Not really surprising. It's the usual media gimmick. They largely inflated Avatar's real chances to win. Ex-Husband vs. ex-wife, David vs. Goliath, war/environment metaphor vs. concrete drama with American heroes in an ongoing war, the biggest blockbusters vs. a strictly critical success... it was the old Hollywood screenplay, way too good for the media not to build up as this big epic competition, the Academy's traditional patterns be damned.

The media hype aside, it was rather predictable that Avatar was technical awards material and that the Academy would vote for the nearly confidential war movie on which international praise got heaped (it's won what, 60, 70 prizes worldwide?), especially when they had a war movie neither too controversial/critical nor overly dripping with patriotism, over the huge SF movie, politically trendy metaphorical content or not.

The more unpredictable bit was whether Hurt Locker would win both best direction and best movie. It's only a half surprise because another thing the Academy loves is its historical firsts and it would have been odd they passed on the chance to give the award to a female director when they had at last the right movie in their hands for this. OTOH, while Bigelow deserved a directorial award, the real outstanding achievement in movie direction this year was so clearly James Cameron's. Directing a project like Avatar from the ground up to the success it is (cinematagraphically) was the work of a titan in a league of his own, which the industry knows all too well. But then... that was Cameron, and "the king of the world", like Lucas and others had a few strikes against him with the Academy.

Sandra Bullock as "best actress". ROTFLOL.