Every year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences bestows upon a lucky few its Oscar statuettes. And every year moviegoers around the world watch in disbelief as films like "The English Patient" beat out more worthy films like "Fargo." The Academy voted admirably last season in choosing "American Beauty" the Best Picture; but without serious competition, there was no other choice. This year, the group's 6,000 members have the rare opportunity to do some good. Several remarkable films, performances and craftsmen are up for consideration and it would be more than disappointing to see such talents completely ignored. Unfortunately, the buzz around Hollywood (via the Internet) indicates that the Academy is headed for another meltdown. Here, then, is an analysis of each major category, complete with probable winners and losers.

Best Picture

Nominees: "Chocolat," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "Erin Brockovich," "Gladiator," "Traffic"

The battle-oriented action drama "Gladiator" fits the Oscar mold perfectly: It's an epic, has impressive sets and costumes, contains a strong lead performance and faired well with both critics and audiences. It also has that "they don't make them like this, anymore" spirit that Academy voters love.

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," though, is considered by many to be the better film. Also an epic, the martial arts fantasy has slowly but surely gained acceptance with American audiences, despite the film's subtitles. Unfortunately, the Academy usually awards Best Picture to an American film, and will most likely deem "Crouching Tiger" the winner in the Foreign Film category.

The three other contenders in this race, "Traffic," "Erin Brockovich" and "Chocolat" just don't measure up to the epic feel of either "Gladiator" or "Crouching Tiger." Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic," although incredibly well acted, directed and written, is too heavy and intelligent for its own good (when it comes to Best Picture winners, anyway). The sweet but simple "Chocolat" was marketed well by its distributor, Miramax, but the nomination is enough. "Erin Brockovich," also directed by Soderbergh, is lightweight compared to the director's other effort (it suffers somewhat from being a Julia Roberts star vehicle). And the fact that Soderbergh fans will split their vote doesn't bode well for either of his films.

What will win: "Gladiator"

What may win: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"

What should win: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"

Best Director

Nominees: Stephen Daldry ("Billy Elliot"), Ang Lee ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), Ridley Scott ("Gladiator"), Steven Soderbergh ("Erin Brockovich"), Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic")

Soderbergh's double nomination is an honor in itself, and some say it proves that he is this year's best director. Unfortunately for him, the studios couldn't decide which nomination to promote, so a split vote is more than likely (such was the case at the Golden Globes).

"Billy Elliot" isn't nominated for Best Picture, and the competition is too fierce, so don't look for Daldry to win. Scott's "Gladiator" is up for a dozen awards, though, and the Academy often supports a director who tackled a film's scope and spectacle with proficiency and professionalism.

But the real thermometer of the Best Director race is the Director's Guild award, which was given to Ang Lee just recently. That pretty much clinches the win for Lee, especially considering that Scott's "Hannibal" wasn't well liked by audiences or critics. But, again, the Academy loves spectacle and technical merit, so Scott (who has been around for a while), may just fly right over Lee's head.

Who will win: Ang Lee

Who may win: Ridley Scott

Who should win: Lee or Steven Soderbergh ("Traffic")

Best Actor

Nominees: Javier Bardem ("Before Night Falls"), Russell Crowe ("Gladiator"), Tom Hanks ("Cast Away"), Ed Harris ("Pollock"), Geoffrey Rush ("Quills")

The only thing keeping this race from being Hanks' victory is the fact that the everyman actor has won twice before. "Cast Away" was a box office success and showcased the actor's talents just as "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump" did. As Chuck Noland in the desert island drama, Hanks demanded the audience's attention. And he got it in spades.

Crowe, too, demanded attention as the general-turned-slave Maximus in "Gladiator." Not only was it a star-making turn, but it is widely held that no other actor in Hollywood could command such a physical presence and still remain noble. Unfortunately for Crowe, his off-screen escapades as reported in the tabloid press have brought him more attention than the film has (when it comes to Oscar, not all press is good press).

Bardem's performance as a gay writer in "Before Night Falls" could have used more press and promotion, as it appears no one has seen the film (it's not up for any other awards, either).

As the controversial Marquis de Sade in "Quills," Rush displayed much more than his acting talents in a very gruesome and vile role, therefore lessening his chances for Oscar success.

The remaining candidate in this hotly contested category is Harris. Harris directed and starred in "Pollock," a biography of famous American painter Jackson Pollock, and the widely respected actor has received praise for his stunning portrayal of a man struggling against his own ideas of success and failure. Harris may strip away the win from Hanks if enough voters have seen the film and understand the sacrifices Harris made to get the film produced. The Academy consists largely of actors, both employed and retired, and it wouldn't be much of a surprise to see Harris pull it off.

Who will win: Tom Hanks

Who may win: Ed Harris

Who should win: Harris

Best Actress

Nominees: Joan Allen ("The Contender"), Juliette Binoche ("Chocolat"), Ellen Burstyn ("Requiem for a Dream"), Laura Linney ("You Can Count On Me"), Julia Roberts ("Erin Brockovich")

Perhaps the most predictable race at this year's Oscars, the Best Actress category contains two performances that blow the competition out of the water.

As a drug addicted mother in Darren Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream," veteran actress Burstyn dared to go where few actors have gone before. She tapped into truly horrifying emotions and psychoses in the oddly exhilarating film, giving us the best work of her career.

Linney also did an excellent job portraying a mother, although in a completely different film. "You Can Count On Me" gave the relatively unknown actress a shot at creating a multi-layered, realistic character with human quirks and complications. Linney did more than live up to the challenge.

Two other contenders, Binoche and Allen, did admirable work as well. Binoche was a delight to watch in "Chocolat" and Allen conveyed dignity and determination as a senator caught up in a scandal in "The Contender." Against Burstyn and Linney, though, they don't stand a chance.

But this race is Julia Roberts' to lose. The super-popular actress has won numerous critical awards, the Golden Globe and the Screen Actors Guild award (that was the clincher). As the title character in "Erin Brockovich," Roberts gave audiences her best work to date, exhibiting charm and cleavage in equal measure — a talent that is, apparently, award worthy. Unless a backlash comes along to wipe Roberts off the nomination list, look for that wide-mouthed smile to be onstage accepting its award.

Who will win: Julia Roberts

Who may win: Ellen Burstyn

Who should win: Laura Linney or Burstyn

Best Supporting Actor

Nominees: Jeff Bridges ("The Contender"), Willem Dafoe ("Shadow of the Vampire"), Benicio Del Toro ("Traffic"), Albert Finney ("Erin Brockovich"), Joaquin Phoenix ("Gladiator")

The Supporting Actor race is notorious for being difficult to predict, and this year is no exception.

Although Del Toro emerged victorious over Hanks and Crowe at the Screen Actors Guild awards (for which he was nominated for best lead actor), Finney is a well-respected, veteran-supporting actor who has yet to win his Oscar. Both candidates performed in multi-nominated films and both were under the direction of Soderbergh.

What it comes down to, it seems, is the role itself. As a Mexican law enforcer in "Traffic," Del Toro had to exhibit a man's conflicting motives (justice or loyalty) all while speaking a particular Mexican dialect.

Albert Finney's role, however, was not particularly challenging. Playing an aging lawyer and boss of a small firm, Finney displayed a good combination of weariness, reluctance and dignity, but it's easy to think of other actors who could have done the job just as well. So Del Toro has the edge over Finney and, consequently, the edge over the three remaining nominees, whose performances are either too pretentious (Bridges, as a speechifying president), too over-the-top (Dafoe, as vampire Max Schrek) or too inconsistent (Phoenix's cry-baby Caesar).

Who will win: Benicio Del Toro

Who may win: Albert Finney

Who should win: Del Toro

Best Supporting Actress

Nominees: Judi Dench ("Chocolat"), Marcia Gay Harden ("Pollock"), Kate Hudson ("Almost Famous"), Frances McDormand ("Almost Famous"), Julie Walters ("Billy Elliot")

Looking back at former winners in this category (Kim Basinger, Mira Sorvino, Marisa Tomei), it becomes clear that the Academy likes to award fresh-faced talent with the trophy, hoping to give the actress' career a boost. Hudson, as "band aide" Penny Lane in "Almost Famous," fits this mold perfectly. It doesn't hurt that her mother, Goldie Hawn, won the award back in 1970.

Dench, although receiving the SAG, is out of the race because she was given an Oscar just two years ago for "Shakespeare in Love." Walters, as a ballet teacher in "Billy Elliot," was overshadowed by Jamie Bell's moving performance as the title character. And McDormand doesn't pose much of a threat because voters who want to recognize "Famous" will pick Hudson.

Harden, however, gives the most challenging performance in this category, and she just might walk away with the win. As Jackson Pollock's wife and supporter, Harden did a fantastic job creating sympathy for a man who often never gave anything back. But, as stated before, the Academy likes to see young, weepy tears up on that podium, and Hudson is the perfect victim.

Who will win: Kate Hudson

Who may win: Marcia Gay Harden

Who should win: Harden

So Hollywood waits anxiously for the vaunted Academy to choose the top films and performances of the year, and the movie-going public anticipates a star-studded Oscar night filled with beautiful people, their expensive clothes and their ridiculous acceptance speeches.

Without a doubt, the Oscar ceremony is the most important night of the year for Hollywood. A nomination, not to mention a victory, can catapult a mediocre actor, director or producer to immediate fame and future fortune. It's completely understandable why the industry puts so much stock in these awards.

But why do we?

Why the Oscars Don't Matter

Oscar night is, after all, a ceremony by celebrities, for celebrities in celebration of being a celebrity. So why do we as moviegoers put so much stock in them? Why do they matter? The short answer is that they don't. Here are five really good reasons why:

Who are these guys?

Ask 100 people what the "Academy" is, and 100 people will have no idea. Ask the same 100 people to name one member of the "Academy," and, most likely, 100 will not be able to offer an answer. So who are these guys?

It would seem that the Oscar earns its prestige from the academy that awards it. One might even imagine that Americans hold the Academy in high regard because of its lofty vision of purposeful art and filmmaking in modern society. But the simple fact is that very few people actually know what the Academy is.

The Academy's website (www.oscar.org) offers very little help. "The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a professional honorary organization composed of over 6,000 motion picture craftsmen and women." That is interesting, but it still tells us nothing about what the Academy is, what it stands for (if anything), and who makes up its membership.

The website goes on for two paragraphs describing the Oscar statue and its history. It tells us the statue's measurements (13.5 in. tall, 8.5 lbs.), its designer and how it earned its nickname. The site tells us nothing of the group that offers the awards. This perfectly represents the nature of the Academy Awards: all fluff. It's nothing but pretty people acting nice to receive beautiful, golden awards that will ensure them prosperity and more beauty in the future. It's the ultimate insider pat on the back.

How do they vote?

One might assume that an Academy member, realizing the weight and importance of their vote and the ultimate decision of the Academy, would make a point of seeing every film up for the award on which they cast their vote. This is not the case. It came as quite a surprise to discover (thanks to the fine investigative reporting done by "E!") that the majority of Academy members never see all the movies up for awards. This year, a member might see "Erin Brockovich" and "Gladiator" (the two box-office leaders among the best picture nominees), but fail to see "Chocolat" (a much less commercialized film), and still cast a vote.

In addition, there is no standard way in which members view these films. Some are seen in special screenings, some on home video, some in cramped, public movie-theaters. Does that affect the way they vote? Maybe. No one can deny that there is a vast difference between seeing "Gladiator" or "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" on home video and in a theater.

The Sacrificial Lambs

Each year the Academy nominates films and actors who have absolutely no chance of winning. There are three main categories of these "sacrificial lambs."

The first is the foreign language film lamb. When was the last time a foreign language film won the Best Picture Oscar? It's impossible to remember because it has never happened. Never — unless you consider British a foreign language. Yet every couple years, the Academy feels it necessary to nominate a foreign language film to show off its international credentials and worldly instincts. This is an empty sham that does not bode well for Ang Lee and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

Next is the low-budget-experimental film lamb. This is the film that doesn't make $150 million at the box office and is not released by one of the top five Hollywood film studios but still manages to sneak in a nomination for Best Picture, Director or Actor. Among recent victims are "The Full Monty," "Secrets and Lies" and "Babe." They are interesting and unique, but they will never win because the Academy finds them all too revolutionary or challenging to the status quo.

Finally, there is the comedy film lamb. Why don't funny movies ever win the big awards? Are comedies, by definition, not high quality? A more likely explanation is that the Academy takes itself too serious to relax and admit that a film that makes them laugh carries some intrinsic value. Maybe "Moonstruck" was better than "The Last Emperor" in 1988. Not on the Academy's life would they ever admit that on Oscar night.

Of course, the artists who work on these sacrificial lamb films are thankful just to receive a nomination. For them, a nomination is enough to bring them the respect and attention that they would otherwise not receive. But we should demand more; namely, a fair playing field in which original, "different" films are not predetermined to lose.

The "What Were They Thinking?" Years

To put it simply, the Academy messes up quite often. There are plenty of years that we can look back on with wonderment.

A perfect example is 1995. Although it was named Best Picture, many people would argue that "Forrest Gump" was not the best film of the year. Its competition included the memorable "Pulp Fiction," the historically interesting "Quiz Show," the touching and increasingly popular "Shawshank Redemption" and the endearing comedy "Four Weddings and a Funeral." It's anyone's guess how "Gump" pulled that one off.

A more recent example is 1998, in which "Titanic" inexplicably captured 11 Oscars, including Best Picture. It seems "L.A. Confidential" was deemed too confusing, "As Good as it Gets" and "The Full Monty" too funny, and "Good Will Hunting" too touching. Instead, they chose a big-budget film rich in special effects and romance but short on common sense or any deep sense of itself.

The Better Alternatives

If a moviegoer really wants to know the best films of the year, why not turn to the people for whom evaluating movies is a profession: film critics. Numerous associations of critics release their annual awards ever year to little public scrutiny or acclaim.

While these are just more awards given by human beings with different subjective analyses of a subjective art, it might make more sense to trust film critics who actually see every movie on which they vote.

In addition, these critics work independently of the Hollywood industry, unlike the vague membership of the Academy that most likely draws its ranks from the industry itself. Film critics are outsiders who, presumably, have no reason to favor one film over the other. They see nearly every film released in a year (foreign and domestic, big budget and small), making them more than capable of fairly and effectively evaluating their worth.

This is not to say that moviegoers shouldn't enjoy the Oscar show next week. Enjoy the beautiful faces, elegant gowns and tuxedoes, and amazingly cheerful smiles. Just remember that it is really nothing more than patting oneself on the back.

The winners of the 73rd Annual Academy Awards will be announced live starting at 8 p.m., Sunday, March 25, on ABC. Hosted by Steve Martin, and featuring performances by Bjork, Bob Dylan, Randy Newman and Sting, this years Oscar ceremony is certain to entertain (and infuriate).

• The 73rd annual Academy Awards won't honor the best, but at least it'll be fun