Lets face it, any organization that would pronounce The Sound of Music the Best Picture of the year has got a few ticks in its system.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has never been notorious for recognizing films and people that actually deserve awards. Instead, the Academy, like any other corporation, is reliant upon politics - you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

With this in mind it's clear that many of the awards that will be given out tomorrow night should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's sad when the people making aesthetic judgements on an art form consider the political implications of their choices and not the merits of the medium.

This is not to say that every recipient of an award is unworthy of such recognition, but the Academy really doesn't consider the hundreds of low budget or off-the-wall films that attract a great deal of critical attention. They instead look at the mainstream Hollywood films that surface at everyone's local theater.

This year's nominees are no different than any other year.

-- The nominees for Best Picture are: The Accidental Tourist, Dangerous Liaisons, Mississippi Burning, Rain Man and Working Girl.

The only one that really doesn't fit is Mississippi Burning. While it's a pretty good murder mystery, it does not have as many things going for it as the others, and is certainly not one of the best films of the year.

The Accidental Tourist is a well-done adaptation of Anne Tyler's novel, with strong performances by Geena Davis and William Hurt, and some interesting insight into human nature and its resistance to changes in life. But it won't win.

Working Girl is a fun, entertaining film that says a great deal about women in the contemporary working world. But it won't win.

My personal choice is Dangerous Liaisons. The film has an excellent story, with plot twists around every corner, interesting and funny dialogue, superb performances, and excellent direction. But it won't win.

The award will undoubtedly go to Rain Man, as it has won the hearts of millions of Americans. It's a good film for the Academy to pick since it is basically inoffensive, earnestly heartwarming and well-directed.

-- In the Best Actress category, the Academy and I might actually agree on Glenn Close for her brilliant performance in Dangerous Liaisons.

She's up against veteran Oscar-winner Meryl Streep (for A Cry in the Dark) who has enough awards for three actresses, Jodie Foster (for The Accused) who should prove herself in more roles before given such wide-ranging recognition, Melanie Griffith (for Working Girl) who was very good but is also young and Sigourney Weaver (for Gorillas in the Mist) who has no recognizable talents.

Hopefully, Glenn will walk off with the statuette.

-- In the Best Actor category, the polls are leaning toward Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. There's the outside chance that Edward James Olmos will win for Stand and Deliver. He came from Miami Vice, and will probably not make any more decent films, so the Academy might give him the sympathy vote.

The men in the middle are Tom Hanks (for Big), Gene Hackman (for Mississippi Burning) and Max von Sydow (for Pelle the Conqueror).

Personally I don't care. I haven't seen Pelle or Stand and Deliver so it's unfair to judge them, but none of the other performances made me stand up and cheer.

-- In the Best Supporting Actress category, there are a couple of ways for the Academy to go. It could be Sigourney Weaver (for Working Girl) with the sympathy vote if she doesn't get an award for the primate picture. But it could be Geena Davis (for The Accidental Tourist) because she was slighted by not being in the Best Actress category.

Michelle Pfeiffer (for Dangerous Liaisons), Joan Cusak (for Working Girl) and Frances McDormand (for Mississippi Burning) are caught in the middle, wandering aimlessly in hopes of the outside chance of an award.

Frances who? The nomination itself is questionable, let alone the possibility of her winning.

Pfeiffer was not given much of a character. Better luck next time.

Cusak was very funny in Working Girl, but there was not enough depth to the character.

I hope Geena gets it. She was excellent in Tourist and definitely deserves the award.

-- As for Best Supporting Actor, I have absolutely nothing to say because I've only seen one, Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, and don't feel inspired to say many good things about him.

Other nominees include Space 1999 star Martin Landau for Tucker: The Man and his Dream. The movie looks incredibly boring, and director Francis Ford Coppola hasn't exactly been churning out American classics lately.

Alec Guiness was nominated for Little Dorrit. He's old, he might get the sympathy vote.

Dean Stockwell is up for Married to the Mob.

And who could forget River Phoenix in Running on Empty? The boy is barely past puberty. His nomination is probably more of an attempt to encourage him. Give him a quick pat on the back and tell him to cut his hair.

-- The nominees for Best Director make an interesting bunch of contradictions.

To put Charles Crichton (for A Fish Called Wanda) on the same list as Martin Scorsese (for The Last Temptation of Christ) is ludicrous. While Temptation isn't Scorsese's best film to date, it certainly beats the pants off Wanda.

Alan Parker's nomination is also unfounded. Mississippi Burning is simply not an outstanding movie.

The other nominations are understandable. Barry Levinson did a good job with Rain Man and might be amply rewarded, and Mike Nichols also proved a great deal of talent in Working Girl (but his would be more of an outside victory).

It would be nice to see Scorsese win for all of the incredible films he has made in the past (Taxi Driver, The Color of Money and Raging Bull to name a few), but the nomination is enough of a shock - forget the chance of his winning.

The Academy will probably go with Levinson, letting Rain Man sweep the awards.

There probably won't be too many upsets in this year's awards, but the real reason to watch the ceremony is to find out what Cher will (or will not) be wearing.