarie DeWitt for "Rachel?"). Amy Adams and Viola Davies (both "Doubt") will cancel each other out; and "The Wrestler's" Marisa Tomei may suffer due to Rourke's likely success. Expect Penelope Cruz to win for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona," Woody Allen's overly-mannered drama.

The best picture and best director usually go to the same movie. The tussle here is between Danny Boyle's colorfully kinetic "Slumdog" and David Fincher for "Curious." Trailing third is "Frost/Nixon," which feels more like a series of strong performances than the complete package.

Crowdpleaser "Slumdog" stands out in a season of autumnal features tinged with regret and loss. It's also hard to ignore the technical challenges faced by Boyle for the Mumbai shoot. Remember - less than six months ago "Slumdog" was bound for DVD in the United States.

Plans to shoot "Curious" have kicked around Hollywood for years - usually not a good sign. But Fincher, who usually deals in darker fare, does a strong job of sustaining the narrative for more than 150 minutes.

Actors are strongly represented in the Academy - and "Curious" is unlikely to win any acting awards. Will voters compensate this retool of Oscar-winner "Forrest Gump" elsewhere - maybe give it a director or picture plaudit and "Slumdog" the other? Don't rule it out.

Of course this is all conjecture. One, or all, of these tips, is plain wrong. Oscar is unpredictable - that's part of its appeal

But who do you think should win this year's Oscars - and who do you think has unjustly been left out?

LONDON, England – The original "Karate Kid" movie is the Mona Lisa of its genre. Teenage boy moves to new town with mum after dad dies, develops heavy crush on pretty girl - Elisabeth Shue - only to be beaten into a pulp regularly by her karate practising ex-boyfriend and his mates.

Execs are in talks to remake 1980s martial arts coming of age movie 'Karate Kid'.

However, salvation is at hand in the form of his building's handyman - Pat Morita's noble and beautifully acted Mr Miyagi.

Miyagi knows a thing or two about karate and sets about teaching Daniel the proper way to use it by putting him to work waxing and painting things at his house.

Eventually all that "wax on, wax off" is revealed as a cunning ploy to get Ralph Macchio's Daniel using the moves he needs but without the anger and hatred of his enemy.

It also has the benefit of teaching him patience and understanding, which is of course a big hit with Shue's character.

It culminates with Daniel's famous crane-kick victory after the badass ex-boyfriend has unleased some more nasty karate taught by his equally nasty teacher.

It makes you want to leap with joy and punch the air just thinking about.

However someone needs to start crane kicking the execs at Columbia Pictures, who are apparently in talks with Jackie Chan to remake the movie.

According to reports, Chan will mentor Will Smith's son, Jaden, with the major difference being that the film will be set in Asia rather than California.

Cunningly the movie will be a co-production with state-run China Film Group, Variety reports, which would allow Columbia to bypass China's annual quota of 20 film imports on a revenue-sharing basis.

Doesn't sound at all cynical does it?

And therein lies the problem with just about every remake ever made: They're about prostituting out a once great movie to old fans who don't know better and a new generation who are barely old enough to tie their shoelaces let alone know there was an original.

Frankly, I'd rather burn my own eyes out with a hot poker than be duped into seeing another rubbish remake featuring a big-name star who is no patch on the original.

Just think Jude Law. He has been in two of the most nonsensical remakes ever, reprising Michael Caine's role in "Alfie" and helping sully the name of the original Oscar-winning "All the Kings Men." Moreover, he's soon to feature in Guy Ritchie's take on Sherlock Holmes - it's a combination that has turkey written all over it.

Mark Wahlberg has an equally bad reputation when it comes to remake horrors, joining Tim Burton to butcher "Planet of the Apes" and Charlize Theron and Donald Sutherland in "The Italian Job" (what is it about Caine's films?).

However, even they couldn't top Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho" with Vince Vaughan in the leading role. Vince Vaughan? Pass me that poker.

A "Karate Kid" remake can't possibly better the original - the sequels were bad enough.

It all - sorry about the terrible pun - makes no sensei.

What is the worst remake you've seen?

LONDON, England - Turning a great novel into a film should be a no brainer.  So, why are there so many disappointing movie adaptations of good novels?

Brazilian Fernando Meirelles' 'Blindness' is an ambitious adaptation of a classic novel that doesn't quite work.

"City of God" director Fernando Meirelles' new film "Blindness" is the latest example: an ambitious adaptation of a classic novel that has fallen short of the mark.

On paper there is a lot to anticipate: it is a silver screen version of Portuguese Nobel Prize-winner José Saramago's celebrated novel "Ensaio sobra a cegueira," directed by hot Brazilian director, Meirelles and starring Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and Gael Garcia Bernal starring.

And yet, the film, which premiered at Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, was not well-received by critics. It is certainly affecting and beautifully shot, but despite profund themes the plot is muddling and lacks coherent direction, which is where it falls down.

Perhaps it is because the film tries too hard to do justice to its rich source material, and while a reader may readily accept a wide range of complex messages and themes delivered in written prose, films require more cohesion.

There is also specter of the "unfilmable novel," those works considered impossible to translate for the big screen for whatever reason: overtly sexual content, nebulous plot or complex structure among others.

It is a notion that has been strengthened by questionable adaptations of classic works by accomplished filmmakers: David Cronenberg's attempt at J.G. Ballard's highly erotic "Crash" which managed to convey the sex but was dull and Michael Winterbottom turning "Tristram Shandy" into the highly forgettable "A Cock and Bull Story" to name two.

Are simple storylines just easier to translate? Francis Ford Coppola managed to create an award-winning work of art from Mario Puzo's pulp crime novel, "The Godfather."

Streamlining novels with complex narratives can also work well. Last year's three big awards season movies, the Coen Brothers' "No Country for Old Men," Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will be Blood," and Joe Wright's "Atonement," are all based on rich and intricate novels.

But, in "No Country for Old Men" very little is made of Llewelyn Moss or Ed Tom Bell's military past, which is a big part of the book; and much of Robbie Turner's torrid and soul-searching journey through France to Dunkirk in Ian McEwan's "Atonement" is omitted from the film version.

But just cutting out the hard bits can't be the whole story. Mary Harron's successful adaptation of another "unfilmable book," "American Psycho" succeeded because she injected humour into Brett Easton Ellis' cold vision of an 80's murderer and transformed it into a satire of the yuppie lifestyle of the time.

As the cinema world waits for the upcoming film adaptations of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road," Jack Kerouac's "On the Road," and Haruki Murakami's "Norwegian Wood" let's hope that these challenging books will unleash the director's creativity.

What do you think? Can a great novel become a great film? What are the best adaptations of novels? And, do you think there are some novels that are unfilmable?