Yes! It's that time of year! We all get to put on our analysts hats and try to see who will win what at the Oscars. This is a game I've been playing on my blog ever since it started. Here's how it works. For the following categories, see if you can predict the winner. Simple. You get a point for every right answer, 2 points for best actor/actress/director, and 3 points for best picture. Put your predictions in the comments and we'll see who wins. Let the guessing begin!

My choices are in italics.

Best Supporting Actor:

• Matt Damon in "Invictus" 
• Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger" 
• Christopher Plummer in "The Last Station"
• Stanley Tucci in "The Lovely Bones" 
• Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds" 

Best Supporting Actress:

• Penélope Cruz in "Nine"
• Vera Farmiga in "Up in the Air"
• Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Crazy Heart"
• Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air" 
• Mo'Nique in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Adapted Screenplay: 

• "District 9"
• "An Education"
• "In the Loop"
• "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• "Up in the Air"

Best Original Screenplay: 

• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "The Messenger"
• "A Serious Man"
• "Up"

Best Animated Film:

• "Coraline"
• "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
• "The Princess and the Frog"
• "The Secret of Kells"
• "Up"

Best Actor:

• Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart"
• George Clooney in "Up in the Air"
• Coin Firth in "A Single Man"
• Morgan Freeman in "Invictus"
• Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker"

Best Actress:

• Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side"
• Helen Mirren in "The Last Station"
• Carey Mulligan in "An Education"
• Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• Meryl Streep in "Julie & Julia"

Best Director:

• James Cameron- "Avatar"
• Kathryn Bigelow- "The Hurt Locker"
• Quentin Tarantino- "Inglourious Basterds"
• Lee Daniels- "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• Jason Reitman- "Up in the Air"

Best Picture:

• "Avatar"
• "The Blind Side"
• "District 9"
• "An Education"
• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• "A Serious Man"
• "Up"
• "Up in the Air"  

James Cameron's "Avatar" has been making all kinds of money over the last couple of weeks. There has to be some quality behind all the buzz right? I mean, Cameron has been thinking about this movie for over 20 years, it has to have some depth; it should bring something huge to the table. So the real question is, is "Avatar" the Blue Man Group of cinema or is it just a case of cinematic blue balls?

When talking about this movie, it is impossible to not mention how pretty it actually is. For real, it is one of the most stunning pieces of cinematic art I have ever seen. What makes it so impressive is Cameron's use of 3D. Before this movie, I always found 3D to be very gimmicky and just about watching things feel like they are flying at my face. Cameron does something unique with 3D that no one has ever done before, he treats it like art. Instead of seeing in what ways 3D could be used to startle the audience, 3D for Cameron has depth, control, and subtlety. It's like all of the wonderful things about good cinematography are not being approached on a 3-dimensional level. It takes a new way of approaching cinema to understand how truly challenging this is.

One of the most impressive things about "Avatar" is how well thought out the world of Pandora is. My first interaction with "Avatar" was in the December edition of Wired magazine. In this issue, the feature article on "Avatar" described Cameron's journey to create this world. Everything is thought out completely. For example, he worked with a linguistic to develop not only an alien language, but a language with syntax and grammar. The language was so thought out that the linguist had to be on set to correct the actors when they mispronounced words, even though the language was not real. Cameron even worked with botanists to describe biologically how every plant on Pandora worked. To say that the world of Pandora is well thought out is the understatement of the year. That's what happens when you think about an idea for 20+ years.

Visuals and special effects are great, but what about the story? Surely a movie that has been this deep in thought has a plot that would blow us all away. The way that I've described it to friends is that "Avatar" is what would have have happened if Michael Bay made "Pocahontas." Michael Bay because there are all kinds of unnecessary explosions (but they sure look pretty) and "Pocahontas" because I seriously thought they were going to start singing "Colors of the Wind." But for real, the plot is pretty typical for the colonization genre (if that genre exists, think "Dances with Wolves") and not too surprising. The plot's not bad... but it's not good either.

But the reason this movie will be remembered is because of the implications of what it means to filmmakers. Filmmakers are going to have to start thinking about what exactly 3D means to their films and how it can even be incorporated into the story. It also means that the sky is the limit when it comes to the imagination. "Avatar" has shown us that computer technology is capable of creating anything that we can think of our in our minds.

"Avatar" is definitely worth a see, but not because of how the story will move you, but because of how much awe you will be in when watching this film. Plus, if you can see it in IMAX, you should just pay the couple of extra bucks. In order to appreciate what you are watching, the giant screen helps. 4 out of 5.