CROUCHING CRITICS, HIDDEN AGENDAS OUR BOYS DEFIANTLY FLING THEIR AWARDS CHOICES IN THE ACADEMY'S FACE.

Byline: Bob Strauss and Glenn Whipp Film Critics

Some say it's a wide-open, unpredictable Oscar year right down to the wire. Others think that most of the top winners are foregone conclusions. As usual, Daily News film critics Bob Strauss and Glenn Whipp found a lot more than that to disagree about ... and, not so typically, a good number of shared hopes for the big night.

STRAUSS: I don't know about you, Glenn, but I'm looking forward to a real best-picture horse race this year. ``Gladiator'' seems to be holding onto its front-runner status by the slimmest of hairs. ``Crouching Tiger's'' supporters are adamant, ``Traffic'' appears to be surging and ``Erin Brockovich'' certainly has its partisans. And you can never underestimate the academy's shrinking but fervent brain-dead caucus, so even ``Chocolat'' could have a shot.

WHIPP: C'mon Bob. ``Chocolat'' is an uplifting film about tolerance, community and ... um ... the power of really good candy to change ... um ...

OK, I'm just as cynical as you are about the merits of that piece of fluff.

``Gladiator'' still seems likely to win, although I find it odd that it came up empty in the guild awards. No movie has ever won best picture without winning at least something from the writers, directors or actors guilds. Of course, there's always a first time.

The biggest challenge to ``Gladiator'' comes from ``Crouching Tiger,'' the one film that people really seem to love in this category. But I think it will have to be content with a win for foreign language film - that and the unexpected riches it has earned at the box office.

STRAUSS: Much as we'd both love to see ``Crouching Tiger'' win, I've been leaning toward a ``Traffic'' upset in recent weeks. How can an organization of such overweening pretension as the academy not go for a movie that's actually having an impact on the real world?

Anyway, I think the voters are particularly sensitive to media criticism this year, and ``Gladiator'' is the only other nominee besides ``Chocolat'' that's been generally derided by the press ... not counting you. So now's the time to bring it on, dude: Why do you think this over-elaborate, repetitive and simplistic revenge movie deserves best picture?

WHIPP: Maybe because it's so much fun. And last time I checked, fun counted for something, Bob. But then again, the academy has made stodginess a virtue over the years, so perhaps we should throw out ``Gladiator'' and give the Oscar to the over-hyped ``Traffic,'' which plays as little more than a nicely shot, lengthened episode from some Steven Bochco cop series.

But getting back to your question ... here's why I won't be disappointed when ``Gladiator'' wins: The film dared to be a big, bold Hollywood spectacle and gloriously succeeded in every manner possible. No, it's not groundbreaking. But, outside of ``Crouching Tiger,'' you won't find a more rousing piece of entertainment. And, hey, if ``Braveheart'' and ``Ben-Hur'' can be best picture, why not ``Gladiator''?

And to take it a step further, if ``Gladiator'' can win best picture, then the actor who personified its command and wounded heart would certainly be a worthy choice for best actor. Unlike a lot of other nominees from past epics, Russell Crowe can actually act. He holds your attention like Brando did in his heyday.

STRAUSS: Well, he may have come close to doing that last time around, in ``The Insider.'' This one, in every sense, was more Charlton Heston. But Crowe did lose weight for ``Gladiator,'' which seems to be the main criterion for the best actor prize this year. The smart money has this race a squeaker between him and ``Cast Away'' Tom Hanks, which makes it less exciting than the best picture cliffhanger because it discounts two performances that are, forgive the pun, much more fully fleshed out: Javier Bardem's in ``Before Night Falls'' and Ed Harris' as ``Pollock.''

WHIPP: But at least it's a race. If Julia Roberts somehow lost the best actress prize, I think most people in Hollywood would see it as a sign of the apocalypse and go the sackcloth-and-ashes route.

And that's strange, not because Roberts has been coronated as the favorite. After all, ``Erin Brockovich'' seems to have been made just so she could win an Oscar. Albert Finney even defers to her Julia-ness. It's strange because there are actually other praiseworthy performances in the category, performances that have been completely eclipsed by Roberts' star power and, yes, cleavage.

STRAUSS: I've always said that that movie boasted two outstanding performances, and that Julia and Albert acted pretty well in it, too. But except for Laura Linney (``You Can Count on Me'') and Ellen Burstyn's ``Grandmother of Frankenstein'' stylists, I can't honestly say that Roberts will beat a lot of worthier competition.

I know what you mean about Finney, though; he basically played Erin's straight man. The main reason why he's being touted as serious supporting actor competition for ``Traffic's'' Benicio Del Toro has to do with the academy's soft spot for old, overlooked Brits. WHIPP: Which, I guess, in part explains Judi Dench. I give a little more credit to Burstyn, who gave us such a fearless, heartrending performance in ``Requiem for a Dream.'' Unfortunately, I don't think enough people had the stomach to sit through that film.

And to win one of these things, you need to be a good actor, a great campaigner and somehow convince people to watch your movie. That's why Finney is ahead of, say, Willem Dafoe, who was so good and so much fun in ``Shadow of the Vampire.'' Not enough people saw Dafoe's movie, which is surprising, considering it was all about the vanity of acting.

STRAUSS: Yeah, but actors who are in the academy seem as susceptible as its other branch members to pattern voting, as opposed to selecting on artistic merit. Which is why Kate Hudson is probably going to win supporting actress for ``Almost Famous,'' even though her co-star, Frances McDormand, gave the film's best performance. Kate is Goldie Hawn's daughter, just like recent winners Mira Sorvino and Angelina Jolie were children of Hollywood actors.

WHIPP: So, who's next? Jake Busey? Or to take the nepotism a step further ... Tori Spelling? I've got nothing against cute little Kate, but there were at least five better performances in the film, including fellow nominee McDormand. (For the record, in descending order of preference: Billy Crudup, McDormand, Patrick Fugit, Jason Lee and Philip Seymour Hoffman.)

And, yes, I digress. Hudson will likely win supporting actress and Del Toro will take supporting actor, seemingly because he spoke Spanish and played the one character in the film who wasn't a cliche.

STRAUSS: Character shortcomings like that can't be blamed on the actors as much as on the writers, though. Which brings us to the two screenplay categories, in which there is one perfect specimen out of 10: Kenneth Lonergan's beautifully observed and always original, well, original for ``You Can Count on Me.'' Which looks to be the winner, too, though Cameron Crowe's ``Almost Famous,'' having generated the many fine performances you just enumerated, could slip in.

As for adapted screenplay, Stephen Gaghan's ``Traffic'' looks like a lock. The one I enjoyed most, though, was the Coen brothers' witty and audacious ``O Brother, Where Art Thou'' - based on Homer's ``Odyssey,'' which the boys say they've never read. That alone makes this my absolute favorite Oscar nomination of the year.

WHIPP: It's certainly the funniest. But given how much we've both gushed about ``Crouching Tiger'' over the past few months, I'd have figured you would be partial to one of its many nominations. Its director, Ang Lee, would seem to be a lock, given that he won the highly predictive DGA award. Steven Soderbergh might have made two good movies this year, but he didn't make one great one. Lee did. And he not only made a great one; he made one for the ages.

STRAUSS: No arguments there. ``Crouching Tiger'' also looked better and moved more gracefully than ``Gladiator,'' boasted characters I found more compelling than those in ``Traffic,'' made socio-feminist points as strongly as ``Brockovich'' and evoked the meaningfully mythic resonance ``Chocolat'' claims but never comes close to achieving.

Realistically, it and ``Gladiator'' should win close to the same overall number of Oscars. But if you ask me, ``Crouching Tiger'' deserves most of them.

WHIPP: Agreed. Whether or not the academy goes along with us will give this year's Oscar ceremony enough moments of suspense to get us through that four-hour ceremony.

Plus, I want to see who wins that HDTV.

CAPTION(S):

6 photos, box

Photo: (1 -- 2) All the Oscars talk for best picture seems to come down to a two-movie race: the sturdy, epic drama of ``Gladiator'' (with Russell Crowe, above) and the magical action of ``Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'' (with Zhang Ziyi, right).

(3 -- 4) In the category of best supporting actress, the two seeming front runners - Kate Hudson, left, and Frances McDormand - appeared in the same move: Cameron Crowe's ``Almost Famous.''

(5 -- 6) Two favorites for best supporting actor are Willem Dafoe, left, who scored and eerie performance in ``Shadow of the Vampire,'' and Benicio del Toro, whose dramatic portrayal in ``Traffic'' won him the SAG Award ... for best actor.

Box: Bob, Glenn - and Oscar

Our film critics Bob Strauss and Glenn Whipp offer their choices and their predictions for all the categories for thes year's Academy Awards.