Well, if you read the CinePad Downs racing forms correctly (something I didn't even do in every case), then you undoubtedly won your Oscar pool.  I called 'em correctly in every category except some of those pesky acting ones -- and even then I noted the eventual winners as likely upsets (and acting is where the upsets usually occur: Remember Lauren Bacall).  Turns out that, in the last four years since the Screen Actors' Guild Awards were invented, they've become reliable predictors of the best actor and actress Oscars -- four for four, in fact!   So, if I'd just followed my own formula (instead of feeling that Jack Nicholson had won too many times already), I would have done even better.  (I said before SAG that the winner of that award would win the Oscar -- I just thought the race was going to be between Robert Duvall and Peter Fonda.)

Same goes for the supporting actor category, where SAG went with Robin Williams, even though Burt Reynolds had swept all the critics' awards and the Golden Globes.  SAG split on supporting actress, giving their award to both Kim Basinger (never that popular in Hollywood) and Gloria Stuart.  In hindsight, my theory is that Basinger (who was terrific -- but that's never enough) is the year's "comeback" story (recovering from the Boxing Helena debacle and lots of bad performances in bad parts -- like Elizabeth Shue) and also came to represent the stellar L.A. Confidential ensemble (Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Kevin Spacey, James Cromwell) that split the vote and didn't get nominated (although SAG's own unique ensemble cast award went to the Full Monty fellows). 

So, some advice for next year:  As always, remember to substitute the word "most" for "best" in each category, and then pick your winners that way. Odds are that the most obvious and intrusive achievement will win the Oscar, simply because it got voters' attention. Remember, too, as I've noted before, that disease and (especially) Holocaust movies always win in documentary categories (particularly when they're up against African-American ones*). And when it comes to the acting awards, let SAG do the picking!

*Spike Lee was all too right about this one.  Did you notice that when Samuel L. Jackson came onstage to present, the cameras quickly cut to Lou Gossett Jr. and Spike, as if   singling them out as token blacks?  (Hey, there's a black guy on stage -- here are some black guys in the audience.)  What an embarrassing (but revealing) low-moment for the Academy!  And, by the way, was that another Holocaust survivor the orchestra cut off during an acceptance speech this year???

Read more about James Cameron's ego!

Introduction: 

We all know how to watch the Oscars, right?  I mean, when it reaches that point in the evening, you know that the choice for best picture invariably comes down to one of the two screenplay winners -- and, historically, it's usually the adapted screenplay winner.  Except for this year, when "Titanic" didn't get a screenplay nomination, so things could get complicated.  This handicapping form (see key below) gives you all the vital info you'll need to play your hunches (backed up by solid statistical data, of course) and win that office or Oscar party pool.  OK, start your betting!

Notes on the race: 
From the beginning, I felt it was all going to depend on the relative momentum of the nominees.  Almost every year there's one huge blockbuster nominated, but it's usually a token nod to the movie's popularity.  If it's too popular, the Academy is afraid to take it seriously (see E.T. vs. Gandhi in 1982).  But this year, Titanic is being received as an old-fashioned prestige pic -- rather than a blockbuster -- more Gone With the Wind than The Poseidon Adventure (and proof that Hollywood can still make Big Popular Epics, after last year's invasion of the idies).  The Big Question is: Does it have enough steam to overcome the lack of a screenplay nomination? (My hunch: Yep.) Only underdog favorite Good Will Hunting actually has all the accompanying nominations that are traditionally seen as being crucial to winning best picture: director, screenplay, and actor and/or actress. Next are critical fave L.A. Confidential which (director, screenplay and supporting actress, but no actor/actress nom) and feel-good fave As Good As It Gets (which lacks a director nom, but has screenplay and three acting nominations: actor, actress and supporting actor). So, I'm going down with Titanic.

Why the Academy and the critics don't agree with you -- or each other.  And why they shouldn't

Key

Winner marked in blue.

• Necessary Oscar Nominations: Traditionally, a best picture nominee also needs nominations for director, screenplay, and actor or actress in order to win.

• Other awards: In the last few years, the Golden Globes and Los Angeles Film Critics Association winners have been "leading indicators" (as those in the equally precise science of economics say) of the Academy's picks.
  GG -- Golden Globes (yeah, they're a joke, but their choices do sometimes coincide with the Academy's)
  DG -- Directors Guild of America (directors only)
  WG -- Writers Guild of America (screenplays only)
  SA -- Screen Actors Guild (actors only)

PG -- Producers Guild of America (producers only -- but, remember, they're the ones who take home the best picture statuette)
LA -- Los Angeles Film Critics Association
NY -- New York Film Critics Circle
NS -- National Society of Film Critics

• Vegas odds:  Poor Lenny DelGenio. The guy's been picking Oscar odds for 17 years (last year he was with Bally's; this year it's the New Frontier Hotel and Casino), but he only does 'em once -- the day the nominations are announced -- and then brags about being right (in the major categories only) a less-than-impressive 60 percent of the time!  Nevertheless, for what it's worth...
• Bacon factor:  Computed with the invaluable assistance of the Oracle of Bacon at Virginia, the "Bacon factor" has never been shown to have statistical significance in choosing the Oscars.  Nevertheless, I knew you'd want to know.  This number indicates how many steps removed from Kevin Bacon a particular actor may be.  A Bacon factor of "1" means the person has actually worked with Kevin himself.  A Bacon factor of "2" means the person has worked with someone who has worked with Kyra's hubby.  And so on -- but these days (especially thanks to "Sleepers," which had everybody in it) you'd have to get really obscure to find anyone with a Bacon factor of more than 2.
• Other factors:  These are just some of the other things that have been shown (or at least theorized) to affect the Academy's decisions. (For example: historical epics tend to win; comedies don't.)
  FC -- this indicates the results of Film Comment's annual "Oscar Predix" poll of 11 esteemed movie experts.  I've indicated here with a number (say, 10/11) only the predictions that are clear favorites or split decisions.  For the full breakdown, including who voted for what, you'll have to check out Film Comment, or its website at the Film Society of Lincoln Center.   FC's  "dream team" (and remember, these are predictions, not preferences) is: David Ansen (Newsweek), Sheila Benson (Microsoft Cinemania), Manohla Dargis (L.A. Weekly), John Hartl (Seattle Times), Dave Kehr (New York Daily News), Todd McCarthy (Variety), Andrew Sarris (New York Observer), Richard Schickel (Time), Gavin Smith (Film Comment), Anne Thompson (Premiere), Kenneth Turan (Los Angeles Times).