There is a definite consensus in most major categories: Christie for actress (though there is some arguable support for Cotillard and Page); "No Country" for picture, director, adapted screenplay and best supporting actor Javier Bardem;Diablo Cody for original screenplay; And, in perhaps the biggest lock since, well, Helen Mirren for "The Queen", Daniel-Day Lewis for best actor in "There Will Be Blood." There are the occasional strays from these choices (though I'm very confident arguers for George Clooney or Hal Holbrook will find one's foot in ones mouth on Sunday night), but for the most part, things seem clear.

However, Oscar pundits and analysts from online, print and otherwise all seem unusually flustered regarding one category: best supporting actress. Entertainment Weekly says Tilda Swinton; the Gurus call Cate Blanchett, Sasha Stone says Ruby Dee. This debacle is furthered by the BAFTA, Globe and SAG splitting in the same aforementioned order. Add to that the overwhelming critical support for "Gone Baby Gone"'s Amy Ryan and this acting race is probably the most contested in at least a decade. One thing working in Ryan and Dee's favor is that it is essentially up to them to represent an American, as Day-Lewis, Bardem and Christie (as well as Christie's two main competitors) were all born outside the country. Personally, I'm pegging Swinton (for a variety of reasons including the Academy's obvious love for "Clayton" and a need to reward it somewhere) and the first all-foreigner winning actor's quartet since 1964's Rex Harrison, Julie Andrews, Peter Ustinov and Lila Kedrova. But many argue the award is Blanchett's to lose (which would still keep with the all-foreign theme), resulting in something that I'd never would have thought to happen: An almost-perfect correlation in acting winners between indieWIRE's critic's poll and the Oscars.