And the Oscar Goes To... Tom Hanks

"Big", "Forrest Gump", "Philadelphia", "Saving Private Ryan", "Cast Away", "Road to Perdition". Wow! What a lineup. And I bet I've missed out about twenty other equally fantastic movies. Sure there has been the odd bad one ("You've Got Mail" comes to mind) but the rest of them more than make up for Tom Hanks' few digressions from a career that's otherwise solid twenty-four carat gold.

It's not just the depth he brings to each character. It's not just the incredible attention to detail. It's the sheer diversity of the roles that he's taken on. And taken on like no other actor that comes to mind. People talk about Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and the like, but they all fit into a particular niche which they made theirs for the majority of their work. That's not to say Al and Bobby and Dusty are bad actors. Nor are they single-role hams like Russell Crowe. God no! They're among the finest that Hollywood's produced. But Tommy's consistent diversity gives him that little bit extra and nudges him a level higher.

I would absolutely kill to see him and Meryl Streep do a movie together (have they already?). I think that would be the most formidable acting combination in the history of Hollywood. Meryl Streep. There's another absolute gem. I have to admit I haven't seen too many of her movies, but if "Sophie's Choice", "Death Becomes Her" and "The Hours" are anything to go by, she's easily on par with Hanks. I still can't believe they gave Nicole Kidman the Best Actress Oscar for "The Hours" and passed over Streep for Best Supporting Actress. All Kidman did for that movie was put on a prosthetic nose and look uniformly intense. She's an excellent actress, but not in the class of Streep and definitely not in that particular movie.

Let's see... who else comes to mind. Of course! Johnny Depp! From "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" to "Pirates of the Caribbean" taking in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?", "Chocolat", "Don Juan de Marco" and "Blow" along the way, Johnny's another guy that makes acting the great art form that it is (or at least should be, in its purest form). Should he win Best Actor come Sunday like a number of people seems to think he will? That I don't know. Given the people he's up against, I would go for Bill Murray (Sean Penn comes in at number two for "Mystic River"). It's hard enough getting a character across to a depressingly retarded audience. To be understated while doing it, like Murray was in "Lost in Translation", so that the audience doesn't even notice, is class.

So how much is direction a factor? Huge! For the best actors it really doesn't matter, but for the average above-average actor, a good director can make the difference between a passable performance and a great performance. Bill Murray I think is a good example of that. So is Nicole Kidman.

It's quite strange how this is being written the night before the Oscars. Completely unintentional and again serendipitous. I actually started this as a rave about Tom Hanks while watching "Forrest Gump" for oh, I don't know, the tenth time. But for what it's worth, here are my picks for tomorrow. I must throw in a couple of caveats here. One, these are the people who, in my blinkered opinion, should win, but the omnipotent Academy may not agree. And two, these are my picks from the movies that I've personally seen. There may be others that are more deserving, both among and outside the five nominations in each category.

Best Supporting Actor: Benicio Del Toro ("21 Grams")
Best Supporting Actress: Having seen only two of the five nominated roles (shame on me), I'll pass on this one, but I will say that if they could give Russell Crowe an Oscar for "Gladiator" when he really should have got one for "The Insider" then Renée Zellweger deserves one for "Cold Mountain" for being passed up in "Chicago".
Best Actor: Bill Murray ("Lost in Translation")
Best Actress: Charlize Theron ("Monster"). Naomi Watts' incredibly powerful yet subtle role in "21 Grams" ran her a really close race, but you've got to give credit to Theron's dedication.
Best Picture: Hmm... For the body of work, I'll go with "The Lord of the Rings".

I'm leaving out Best Director because I don't think I'm qualified to comment on it.

But if you want to read an opinion that I actually agree with completely, check out: And the Winner Should Be.... Not only does the author pick who ought to win, but also explains, tongue-in-cheek, who will actually hold the statuettes come Oscar night. (MSN does have some very well-written articles from time to time. Who knew?!)

There will, I feel sure, be many more such posts on movies and the like. Apparently I missed my true calling in life and should have been a movie critic. Well, maybe. I guess you could call me the antithesis of Ebert & Roeper. If they ever give any movie "two thumbs way up", I think it would be safe to say that the movie in question would get a "two thumbs way up... your ass" from me. And just by the way, I think they should trademark that phrase (the former, not the latter - that one's all mine), they use it so lavishly and in such a criminally indiscriminate manner.