Recently, one of my editors asked me, "Did you know your column was supposed to be about movies?" I think this was intended as a rhetorical remark, designed to light a fire under me, but it backfired, since this news genuinely took me by surprise. Reeling, I went home and got to work on my reactions to the Oscar nominees.

About midway through the column, I came to the conclusion that my reaction to the Oscar nominees is this: they aren't very good. That being said, I decided to break the nominees down category by category, to discuss the good picks, the bad picks and the craptastic picks.

Best Picture

The thing I'll say about these nominees is that none of them sucked. I realize that's not exactly the kind of ringing endorsement Academy voters are looking for, but that's all I've got.

I've seen all five movies nominated and I think only one of them ("Crash") is truly a great movie: the rest are either fair ("Capote") pretty good ("Good Night, and Good Luck" and "Brokeback Mountain") or quite good ("Munich"). At least "Syriana" or "A History of Violence" didn't get nominated.

The one surprise, I guess, was "Capote." I just didn't think it had the pedigree or the momentum going into January. "Cinderella Man," "Junebug" and "Walk the Line" were all fighting for that last spot. For some reason, I was really confident that "The Constant Gardener" was going to be that fifth nominee. I just had this really strong, inexplicable feeling that it was going to happen.

I was so sure that last weekend, when I was out at the bars, a few girls recognized me (no idea how that happened) and asked me about my Oscar predictions. Because they were cute and I was a little drunk, I felt the need to be profound and sound "writery," seeing as how they recognized me and all, so I blurted out, "If 'The Constant Gardener' doesn't get nominated for best picture, I will eat a plate of my own hair!" I have never felt like a bigger ass in my entire life. The lesson as always — I should never be allowed to talk. Ever.

Best Director

In the past, it always drove me crazy when the directors of best picture nominees don't get nominated themselves. How is that even possible? If you get nominated for best director, doesn't that mean you have directed the best movie? Isn't that the very definition of being the best director: making the best movie?

If I ever fill out an Oscar ballot, all of my best picture choices will get their directors nominated. This is one of the few things in life I have a very strong opinion about.

Best Actor

The one semi-surprise was Terrence Howard getting nominated for "Hustle & Flow." I haven't seen it, so I can't really comment. The other four nominees were solid. I really would have liked to see Steve Carell sneak in for "The 40-Year Old Virgin," but that had about as much chance of happening as me playing power forward for the Badgers (although if they keep losing bodies, who knows what might happen).

Best Actress

Everybody is talking about how shocking it was that Judi Dench got nominated. I can't understand how you can be surprised by Judi Dench netting an Oscar nomination for a movie nobody has seen — it always happens, every year, whether you want it to or not. It's like the winter solstice.

The thing about her roles is, nobody remembers any of them. "Mrs. Brown?" "Iris?" Even "Shakespeare in Love," which she won for, didn't even register (By the way, can we officially say that "Shakespeare in Love" was the weakest best picture winner of the last 15 years? I remember absolutely nothing from that movie. Nothing. I feel like Leonard from "Memento").

Dench reminds me of Cal Ripken in the late-90s when he kept getting voted into all-star games even though he was hitting like .230 and stumbled around the base path like a wayward of some undead arm. She could be in a snuff film next year and she'd still find a way to get nominated.

The thing that really disappoints me is that there were so many strong female performances in 2005 that deserved to get nominated in her place (including Claire Danes for "Shopgirl," Joan Allen for "The Upside of Anger" and Laura Linney for "The Squid and the Whale").

Everybody is giving Felicity Huffman so much credit for "Transamerica," but that's one of those roles that nobody could screw up. I mean, I could get an Oscar nomination for playing a transvestite. It's one of those roles that has praise built-in. Just once I'd like to read a review where somebody says, "You know, Rosario Dawson turned in a lousy performance as a deaf, lesbian, coke-whore."

The other surprise among these nominees was Keira Knightley, but I actually like this pick. She's definitely got a late-60s-Julie Christie thing going on, which I totally dig. She also turned in another great performance early last year in the underrated thriller "The Jacket."

Best Supporting Actor

Year in and year out, this is always the strongest category. Dillon was the best of all the nominees, but his getting a nomination probably hurt his "Crash" costar Don Cheadle — it's quite rare to see two nominees from the same movie in one category.

My biggest complaint is with Jake Gyllenhaal getting nominated. He shouldn't be in this category — he was a lead actor in that movie. The only reason he is here is because Focus Features felt they stood a better chance of getting him nominated if they submitted him in the supporting category. That's a cheap move.

I wasn't enthralled with William Hurt's cameo in "A History of Violence," nor did I particularly think George Clooney deserved to be nominated for "Syriana."

The big shame here is that for all the time spent lauding "Good Night, and Good Luck," everybody overlooked Ray Wise's wonderful supporting performance, which was the best part of the movie. Giamatti getting nominated makes sense, although it doesn't make up for him not getting one for "Sideways."

I think that an opportunity was missed by not giving closer consideration to Kevin Costner's laid-back, boozy performance in "The Upside of Anger." Had he been nominated, he may have been able to pull an upset. Also, Mickey Rourke could have been nominated for "Sin City," but he was derailed by the fact that a) the movie was detestable and b) he's a psychopath.

Best Supporting Actress

Catherine Keener is this year's winner of the "John C. Reilly in 'Chicago' Award" that goes annually to the long-underappreciated actor who the Academy decides to retroactively recognize, even though the role they get nominated for isn't his/her best performance. She was good, but she's been better. I didn't think she was going to get a nomination.

Amy Adams, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz were all nice choices. Frances McDormand is a head-scratcher. It sort of feels like nobody could settle on a fourth nominee, so everybody just said "Screw it. Let's vote for the middle-aged chick who has won before." (The whole "North Country" thing is puzzling to me: hasn't that movie been made like three times already?)

So Who Wins?

I guess I'm just not sold on "Brokeback Mountain": it seems like it peaked too early, and it's becoming a parody of itself (I've made a "Wish I knew how to quit you!" joke. You've made a "Wish I knew how to quit you!" joke. We've all made a "Wish I knew how to quit you!" joke).

But then, the question is: what could beat it out? I just have this weird feeling about "Crash" being able to come in and steal it, especially since its Oscar campaign budget is roughly equal to the GDP of Ecuador.

Even if "Crash" can pull that upset, Ang Lee is the closest thing in the field to a sure thing. Best actor is an intriguing race, and there are three candidates (Ledger, Phoenix and Hoffman) in the running. If you put a gun to my head, I'd pick Phoenix to win simply because he is singing.

Witherspoon is going to win best actress. I'm saying that right now. Supporting actor will probably be Dillon, but I feel like everybody in the category has at least a fighting chance. I see Michelle Williams barely edging out Catherine Keener to win best supporting actress.

I'll write a column where I officially make my picks when we get a little bit closer to the ceremony.

Ray Gustini's is a freshman whose column runs twice a week in the ArtsEtc. section. If you have an idea for a future column or just want to weigh in on his Oscar views, e-mail him at [email protected].