Broadcaster and film critic Barry Norman has dismissed Sunday night's Oscars ceremony as "little better than a crapshoot".
Several British names, including Eddie Redmayne, Benedict Cumberbatch, Felicity Jones, Rosamund Pike and Keira Knightley, are in the running for this year's Academy Awards.
But Norman, 81, said while getting nominated was a mark of talent, on-screen performance was not the only factor to determine who eventually wins.
"It always seems to me that the Oscars are much more interesting at the nominations stage than in the final analysis", he said.
"Apart from best picture, for which everyone votes, all the nominees are chosen by their peers - actors by other actors, directors by other directors and so on. If people who were probably vying with you for the same job think you did some of the best work of the year, that's a true compliment."
The former presenter of the BBC's Film programme said: "Just being nominated for an Oscar is a victory in itself.
"It's only when it comes to picking the winners that everyone votes in every category and the whole thing becomes little better than a crapshoot."
He said that Birdman actor Michael Keaton was more likely than The Theory Of Everything star Redmayne to scoop the best actor Oscar, simply because the 63-year-old is "a local boy ... who has never won a major award".
The presenter added: "Personal likes and dislikes come into play. You might vote for someone simply because he or she was nice to you on the set.
"Then there's the question of whether all the voters actually saw all the films. It's not unknown for some, especially the elderly, to get their maids to watch them on DVD and deliver their opinions."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article