Why they'll win -- and why they won't

Nine movies are nominated for the Best Picture prize at this year's Academy Awards. Here's some compelling reasons why each of these films could take home that honor, and some reasons why they won't.

Why "Amour" wins: This foreign drama about an elderly couple has been near the top of the list for a number of prizes, both from critics' groups and those inside the film industry. It's serious and sad and moving, not to mention that it comes from a respected writer-director.

Why it doesn't: While praised for its emotional punch, it's also considered a hard movie to watch for that very reason. Anytime a number of Oscar voters don't want to watch movie, the odds of it winning anything are going to be very long.

Why "Argo" wins: No film this award season has been on a bigger roll. Since the Golden Globes, it's done nothing but win -- including three major guild prizes (the Producers Guild, the Directors Guild and the Screen Actors Guild) that are seen as major indicators of support from those branches of the Academy. And it just picked up the British Academy's Best Film honor last weekend.

Why it doesn't: Nothing -- and I repeat, nothing -- is ever a lock. While it's picked up major guild prizes, it's possible that "Argo" doesn't have the the kind of widespread support throughout all the Academy branches it would need to pull out a win.

Why "Beasts of the Southern Wild" wins: It's the kind of small, heartfelt independent movie that audiences (and even jaded industry vets, like some Oscar voters) treasure, particularly because it seemed to materialize out of nowhere.

Why it doesn't: The nomination is almost always the award for these kinds of movies.

Why "Django Unchained" wins: It's another bold movie by Quentin Tarantino, a writer-director who has a love of cinema that's as wide-ranging as cinema itself, meaning he takes no small chances in his storytelling, especially here in a film about a freed slave wreaking bloody havoc against the plantation owner who is keeping his wife in bondage.

Why it doesn't: It's another polarizing movie by Quentin Tarantino, a writer-director whose love of wide-ranging, chance-taking cinema often means that -- to his detractors -- his stories meander for far too long, his use of racist language (even if it's appropriate to the setting) borders on excessive, and his camera lingers on gruesome imagery to the point of leering.

Why "Les Misérables" wins: It's a big, famous powerhouse of a musical; the bold choice of having the songs sung live instead of dubbing them in post-production gives the film even more of a charge.

Why it doesn't: One of the biggest complaints about the movie is that because the director chose to shoot the film in a bunch of tight close-ups, the movie loses the majesty (and needed distance) of the well-known stage production. Another is that the performances are simply too uneven for Oscar voters to ignore.

Why "Life of Pi" wins: Based on a book that nobody (even the author) thought would be filmable, it succeeds at being a sumptuous visual feast. Director Ang Lee again shows a mastery of presenting great effects on film without sacrificing his characters.

Why it doesn't: I'll say it again, "Life" looks great. But Oscar voters tend to view effects-heavy movies (even the best ones) as technical achievements, and not much more.

Why "Lincoln" wins: A great American filmmaker, with an absolutely sterling cast and screenplay at his disposal, produces a great American story of the 16th president and his struggle to end a war, abolish slavery and restore the Union.

Why it doesn't: Back in December, this would have won pretty handily. But two scant months later, the enthusiasm people had for the film has dissipated. It's been the most nominated film at a number of awards ceremonies, but has only taken home wins for Daniel Day-Lewis (admittedly in one of the all-time great screen performances) and Tommy Lee Jones (who's pretty great here, too). There might still be support for the movie in Academy circles, but it's not the clubhouse favorite by any stretch anymore.

Why "Silver Linings Playbook" wins: It's a smart, humane piece of filmmaking about a tough subject (mental illness), with a number of outstanding, grounded performances.

Why it doesn't: Sure, the performances are great, and the script and direction are sensitive, but the movie -- oddly -- might not be showy enough to convince voters to cast their ballots for it.

Why "Zero Dark Thirty" wins: Truly a movie that reflects our times, this is a sharp, crisp piece of action filmmaking that carries with it the shape and weight of reality.

Why it doesn't: A label -- fairly or unfairly -- was attached to the movie's makers about how they portrayed torture, and from that point on, it's become an uphill climb to convince a significant segment of Oscar voters that the film isn't a pro-torture screed.

After all of these considerations, I've decided to change my never-set-in-stone pick of "Lincoln" for Best Picture to a locked-in vote for "Argo." Although I indicated above that it may not have the broad-based support, I think it's foolish to not put some stock in all those guild wins. Frankly, if any movie but "Argo" wins the award now, I think it'd be fair to call it an upset.