The biggest joke to hit Hollywood since Sisqo launched an acting career has got to be the Inside.com Oscar rankings. The site has been tracking the Oscar nominees, using so-called scientific factors like other awards won, coolness of free gifts given to the voters on behalf of the nominee, which way the wind is blowing, etc.

Somehow this "Inside Line" feature has gained enough credibility that Entertainment Weekly has been running it. I think the only reason people would find it credible is because it gives the nominees NUMBER VALUES. Ooh, numbers! My predictions and opinions aren't scientific, but I can throw in some numbers: The broadcast will be at least 4 hours, we will hear 10 jokes about Steven Soderbergh competing against himself.

Aw, hell with it. You folks didn't come here for science. You came for demented, sloppy ramblings. At least I hope so, because that's what I got. Here is how I see the major categories this year:

Best Picture

Chocolat: Sure I could bitch for a few paragraphs about all the deserving movies this trifle knocked out of the category: Coyote Ugly, Gone in Sixty Seconds, etc. But what is the point? As irritating as it is to see this film in here, it won't win anything, and at least the annual Miramax slot didn't go to a Gwyneth Paltrow movie.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Many observers predict the Academy is not equipped to appreciate a movie that requires them to read subtitles. What an offensive assumption! The voters read all the time. They skim Variety and The Hollywood Reporter every day, and sometimes even have their assistants read them an entire article!

Traffic: Steven Soderbergh gave us a complex, challenging movie that dealt with a difficult subject. Hollywood's depiction of the drug crisis is usually just barely more substantial than South Park's Mr. Mackey: "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?" Will this movie be rewarded for its ambition or will it find a tougher time connecting with voters? I'm no Cleo, but I am not optimistic.

Erin Brockovich: The other Soderbergh movie was less overtly stylish and ambiguous, but that doesn't mean it wasn't as effective. Wait a minute, I did think it wasn't as effective. But not for those reasons. Ah, never mind. Let me just say that even if this and Traffic didn't cancel each other out, it would have a tough time, but of the two, this one suffers the most from that.

Gladiator: Here is a crowd-pleasing, commercially successful pseudo-epic. Could be just the ticket for voters in a year where there was no clear-cut "Ma, we just seen a dang Best Picture winner" movie. I thought it was a fun flick, but if it wins Best Picture, I will be upset, not just because it ripped o-I mean, paid homage to so many other, better epics, but for an admittedly spiteful reason. How can this get so much Oscar recognition when an enduring toga classic beloved by all was snubbed all those years ago? I refer, of course, to Animal House. Now that I think of it, there actually were parts of Gladiator that were funnier than anything in Animal House.

  Will win: Gladiator    My Vote: Traffic

Best Actor

Tom Hanks is supposedly not favored to win the trophy this year. What? How can Tom Hanks NOT be the favorite for the Tom Hanks Award? What? It's not called that yet? Oh, never mind. It might as well be after he wins it again next year. Anything short of Turner and Hooch Return makes him an instant favorite each year.

Russell Crowe gave a charismatic star turn in Gladiator, and may deserve payback for losing last year for a superior job in The Insider, but it ain't his turn yet. Maybe whoever plotted to kidnap him can steal a little gold statue for him.

Ed Harris was amazing in Pollock and people are impressed by the fact that he actually painted during his scenes. More impressive to me was how he captured the empty inner turmoil of a troubled life. Plus the way he physically transformed himself into what Ray Walston would have looked like if he gained 50 pounds before playing Poopdeck Pappy in Popeye. Physical change, learning a skill for the role, depressing movie…all sound like Oscar gold.

Javier Bardem is drawing critical raves for his performance in another depressing art film, Before Night Falls. He had to learn a dialect and also portrayed physical disintegration. But he didn't kick anybody's ass in a Jerry Bruckheimer movie so he is less likely to be rewarded. Personally, I didn't really get the movie, either.

Geoffrey Rush did a masterful job as the Marquis De Sade in the year's most underappreciated film, Quills. As much as I would love to see him win this award-hey, I would love to see Salma Hayek present an award in a thong, too, but it ain't happening. I set the VCR just in case, though. There is a point in there somewhere.

  Will win: Hanks    My Vote: Rush

Best Supporting Actor

Joaquin Phoenix gave a stunning, compelling performance, his best ever in my not-always-humble opinion. Unfortunately, it was in Quills. His campy turn in Gladiator doesn't deserve to be up here.

Benicio Del Toro looked like the weight of the world was on his shoulders. Of course he looked like that in Way of the Gun, too, but that was only because he had to carry Ryan Phillippe's sorry ass in that movie. In Traffic, he was acting. For crafting a memorable, standout performance in a fine movie with so much going on, he deserves the award.

Willem Dafoe was excellent as, well, the vampire in Shadow of the Vampire, but the movie was so disappointing I can't pick him over Del Toro. At least we know Dafoe gave the best vampire performance of the year, edging out Gerard Butler in Dracula 2000 and Jonathan Lipnicki in The Little Vampire.

Jeff Bridges was a fascinating, charismatic Commander-in-Chief in The Contender, but hasn't Martin Sheen sucked up all the acclaim for playing that role lately?

Albert Finney could be this year's "reward the old guy" pick. He was quite good in Erin Brockovich, playing what could have been a generic role with skill. He really had good chemistry with Julia Roberts' cleavage.

  Will win: I'll be optimistic and say the SAG Awards bode well for Del Toro, and the Academy will want
  to honor Traffic somehow.
  My Vote: Benicio

Best Actress

Julia Roberts: She has done a good job at delivering weepy emotional speeches lately (look at the SAG Awards-just make sure you have a tissue handy). Hollywood loves emotional speeches. It's Julia's year.

Juliette Binoche: Nothing against her, but Chocolat was a weak movie, and all she had to do was get audiences to believe people like chocolate and Johnny Depp. Big challenge, there.

Joan Allen: Some quality acting kept the ludicrously scripted The Contender from being one of the worst movies of the year. Joan Allen, stuck as a steely, stoic everywoman for so many years, was given the chance to stretch and play a steely, stoic everywoman-who used to be a slut.

Laura Linney: Nobody saw You Can Count on Me – and I don't mean that literaly, I thought it was great-yet Linney is still thought to have a chance. Yeah right.

Ellen Burstyn: The "Reward the old person" nominee, female division. Burstyn was very good, although the performance of a woman addicted to diet pills in Requiem for a Dream feels a little gimmicky the more I think of it.

  Will win: Julia Roberts. It's her year.    My Vote: Julia

Best Supporting Actress

Dame Judi Dench was more like Lame Judi Dench, but it was the fault of the cliched character she was given. Dench is about as close to an exact opposite of Marisa Tomei that the Academy could find, so she will get the default "let's be classy" vote.

Marcia Gay Harden did a fine job at providing some stability to anchor Pollock while Ed Harris was drinking his ass off and knocking tables over. She was overshadowed by Harris, though, and even though this is considered a "supporting" category, all of the other characters were much more memorable.

Well, almost all. Julie Walters was fine as the world-weary mentor in Billy Elliott, but she should be happy just to be here.

Almost Famous gave us two outstanding female performances – Frances McDormand as the young rock journalist's mother and Kate Hudson as groupie (excuse me, "Band-Aid") Penny Lane. If I had to pick between the two, I would reward McDormand for breathing life and freshness into what could have been a silly overbearing mom role.

Plus Kate looks and acts so much like her mother that giving it to her would be like giving another Oscar to Goldie Hawn – and I don't think we're prepared to make that step. (Yup, it really happened before, folks, but it was in the late sixties, so maybe we can assume drugs were a factor). You never know, though. Hollywood has proved with this category that it loves to reward young stars. It also loves to reward groupies.

  Will win: The Almost Famous ladies cancel each other out, Dench gets the prize.
  My Vote: McDormand

Best Director

Ang Lee: This category is extremely important among the film lovers, and is positioned as suc during the telecast, but we put it last because it is so unglamorous. Case in point: Is anyone going to tune in to see what Ang Lee is wearing on Oscar Night?

Ridley Scott: Any goodwill I had for the guy was erased by seeing Hannibal, and it has been too long since I've seen Blade Runner. I am going out on a limb and predicting Scott will get the shaft in an old-fashioned Director/Picture split this year. Gladiator is seen as more of a group effort spectacle than "a Ridley Scott picture" and so I am calling it for...

Steven Sodebergh: Call me naïve. Call me deluded. Call me still feeling the aftereffects of all the tequila I had last night. Hey, buddy, don't call me a moron, though! That's damned rude!

Where was I? Oh, I was about to make a prediction: Soderbergh will be rewarded somehow for his amazing year. Although I don't think he can overcome having two movies fighting each other in the Best Picture category, I think somehow the voters will pull together and award the Directing prize to Soderbergh for Traffic. He will get up and graciously thank the other nominees, but inexplicably leave out himself.

Steven Daldry: Who? No, not the lead singer of The Who, the guy that directed Billy Elliott. The fact that it didn't get a Best Picture nomination proves that A) Chocolat really suckered a lot of nominators and B) Daldry has as much chance of winning as a real life Billy Elliott would have of not getting his ass kicked at school.

  Will win: Soderbergh    My Vote: Soderbergh

There you have it – and if you weren't impressed by any of these picks, how about this: U-571 is a lock to win for Best Sound Editing. Take it to the bank.