Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: In a unspectacular movie filled with incoherent gaps of logic, Blanchett provided the unifying arc. There is no doubt that her performance is a fierce, brave display of subtlety and strength. But Blanchett is foreign--and Gwyneth Paltrow is not. (Remember, this is the American Academy of Arts and Sciences)

Fernando Montenegro, Central Station: Montenegro's performance is not unlike Susan Sarandon's winning performance a few years ago in Dead Man Walking-devoid of vanity, but completely absorbing. Too bad she doesn't have a shot in hell. She's foreign (the nomination is her prize), and the movie is too small. She'll be quashed by...

Gwyneth Paltrow, Shakespeare in Love: Shakespeare in Love was brilliant--and Gwyneth was appropriately ethereal. But was she really that good? Put Julia Roberts in the role. Put Nicole Kidman. Put Elizabeth Berkeley. See What I mean? All she has to do is gasp and glow.

Meryl Streep, One True Thing. Poor Meryl. She's won so many times that when she does her best stuff, nobody cares. She electrified One True Thing as a mother with cancer, and she changes the movie from TV domestic drama to nuanced character study. Maybe next year (13 nominations and counting...).

Emily Watson, Hilary and Jackie: Watson, like Blanchett, is one of the best new actresses of our generation. She should have won for Breaking the Waves two years ago, and her performance as Jackie du Pre is a maniacal testament to the title character's struggle with MS. But Watson, with 'her searching blue eyes, just seems too naive and ingenuously talented to win just yet. Give her a few more years in Hollywood, and she'll harden (and then she'll win).

WHO WILL WIN: Paltrow. The Academy loves an American playing British. It makes them feel more intelligent.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Blanchett. Hands down. She is a brilliant chameleon (too bad she's not a natural redhead). And that last scene in Elizabeth, where she declares herself a virgin? (Brrrrr).

Best Supporting Actress

Kathy Bates, Primary Colors: In this grossly underrated film, Bates turned "Dustbuster Libby," the advisor to Travolta's Clinton into a heartbreaking portrayal of a woman who simply loses her faith in the man she once believed would and could do anything. Bates won for Misery, but here she's even better.

Brenda Blethyn, Little Voice: As the demonic manipulator of her daughter, Blethyn offers a very noisy performance. It's a lot of screaming and gesturing--but it unfortunately never makes her character a sympathetic one.

Judi Dench, Shakespeare in Love. Sure, Dench was fun as a curmudgeon-ish Elizabeth I. But for goodness sakes, she was only on screen for nine minutes! But Dench plays ice queen better than anyone, and Academy members feel guilty for passing her over in Mrs. Brown last year for Helen Hunt (we all feel guilty for that one).

Rachel Griffiths, Hilary and Jackie. Against Watson's showy performance. Griffiths remains low-key and the effect is perfect. There are layers here which take multiple viewings to pick up--too bad the Academy Members probably won't take the time.

Lynn Redgrave, Gods and Monsters: The Golden Globes honored Redgrave but more for her lifetime body of work than her performance as the Hungarian housekeeper of openly gay film director James Whale in the 30s. It's a strange role that shows off Redgrave's remarkable grasp of her craft, but she controversy of the film's subject matter.

WHO WILL WIN Tough call. The Academy wants to reward Dench because they screwed her over last year, but Bates is American. In a nail-biter, the edge goes to Dench.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Griffiths. She is thetextbook "supporting" actress, a foil for her morevisible counterpart.

Best Supporting Actor

James Coburn, Affliction: As Nolte'sabusive father, Coburn gives a raw, freewheelingperformance that shows his range after more than40 years in the business. It's his first Oscarnomination, and all those who have seen the filmagree he is the true central character.

Robert Duvall, A Civil Action:Judi-Dench-Syndrome. The Academy passed thedeserving Duvall over last year in TheApostle for Nicholson in As Good As ItGets. They might give it to him this year, buthe's undeserving. His role in A CivilAction was weak--he tried to add randomeccentricities to his "bad-guy" persona, but itjust made him even less sympathetic.

Ed Harris, The Truman Show: I don'tunderstand. I loved The Truman Show, butJim Carrey made the movie everything it was--sothey nominate Harris and not Carrey? Harris getsnominated for wearing a beret and boomingall-to-metaphorical lines without the leastinflection?Geoffrey Rush, Shakespeare in Love. Ireally don't understand. Why Rush and notMurray in Rushmore: Rush's bumbling fool inthe movie was amusing, and he got to show offrotted teeth but no stretch here. AfterShine, this seemed like improve on a dayoff.

Billy Bob Thornton, A Simple Plan: Abrilliant, complex performance gets Thorntonnominated for a film virtually nobody saw. Toobad, because A Simple Plan was a fantasticdrama--the type of movie Hollywood should producebut purposely abandons (note the lack ofpromotion). As the lead character's slightlyretarded brother, Thorton convinces us that heultimately cannot find a reason to live when aninnocent scheme spirals into disaster--andconvinces him that life has just become one lieafter another.

WHO WILL WIN: Ick. Probably Duvallbecause of Academy Guilt. But look for Coburn ifthere's to be an upset.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Thornton. He's aterrific actor (despite the controversysurrounding his domestic life)