IT'S SHOW TIME... AND THE ONLY THING CERTAIN IS UNCERTAINTY.

Byline: Bob Strauss Daily News Film Writer

Mediocre movie years sure make for interesting Oscar seasons.

Two days ago, few would have predicted that "Braveheart" would pull into the lead for the 68th Annual Academy Awards race with 10 nominations, ahead of such supposed front-runners as "Sense and Sensibility" and critics' darling "Leaving Las Vegas," the latter of which didn't even make the Best Picture cut when nominations were announced Tuesday morning.

Also surging stronger than expected were "Apollo 13," awardless until now but second in Oscar nominations with nine; talking pig movie "Babe," which parlayed latecoming critics' prizes and the Golden Globe Award for Best Comedy into seven academy nominations; and the heavily promoted, Italian-language charmer "The Postman," which is the only feature to include, among its five nominations, a Best Picture, Director and Lead Actor designation.

All these at the expense of what might have been considered more traditional, problem-picture Oscar fodder, such as "Vegas," "Nixon" and "Dead Man Walking" (all of which did poorly, mostly by comparison, with four nominations apiece).

Although Tuesday's academy choices were the least predictable in recent memory, they were also, paradoxically, the safest in years. Four of the top five nomination-getters - "Apollo," "Babe," "Sense" and "Postman" - which are all Best Picture nominees as well, are easy-to-take entertainments, carefully designed not to offend any conceivable taste.

As for "Braveheart," its bloodiness is mitigated by a triumphal, heroic tone. And the only controversy it has stirred up is in Britain, where a couple of breakaway Scottish politicians tried to use it as a rallying cry. As far as Americans (and the academy) are concerned, it's mostly rousing, underdog-makes-good entertainment.

That said, "Braveheart" director Mel Gibson never shied away from the uglier aspects of medieval life, and that certainly makes his film the toughest-minded of the leading contenders. Still, "Braveheart" doesn't take nearly the risks that recent Oscar contenders "Pulp Fiction," "The Piano," "Unforgiven" and even "Silence of the Lambs" dared.

On the other hand, while this year's nominations represent a real backlash against films with disturbing content, they don't fully embrace the genteel and undemanding, either.

Of course, it could just be academy schizophrenia, but it seems significant that neither Oscar's favorite working actor, Tom Hanks, nor widely liked director Ron Howard were nominated for "Apollo 13." Ditto Ang Lee, whose directorial, um, sensibility surely was a big factor in "Sense's" pleasing success.

Conversely, even though their pictures got skunked, "Vegas' " Mike Figgis and "Dead Man's" Tim Robbins received Best Director nominations. And they both steered two lead actors each (Nicolas Cage and Elisabeth Shue in "Vegas' " case, Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon in "Dead Man's") to nominations. Even troublemaking Oliver Stone directed two nominated performances, Anthony Hopkins for Best Actor and Joan Allen for Supporting Actress, in the widely debated and little-seen "Nixon."

At least all of those performances were pretty Oscar-worthy. The real academy schizophrenia emerges when you start questioning why some work was nominated this year while at least equally deserving efforts were not.

It doesn't seem quite logical that Sharon Stone's Golden Globe-winning "Casino" bad girl is any more of a career achievement than Nicole Kidman's Golden Globe-winning "To Die For" bad girl. Nor does it appear right that old favorite John Travolta's charismatic comeback turn in "Get Shorty" should be forgotten while old favorite Richard Dreyfuss' charismatic comeback turn in "Mr. Holland's Opus" is remembered.

And did the small army of writers that fundamentally transformed the novel on which "The Postman" was based really do a better job of bringing out the best in the book than adapter Richard LaGravenese did with "The Bridges of Madison County"?

With these and other examples, promotion probably made all the difference. When they learned that "The Postman" did not qualify for the Foreign Language Film Oscar under the academy's arcane rules for that category, the campaign-savvy folks at Miramax Films launched a $1.5 million blitz to convince members to vote for the film in all the other competitive races - for which, obviously, it did qualify for.

Meanwhile, no actress has made sure she's had more media visibility since November than Sharon Stone. And even though "Shorty" (like "Bridges," "To Die For" and dozens upon dozens of no-shows) enjoyed substantial Oscar campaigns, Dreyfuss had the added advantage of concurrent saturation advertising - and so, constant name-recognition - for his just-released movie.

In other words, the squeaky-wheel theory greased this year's nominations to a major extent.

This may reflect poorly on the academy's ability to judge cinematic merit. But another aspect of this year's nominations - the fact that so many entries are new to the Oscar race - indicates that the voters recognize Hollywood's desperate need for new ideas and new approaches. All of the directing nominees are first-timers this year; so are all 10 supporting acting and half of the lead acting nominees. The Best Picture category is dominated by work from guys who haven't been there before, either.

Both of these trends are rooted in the fact that, indeed, no flat-out remarkable movies emerged last year. Without a "Schindler's List," "Forrest Gump" or "Dances With Wolves" to safely rally behind, it's no wonder that the Best Picture front-runner has shifted in less than three months between assorted good-but-not-great contenders, from "Apollo" to "Vegas" to "Sense" and now to "Braveheart."

And it could just as easily change again before Oscar night, March 25. Which means we've still got big fun ahead.

It'll be suspenseful. It'll be exciting. It'll be dramatic.

It won't be like the movies of 1995. And whether you agree with the final results or not, you've got to be thankful for that.