Our commentators pretty much agree that “Brokeback Mountain” will win, but is it a lock?

Ned: The media, the other awards ceremonies, and now the Academy see “Brokeback” as a film with a timely, important message and will award it thus. I loved “Crash” earlier, but saw “Good Night and Good Luck” again and found it even more entertaining, so my choice is a toss-up. The best picture not nominated was “A History of Violence,” though it’s hard to bump any of these noms. I preferred it to all but “Crash.”

Michael: The biggest problem with the Oscars is that at least 75 percent of the decision-making is political. "Brokeback Mountain" will probably win Best Picture because it will make the Academy look daring for embracing a movie about homosexuality. I would've chosen "Munich," because of all the films on this list it says the most important things while still remembering to be entertaining (with "Good Night and Good Luck" hitting a close second). I'm also a little surprised that "The Constant Gardener" isn't nominated, as I thought it was clearly a superior film to "Capote," "Crash," and "Brokeback Mountain."

Alan: I still feel “Crash” was the best film of 2005. It is an important work which deals with its controversial subject matter in a thoughtful way, just like “Brokeback,” and, unlike “Brokeback,” it conveys its message in a lively, entertaining fashion. As for snubbed films, it’s sad to see “King Kong” omitted from the list; it was the best of the big budget, special effects films from this year, among the best of this decade. The other three nominated films are all fantastic films, but can only be spoilers. While Spielberg handles the storytelling aspect of “Munich” flawlessly, questions over the films factual nature and ambiguous attitude toward the Palestinians essentially rule "Munich" out of legitimate contention for any of its nominated categories.

Jordan: With such a weak crop of nominees, frontrunner “Brokeback Mountain” should be the winner. It is an engaging and personal story, simply an example of captivating storytelling. Only “Good Night and Good Luck” from the other four slots is a complete film and the oversights, “Walk the Line” and “Cinderella Man” instead of “Crash” and “Munich” would have been more satisfying despite having little effect on the outcome of the category.

Alex: "Brokeback Mountain" may have peaked too early. “Crash” is gaining steam, and could upset "Brokeback". My favorite of the nominees is "Munich". It is a flawed film, but it reaches very far for human truths, and succeeds in finding quite a few of them. The craftsmanship is impeccable, from cinematography to score to acting. It has barely any chance of winning, with not much box office and mixed reviews.

BEST ACTOR

We’re all in agreement again that Phillip Seymour Hoffman will win for “Capote,” particularly with the Academy’s recent fascination for biopics.

Ned: Hoffman wins this one hands down. Sure, Phoenix and Strathairn also played real people, but Truman Capote was flamboyant and obnoxious and thus, Hoffman’s portrayal of him impressed voters more. My personal choice is not an easy one, but I give it to Ledger by a hair over Strathairn. Each of those performances was thoroughly human, the kind of acting that audiences don’t always appreciate. Best performance not nominated was by Viggo Mortensen (speaking of thoroughly human) in “A History of Violence” with an honorable mention to Steve Carell for his hilariously honest take in ”The 40-Year-Old Virgin.”

Michael: This one is a close call. I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman may finally get a well-deserved Oscar, but although I think his portrayal is spot-on, Truman Capote is just too grating a character to have earned my support. I would give an Oscar to David Strathairn for playing his role in "Good Night and Good Luck" with a restraint and dignity that you just can't fake. Then again, convincingly singing a Johnny Cash song is no easy feat either, so maybe Joaquin Phoenix will surprise everyone with a win for "Walk the Line."

Alan: Of the three celebrity historical biographical performances nominated this year, Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s Truman Capote is the best – complex, intriguing, and conflicted. Otherwise, it is a shame that Oscar nods are limited to single performances, because no one had a year as creatively diverse and professionally significant as Terrance Howard. Between the two, I’d give it to Howard, but will not be surprised or disappointed if/when Hoffman wins. Overlooked: Eric Bana for “Munich” and Bill Murray for “Broken Flowers.”

Jordan: This should be the most narrowly decided award on Oscar night with Philip Seymour Hoffman edging out Joaquin Phoenix and Terrence Howard, the three of them far ahead of Strathairn and Ledger. Hoffman was astounding in his portrayal of Truman Capote, turning this outside the lines, true-life character into somebody relatable and effectual.

Alex: Hoffman is the likely winner, and he is the most deserving of this group. What is most surprising was how much Truman Capote differed from the rest of his roles, but in retrospect, he has been a versatile actor for a while now. Ralph Fiennes was overlooked for his performance in "The Constant Gardener" as a man who slowly wakes up to both the corruption of big pharmaceuticals, and his wife's spark.

BEST ACTRESS

The consistent thread here is that few people saw most of these performances. “Transamerica” and “Mrs. Henderson Presents” saw only limited release in art houses, “North Country” was not well received by critics or audiences, and “Pride and Prejudice,” while well-reviewed, did not last long in theatres. Reese Witherspoon’s performance in “Walk the Line” was seen by so many more people than anything else nominated. Michael says he’d “love to hand a statue to Reese Witherspoon for her work in "Walk the Line". Our other reviewers chime in:

Jordan: Reese Witherspoon should come away from the awards with an Oscar to match the Golden Globe she received for her efforts in “Walk the Line”. As June Carter she has her turn at being comedic or romantic, heartbroken and tired and with this film she has shown herself to be among the best Hollywood has to offer.

Alex: Not a great year for leading actresses. Joan Allen (for "The Upside of Anger") should have taken one of the spots, but alas, her movie was released too early in the year.

Ned: Keira Knightley in “Pride and Prejudice,” can have my vote for a fabulous portrayal. Witherspoon was fine, but not outstanding in “Walk the Line.” Huffman is a possible upset, as the Academy loves to award gender bending. Joan Allen’s work in “The Upside of Anger” was criminally bypassed here and both Toni Collette and Cameron Diaz (yes – Cameron Diaz) were worthy of a nomination for “In Her Shoes.”

Alan: Although Reese Witherspoon’s character didn’t blow me away, I can see her winning. Sometimes this show really is a popularity contest, and with so many other nominations going to relative unknown films and performances, I can see the voters wanting to give the audience someone they (like myself) have actually seen. Snubbage: Claire Danes in “Shopgirl,” my vote for most overlooked film of the year. 

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR 

All of us know that Paul Giamatti’s nomination here has at least something to do with the Academy snubbing him for “Sideways” last year, but we’ve got different takes on how that will play out.

Michael: At first glance, I would say George Clooney for "Syriana," but I have a feeling he may be rewarded in other ways (see Best Director). Paul Giamatti also has a good shot at winning after being unfairly slighted last year. Of course, if there was any justice in the world, William Hurt would win by a landslide for his absolutely wacky and entertaining performance in "A History of Violence."

Ned: I gotta go with my man Paul Giamatti in this category for his thorough and surprising performance. Working for popular director (Ron Howard) helped land this nomination. Gyllenhaal and Clooney have a very good shot, too, but Matt Dillon’s work in “Crash” was the most unexpected of the year, although the overlooked man is castmate Michael Pena for his unheralded performance as a locksmith trying to earn a better life for his little girl. I was not enamored of Hurt’s work in “Violence” It was too obvious in an otherwise gripping film.

Alan: Once again I’ll be pulling for the “Crash” crew; Matt Dillon is terrific as a racist cop, and has the advantage of being the sole representative of a fantastic cast. Paul Giamatti may get some sympathy votes, but it’s been a while since anyone’s seen “Cinderella Man.” This is an unpredictable category in which anyone could win.

Alex: George Clooney and Paul Giamatti are the frontrunners here, with Matt Dillon as a possible upset. I would have liked to seen Gary Oldman here, for "Batman Begins." Instead of his usual unusual character, he presents a normal guy, one of the only cops not corrupt on the force in Gotham. He underplays brilliantly, as he pieces together that Batman is an ally.

Jordan: The Academy has an undeniable and groundless fascination with William Hurt, awarding him for another nomination for his performance in “A History of Violence” where he was overshadowed by Viggo Mortensen and instantly forgettable. Granting George Clooney a nomination for his work in “Syriana” shows that the Academy is as easily pliable as any audience watching trailers for upcoming films. His is an uncontextualized performance of vague highlights and very little humanity. Paul Giamatti was fantastic in “Cinderella Man” as Jim Braddock’s trainer, heartfelt and humorous. His is a talent to covet.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Contributors agree that this one is wide open.

Alan: I’d like to see this go to Catherine Keener as “Capote”s moral compass, author Nelle Harper Lee. If nothing else, how can you not respect “The 40 Year Old Virgin”s hot grandma girlfriend? The academy might also opt for Michelle Williams for “Brokeback” in which she gives the most interesting performance of the picture, or Amy Adams from the little-seen “Junebug.” (Don’t worry- I missed it too.)

Ned: One of the toughest calls to make, but I’ll back Rachel Weisz, who was not only astonishing in “The Constant Gardener,” but who knew? She had only done thrillers and B flicks to date. Amy Adams was wonderful in “Junebug” (which I did see) and could pull an upset. Keener deserves the recognition, but not for “Capote.” She was better in both “The Interpreter” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” Most egregious snub here: Maria Bello, who turned in the most varied and eye-popping supporting performance of the year in, yes, here it is again: “A History of Violence.”
 
Michael: I'm with Rachel Weisz on this one. She's never been in an "Oscar-worthy" movie, but she gives consistently amazing performances. Her work in "The Constant Gardener" is no different. Catherine Keener is another fine actress, but I just didn't think her work in "Capote" deserved to be spot-lit, especially beside such a great Phillip Seymour Hoffman performance. I am with Ned one-hundred-percent on this one though: It's a crime that Maria Bello wasn't nominated for "A History of Violence." It wasn't a showy performance (which might be the reason it wasn't nominated), but it was filled with depth and emotion.

Jordan: This is the weakest of the categories so far, there’s hardly a noteworthy performance among them, most of the actresses here simply served as devices through which to carry the plots of their films forward. Only Amy Adams from “Junebug” stands out from this crowd through the range of her performance and the endearing quality of her character’s naivete.

Alex: This is a much richer category than the leads, with two performances that were the best thing in their respective movies (Amy Adams and Rachel Weisz). Weisz has won all the awards up to the Oscars, so probably will prevail here.

BEST DIRECTOR

Ang Lee wins because his picture wins. Or does he?

Jordan: Ang Lee made a visual and visceral film with “Brokeback Mountain,” he got the world talking seriously about movies and that is no small feat in a year of declining box office receipts.

Alex: In terms of technical achievement, Steven Spielberg is far and above the other nominees. He weaves through the changing times in 1970s Europe, while interspersing a harrowing recreation of the Munich massacre.

Alan: As goes the Best Picture, so goes the Best Director. Ang Lee, you’d better start clearing space on the mantle now.

Michael: While I wouldn't be surprised if Ang Lee won for "Brokeback Mountain," I have a sneaky suspicion George Clooney will win for "Good Night and Good Luck." His direction and use of black-and-white was masterful, and I think the Academy will use this award as a way of rewarding the film as a whole. Steven Spielberg's work on "Munich" was also amazing, but honestly, does the man really need any more Oscars?

Ned: Ang Lee will win this because “Brokeback” will win best picture, but that’s not right. Haggis, Clooney, and the snubbed David Cronenberg (for “A History of Violence”) and Fernando Mereilles (for “The Constant Gardener) all did better work. Clooney could pull an upset in a rare Picture/Director Oscar split. I would not back Bennet Miller as I thought the passivity of all but two of “Capote”s characters was a major flaw.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Quality stuff here, and a category where good films often get their only recognition.
 
Alan: I’m on the “Crash” bandwagon for most of the awards, but this is the category it has the best chance to actually win. Even with celebrity nominee George Clooney in the mix, the sheer complexity of “Crash” makes it the most deserving.

Jordan: “Syriana” is a mess, “Match Point” is hardly profound, and “Crash” isn’t the best Paul Haggis (“Million Dollar Baby”) has to offer. “Good Night and Good Luck” however, is a success in portraying factual events and intellectual conflict in as dynamic and thought provoking a way as possible. “The Squid and the Whale” is justly rewarded with a nomination for the uniqueness of its characters, but as a whole it falls short of the literature of “Good Night and Good Luck”.

Michael: The screenplay categories tend to be my favorites (second only to Best Score, see below). I suspect that "Crash" will win, because that film has to be rewarded somewhere, but it is not the best of the films nominated. Woody Allen's nomination was more of a nod to the fact that people think he's "back," and less of an actual shot at winning. "Syriana" was a garbled mess, and I am honestly surprised that it was nominated, as the script was clearly one of that film's weakest elements. My money is on "The Squid and the Whale," clearly the most original of all the films nominated.

Ned: Here’s where “Crash” gets its award. The writing may have been the best thing about the film, which is saying a lot. Any of the others has a shot, though, except perhaps “Syriana” which confused too many viewers and reviewers.
Alex: “Match Point” makes its only showing here, and while an interesting and dramatic thriller, it was too much of a retread of "Crimes and Misdemeanors" for Woody Allen to get more than this nomination. These are all good nominees, but "Crash" will probably take it as a consolation prize.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

There’s some great writing going on here and we’re hard-pressed to pick a favorite.

Alan: No love for “Shopgirl?” Bad form, academy. Of the choices we have, I’d wager on another nod for “Brokeback,” although this may be where “Capote” gets its due as well. “Munich” was a fantastically engaging film; however, with all the controversy surrounding the factual elements of the story, I just can’t see it winning here.

Jordan: “Brokeback Mountain,” “Capote,” and “A History of Violence” were all entertaining character studies. “Capote” is the stand-out in this category because of the skill with which the screenwriter’s show the utter personal degeneration of Truman Capote himself. Portraying the man as both hero and anti-hero, Dan Futterman’s script is as unflinching as its title character.

Ned: “Brokeback” will win since much has been made of how veteran Larry McMurtry and his partner fleshed out an 11-page short story to a full-length film. That aside, though, all of the other nominees are more riveting and contain just as much depth of character. Forced to pick, I’d go with Josh Olson for “A History of Violence.”

Michael: My opinion of this category all depends on the results of other categories. If "Brokeback Mountain" ends up sweeping the Best Acting, Directing, and Picture categories, then it is a shoe-in for this one as well. If not, then this category is really up for grabs. I'd love to see either "A History of Violence" or "The Constant Gardener" win, as they are both smartly adapted films. But I think "Munich" may get it in the end because it manages to be both deep and fun at the same time (not to mention that I think the Academy would love to let Pulitzer Prize-winner Tony Kushner up onto the stage to thank them).

The remaining categories drew comments from only one or two of our reviewers, but perhaps you, like them, find these things among your favorite aspects of the Oscars!

BEST SCORE

Michael: Ah, here's my bread and butter. As a film score buff and enthusiast, this is the category I always find myself the most excited for. Unfortunately, this year's noms seem to be comprised of some of my least favorite scores of the year. The most deserving of those nominated is probably John Williams' "Munich," but he won’t win because of his multiple wins in the past. The fact that they nominated "Memoirs of a Geisha" (a score I thought was nothing but rambling Eastern twang) underlies how respected and admired John Williams is, but he won’t win for that either. Dario Marianelli is an amazing composer, but his score to "The Brothers Grimm" was much more affecting and haunting than his stiff work on "Pride & Prejudice." I suspect Gustavo Santaolalla will win for "Brokeback Mountain," but I found both that and the score for "The Constant Gardener" pretty inconsequential. If I had to choose a winner, it would be a toss-up between my two favorite scores of the year (neither of which was nominated): Joby Talbot’s absolutely beautiful score to "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," or (and I'm surprised that it wasn't nominated) James Newton Howard’s epic score to "King Kong."
 
Jordan: This is a difficult category to judge, as if the score is doing its job, it will most likely be overlooked at first viewing. John Williams has been twice nominated in this category, though neither time for his best and the year’s best, his score for “Star Wars Episode III.” Filling the void are the scores for “Brokeback Mountain,” “Pride and Prejudice,” and “The Constant Gardener.” John Williams with “Memoirs of a Geisha” is a suitable choice for the Oscar, though it should not be expected to win.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Jordan: There is one category in which viewers can never go wrong. Unfailingly, the five nominees for best foreign language film are enlightening, if not inspiring. Gleaned from the hundreds of films never to cross into the American consciousness, these films have the power to show the world through another pair of eyes. “Tsotsi” and “Paradise Now” will be most powerful in achieving this effect, and “Sophie Scholl – The Final Days” does much to carry history’s message into the future.

BEST DOCUMENTARY

Alex: "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" should win here, but "Grizzly Man" should have been nominated. Werner Herzog's film on the struggle between man and nation brings up all the great themes he has explored in many of his previous films. In Timothy Treadwell, he finally finds a performer who can equal Klaus Kinski.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Alex: "Batman Begins" should win here, besides being an effective thriller, it looks like a film noir set in the present. "Munich" should have been nominated here, the film is extremely grainy and gritty, perfectly incorporating the style of 70s American suspense films.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Alan: Hands down, the nominee I’m rooting for most this year is “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp,” from “Hustle & Flow.” Not only is it actually a really tight rap, but also, wouldn’t you love to hear someone like Elizabeth Taylor or Maggie Smith announce it as the winner? So would I.

Ned: Best Song is always kind of a bubble gum category. Often it’s a coattail thing (like Annie Lennox’s “Lord of the Rings” tune a couple years ago), but the academy also goes out of its way to avoid awarding commercially successful songs. Since none of the nominated tunes were radio hits, I say let’s go with the “Hustle and Flow” number since the songs told so much of that story.

Michael: Oh, who cares? Can we just give it to the "Shaft" Theme again?

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

Ned: The Academy managed to avoid the entries with the most marketing hype and the higher box office. Left to choose between just 3 noms, I’m guessing the Oscars will go with Miyazaki’s “Howl’s Moving Castle,” since it received much critical praise. But then, so did “Wallace & Gromit,” which I’d call the darkhorse here. I liked “Corpse Bride,” but I also liked the non-nominated “Madagascar.”

Alan: I wanted to talk about this one, not because I have a particular opinion on the winner (I’ve seen “Corpse Bride” and it was good, but if a Hayao Miyazaki or Nick Park film wins instead, I’ll not be sad either), but rather to commend the academy for selecting three quality films made using traditional animation techniques, rather than automatically selecting a lesser film like “Robots,” just because it was made with CGI. Bravo, academy – just because a technique is new and popular, doesn’t mean that it’s the only way to do things.