UPDATED (7:41PM):

The official press release:

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN TO DIRECT WARNER BROS. PICTURES’ UPCOMING BATMAN MOVIE, THE DARK KNIGHT CHRISTIAN BALE REPRISES TITLE CHARACTER, HEATH LEDGER JOINS CAST AS THE JOKER

BURBANK, CA, 31 July 2006 – As a follow up to last year’s blockbuster Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan is set to direct Warner Bros. Pictures’ The Dark Knight, written by Jonathan Nolan, based on a story by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. The film will be produced by Emma Thomas, Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan. Additionally, Christian Bale will resume his role as Bruce Wayne and Academy Award nominee Heath Ledger has been cast as The Joker. The announcements were made today by Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros. Pictures.

Christopher Nolan revamped the Batman franchise in 2005 with the immensely successful Batman Begins, starring Christian Bale in the title role, which chronicled the early years of the superhero. Nolan first garnered attention from critics and fans in 2000 with the groundbreaking drama Memento, which he wrote and directed. He went on to direct the thriller Insomnia, starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams, and recently wrapped production on The Prestige, with Hugh Jackman and Bale.

Bale was most recently seen in the ensemble cast of Terrence Malick’s The New World. His other credits include Little Women, Portrait of a Lady, Metroland, American Psycho, Laurel Canyon and Steven Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun, which was his first starring role.

Ledger most recently earned Oscar Golden Globe, BAFTA and SAG Award nominations and won the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor for his portrayal of Ennis Del Mar in the award-winning drama Brokeback Mountain. His other credits include Casanova, Monster’s Ball, Lords of Dogtown, The Brothers Grimm and The Patriot.

“Chris’ unique vision is what made Batman Begins such an outstanding film and we could not imagine anyone else at the helm of The Dark Knight,” said Robinov. “We also can’t wait to see two such formidable actors as Christian and Heath face off with each other as Batman and The Joker.”

“I'm excited to continue the story we started with Batman Begins,” added Nolan. “Our challenge in casting The Joker was to find an actor who is not just extraordinarily talented but fearless. Watching Heath Ledger's interpretation of this iconic character taking on Christian Bale’s Batman is going to be incredible.”

Production is set to begin on The Dark Knight in early 2007.

Nolan and Ledger are represented by CAA.

EARLIER:

Thank God the studio listens to the fans on this franchise.

It's official, the title for the sequel to Christopher Nolan's "Batman Begins" will be "The Dark Knight." I can't tell you how awesome that registers in my mind, as the monicker is something I've been hoping Warer Bros. worked into the title at some point.

The studio is sending around the information to a few sources right now, but the official press release (also "officially" announcing Heath Ledger in the role of The Joker), will hit tomorrow.

This probably would be better served on The Blog, but I do love that character.

The Oscar season 2006 looks to be much more varied and potentially more exciting than the drab affair that was 2005. While the steady stream of socially and politically conscious filmmaking from last year was a creatively exceptional one on a few fronts, it also set the stage for a number of pitfalls for filmmakers struggling to inject purpose and importance into their work. The showdown come Oscar night was fated from the outset, it seemed, and the two most divisive films of the oeuvre came head to head. The result was embraced by some; reviled by others.

And so we begin to dip our toes into a new season. The Toronto and Telluride Film Festivals are on the horizon, where studios begin their Oscar campaigns in earnest, gathering various reactions to their upcoming fall film product and testing the waters of critical reception. But as of this time, only a precious few films have boasted any real potential for Oscar success.

Universal’s “United 93” remains the most critically acclaimed film of the year. Cannes claimed residence amongst the awards season for Paramount Vantage’s “Babel” and, perhaps, Lionsgate’s “Bug.” The June release of Fox’s “The Devil Wears Prada” was met with universal acclaim for another revered Meryl Streep performance. And next week Paramount releases “World Trade Center,” a moment that will largely be seen as the kickoff for the 2006 film awards season.

All of this we know.

What we don’t know is which of the upcoming perceived “Oscar heavies” will inevitably crash and burn in accordance with the legacies left by such films as “Pay it Forward,” “The Shipping News,” “Alexander” and “Kingdom of Heaven.” What we don’t know is which thespian’s career is going to receive a jumpstart as a result of awards success, much like Jamie Foxx in 2004 or Terrence Howard just last year. What we don’t know is how the season will be defined. What will the industry and audiences have learned when the curtain falls on the 79th Annual Academy Awards? What effect will the awards season have on the legion of projects awaiting budgetary consideration, green lights, or otherwise, rejection? What we don’t know is so much more fun.

An Oscar column on the cusp of August is largely intangible, and certainly subjective – much more so than anything that could spring up in the midst of the season. The lack of knowledge is vast, but it also provides the final stage for rampant speculation above all else. For many, that is where the excitement lives. Next month, eyes will finally be set upon awards hopefuls such as New Line’s “Little Children,” Universal’s “The Black Dahlia,” Sony’s “All the King’s Men” and Fox Searchlight’s “The Last King of Scotland.” But right now, Paramount’s “World Trade Center” is out of the bag, Focus’s “Hollywoodland” is continuing its slow roll of screenings…and that’s about all we have to go on. I’m seeing two of the Oscar big guns this week, and those viewings could certainly affect my ponderings herein, but I wanted to give one more somewhat, shall we say, uninformed look at the pool below before taking that fateful dive into the 2006 Oscar insanity.

Now, rather than bore the readership with a lengthy dissertation on rehashed or regurgitated information – information any Goggle search of “Oscar” and “predictions” would surely turn up – I think the best course of action in attacking the dawn of a new season is to take stock of where we are. News is few and far between in an Oscar race, but a few things of relevance are turning up as the year pushes forward, and such intricacies are what I’d like to discuss here today.

A point worthy of addressing right out of the gate is the lack of distributor interest in a number of awards hopefuls. As of this writing, no U.S. distributor has taken a shining to Milos Forman’s “Goya’s Ghosts” and Francis Ford Coppola’s “Youth Without Youth.” Why that is would be a point of speculation to be sure, but one thing is certain. A film lacking a distributor this late in the year is heading for trouble if it hopes to release on domestic soil by the Oscar deadline.

Of course, last year, Tommy Lee Jones’s “The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada” did not pick up U.S. distribution until after Toronto. The reasoning was fairly obvious. The film was arguably a rather poor debut effort from Jones, but it was inarguably a tough sell to general and awards-watching audiences alike. Sony Pictures Classics picked up the film in September, and by the end of the year, a quartet of Independent Spirit Award nominations was the only notable fruit of its labors.

Now, I am not saying that “Goya’s Ghosts” or “Youth Without Youth” are bad films. No one can discern as much quite yet. But I do believe a lack of studio interest this late in the game is enough to consider these films either headed for the 2007 slate, or not broad enough in their appeal to generate Oscar attention of any note. As such, you’ll find in today’s predictions update that both films have been removed from all charts, though they are still on the radar in our contenders archive in various forms.

A few things are beginning to come into focus on various fronts otherwise.

With the exclusion of “Goya’s Ghosts,” which might have presumably been a Warner Bros. pick-up given the history between the studio and Forman and producer Saul Zaentz, Steven Soderbergh’s “The Good German” stands as the studio’s likely lead contender. Under the new regime of former Focus consultant Michelle Robertson, Warner Bros. might be at the dawn of a new age where awards success is concerned, success that has largely alluded the studio for some time.

Meanwhile, Emilio Estevez’s “Bobby” is sliding into the poll position over at The Weinstein Company, a position generally considered chalked up to Anthony Minghella’s “Breaking and Entering” thus far. In fact, the shape of the Weinstein’s Oscar stable is beginning to make a lot more sense, as Stephen Frears’s “The Queen” and Chris Noonan’s “Miss Potter” look to be acting showcases for Oscar familiars Helen Mirren and Renée Zellweger respectively. The sophomore year for the new distributor could prove to be a bit more awarding than 2005.

Over at Sony, the concept of releasing Mike Binder’s 9/11 character study “Reign O’er Me” in December is being tossed around. The studio is staring at a likely divisive Sofia Coppola outing (“Marie Antoinette”) and a Steven Zaillian labor of love that is shaping up to be a miss in many respects (“All the King’s Men”) for their Oscar hopes.

Considerations were being turned to quirky entries like Marc Forster’s “Stranger Than Fiction” and Ryan Murphy’s “Running With Scissors” for Best Picture aspirations, but maybe counter-acting the other, more “expected” 9/11 releases with a story refreshingly anonymous, yet every bit as emotional in context, would indeed be the right move. Though “Memoirs of a Geisha” took a lion’s share of nominations and wins at last year’s ceremony, I’m sure the folks down in Culver City would like to finally grab another Best Picture berth. It has been a long drought since 1997’s “As Good As It Gets” after all.

Lionsgate bumped one of its awards hopefuls, “Trade,” to the 2007 schedule just last week, leaving last year’s Best Picture victor with a scant two Oscar contenders this season. William Friedkin’s “Bug” generated some hoopla for Ashley Judd’s apparently staggering performance when it screened at Cannes, while Griffin Dunne’s “Fierce People” is one of those films people have been talking about for so long they thought it already came and went. So it looks to be a lax year for Tom Ortenberg’s company this time around, and maybe they can make the best of what could be a return to form for Friedkin.

Typically awards-savvy, Focus Features has a similarly thin line-up on their hands under former Weinstein consultant Karen Fried, but the one-two punch of films looks to hold the right amount of potential for garnering a fair share of notices. When “Hollywoodland” drops in a month, much attention will be paid to the performances of Adrien Brody, Diane Lane and especially Ben Affleck. Meanwhile, Phillip Noyce’s apartheid drama “Catch a Fire” seems to be floating on the periphery of awards prognostication, waiting to be unleashed in October as what could be the first major awards success of Noyce’s somewhat uneven career.

Finally, Fox Searchlight really does have a glut of awards product on its hands this year. From films already in release, to a variety of upcoming ventures, the studio could be looking at a sizeable portion of the awards pie, potentially even Best Picture success for Kevin Macdonald’s “The Last King of Scotland” or Nicholas Hytner’s “The History Boys” (dependant upon critical reception and where the studio decides to place most of their monetary support).

The real discussion at the moment seems to be what to make of the performances in “Last King,” as James McAvoy, a certifiable lead in the piece, performs opposite a scenery chewing Forest Whitaker (in the role of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin). It will, again, be largely dependant upon the feedback the studio receives once they start screening the film, but the wise route to take might in fact be looking to Oscar history. In cases such as these, where clear leads are either overshadowed or otherwise held in check by smaller, showier roles (think “Training Day” or even “The Godfather”), the best course of action is to let the scene-stealer take his day in the sun – and a lead Oscar nomination for Forest Whitaker has been a long time in the making.

The rest of it you already know.

Dreamworks’s and Paramount’s “Dreamgirls” and “Flags of Our Fathers” are still considered the MVPs sight-unseen. But my doubts on “Flags of Our Fathers” are beginning to get the better of me – three straight Best Picture nominations?

Universal’s “The Good Shepherd” (which boasts a rather flat screenplay that may or may not be elevated considerably by the work of director Robert De Niro and his crew) is seemingly still awards magnet Universal’s lead horse. However, the promise of Alfonso Cuarón’s cautionary P.D. James adaptation “Children of Men” or the already critically tested and approved “United 93” could easily make cases for runs if the support and faith is there from the studio.

Stories of Robert Downey, Jr.’s finally turning a corner after a rough stretch in his career will (or should be) rampant. Too much attention will be paid to Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed,” expecting him to turn water into wine. Any number of nominations for “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” will be directly attributed by the media at large to the film’s box office success, while the absence of any number of nominations for “Superman Returns” will be attributed to its lack thereof.

But like I said. What we don’t know is so much more fun.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts
Oscar Predictions Archive

Rounding out Pre-Oscar week today is a look at the phenomenon known as the “lone director” in the awards-watching community (and I totally I think I might have coined the term…but I won’t swear to it). This is the slot amongst the Best Director nominees that tends to go to a director whose film is not represented in the Best Picture list of nominees. Typically the slot goes to a filmmaker who either offers up something truly unique (Pedro Almodóvar for “Talk to Her,” Fernando Meirelles for “City of God”) or whose film was seemingly just out of reach of that Best Picture nomination (Stephen Daldry for “Billy Elliot,” Mike Figgis for “Leaving Las Vegas”).

Now, what propably springs to mind here is “Hey, there wasn’t a lone director nominee last year.” That is true. And plenty of effort was put into trying to decipher who that nominee would be, regardless. Every once in a while, the two categories match up five for five. But it isn’t often, not by a long shot. So, it’s an exercise that still boasts some merit.

Any number of things can change one’s perception of an oddity like this, but from here, this is my ranked list of potential “lone director” nominees.

Christopher Nolan hit his 2005 effort, “Batman Begins,” right out of the park, proving that the legacy of Bryan Singer could hold solid – comic book franchises can be tangible and realism can flourish. Nolan found Oscar recognition right out of the gate in the form of a screenplay nomination for 2001’s “Memento,” and this year his genre magician feud “The Prestige” looks to have equal parts charisma and creepiness. It might be a stretch to hope for Best Picture recognition of a film like this, but the directors’ branch is always willing to step outside the box. And surely, there might be some love left over from last year.

Mel Gibson’s latest dead language epic is set up at Disney just like Nolan’s “The Prestige,” but it also has the distinguishing characteristic of a December opening, and, likely, being the studio’s lead horse hopeful. Now, Gibson’s 2004 opus “The Passion of the Christ” found its way to a number of nominations despite a flood of controversy. “Apocalypto” looks to be just as daring in scale if somewhat less divisive in its subject matter. It seems like just the sort of sprawl that can be recognized by the directors if left flapping in the wind where Best Picture is concerned.

Richard Linklater has, yet again, been a busy bee this year. “A Scanner Darkly” is already in theaters, and eyes have already been set upon the upcoming “Fast Food Nation.” Some have compared it to “Traffic” in tone, and while Linklater’s effort as a writer might be the film’s best shot at Oscar recognition, the nature of this tale, the work that has to go into translating Eric Schlosser’s dense work of journalism onto the screen, it takes an assured and guided hand. Perhaps if it lands as a critical triumph this will be an arena Fox Searchlight can secure a notice.

“The Fountain” is a project that really could go either way. I’ve read the script, and it has to be one of the most difficult films to visualize tangibly. The trailer has finally hit, and the project is one that Warner Bros. obviously believes in. “Requiem for a Dream” was well received, especially where Ellen Burstyn’s performance was concerned (a drastically overrated one, in my opinion). Some might relegate “The Fountain” to tech notices or nothing at all, but I feel support from the directors is not out of the question. Even still, it seems like we have to go back to the work of Kubrick to find such genre-bending antics held on high by the Academy at large.

While all the buzz for William Friedkin’s “Bug” seems to fall on performer Ashley Judd, most seem to be missing the notion that a return to form for someone like William Friedkin could be construed as a massive deal to the Academy. After a solid one-two punch in the early 1970s (1971’s “The French Connection” and 1973’s “The Exorcist”), Friedkin slipped far off the “player” radar following the lackluster “Sorcerer.” Word out of Cannes on “Bug” has been quite positive, and in a stable somewhat empty this year, Lionsgate might push for top tier recognition hard on this one.

Francis Ford Coppola has been sadly M.I.A. for nine years. NINE YEARS. It’s not a Terrence Malick drought or anything, and “Jack” aside, I’m sure I’m not alone in saying the guy has been missed. “Youth Without Youth” is an extremely unconventional choice for this multi-lauded Oscar winner to jump back into the fire with, but it might just be challenging enough to do the trick. No distributor is lined up yet, and the likelihood that the film will be bumped to the 2007 slate increases daily, but should the respect come back in droves, a nomination for Best Director would not surprise.

Isn’t that cute? Daddy’s right on her heels. It’s still to be seen what the Academy reaction to Sofia Coppola's “Marie Antoinette” will be, but it seems a bit fated we’ll see a gigantic schism amongst the critical reception. Some might think the comparison here would be “Moulin Rouge!” (a film that, to be fair, missed out on a Best Director nod). That might be solid ground to stand on, given the tonal clash “Marie Antoinette” is said to be. At the end of the day, Sony has a packed schedule. But if there is a solid amount of respect for the film, Coppola could capitalize and become the first woman to grab a second nomination for Best Director.

Zach Helm’s screenplay for “Stranger Than Fiction” is one of the most audacious and creative pieces of writing to come along in some time. No stranger (no pun intended) to the Academy’s praises, Marc Forster has the opportunity to take a lot of credit for this story, one that is a difficult one to realize on screen and register with an audience. After getting snubbed for Best Picture nominee “Finding Neverland” in 2004, this might be the perfect opportunity for an “I’m sorry” from the directors’ branch, but I have a feeling this film will be recognized as unique and beautiful on its own terms, regardless of past slights.

The final two directors on this list are so interchangeable as potential lone director contenders (in my view) that it’s scary. Following the Oscar nominated successes “Amorres Perros” and “21 Grams,” Alejandro González Iñárritu unleashes a true masterwork in “Babel” later in the fall. Some think the film, his most accessible to date, could receive widespread Academy recognition. I’m not so sure about that, and in fact I expect the film to go the route of his 2003 effort with a few minor notices. However, barring a critical split that could become ugly, Best Director is a category Iñárritu could surely own when all is said and done.

“United 93” remains the most critically acclaimed film of the year, and while I have serious doubts about the film’s potential Best Picture success, Paul Greengrass is a filmmaker who showed a hell of a lot of fortitude with this effort. The two 9/11 films entering the marketplace this year (and there might be three at the end of the day) are drastically different but equally emotional in what they leave behind. That might be the final point of analysis, and as I write these words, I suddenly feel remiss in leaving Oliver Stone’s name off the list. Regardless, I think we will see “United 93” make a definite mark during the film awards season, and I expect the Academy to take notice and, against typicality, feel as if they have a responsibility to recognize the film. Greengrass as the “lone director” seems to fit like a glove.

(COMING NEXT WEEK: Updated predictions, full charts in every category, archived lists of acting contenders and the first full Oscar column since March's year-in-advance commentary!)

(I posted this over at The Blog earlier this evening, but I figured it deserved some main page love. I love it when little tid-bits like this pop up.)

So I'm on the phone today with Adrien Brody, interviewing him for that New York Times piece I'm putting together on "Hollywoodland." We've had some delays in connecting - the poor guy has been traveling a lot - and we finally got a block of time on the calendar this afternoon, both of us in traffic in our cars (well - I was parking, to be fair).

"There are many pitfalls in life," Mr. Brody begins, in response to one of my queries. He then trails off and begins to verbally signify that something is vehicularly amiss on the assuredly crowded New York street he was on. Apparently some poor girl on a scooter went unseen by a cab driver pulling out onto the street, and after what must have been an uncomfortable collision, she was left eating the pavement.

"Hang on a second, Kris," Mr. Brody says to me. He then goes to assist in helping the girl and her scooter off the street and give a helpful hand to the entire situation like he was born to do so.

"You there, Kris?"

"Yeah, pal. Everyone okay?"

"Like I was saying...there are many pitfalls in life."

According to the LA Times, Lionsgate's Oscar hopeful "Trade," starring Kevin Kline in what could be a major awards role for the "A Prairie Home Companion" star, has been moved to an April 2007 release date. So cross out that #4 slot I gave to Kline just yesterday in the "Under the Radar" column.

This is a somewhat curious decision if you ask me, considering how terribly thin the studio's output looks to be this year. I guess this gives them some muscle to put behind "Bug" in any case. Regardless, unless it totally screws the pooch, expect "Trade," a gritty drama concerning sex trafficking, to be a major force in next year's awards season.

Boy am I getting bummed at news affecting my columns so quickly this month. So it goes...

Continuing Pre-Oscar Week today, we’ve got a unique look at the acting contenders on the horizon. In most cases across the Oscarnet universe (did I just coin a term?), you’ll find various, typically conclusive analyses of the separate acting categories. However, there are a number of contenders I feel may be falling under the radar of prognosticators and awards season columnists crazy enough to predict the race this far out.

The following is, therefore, a list of contenders that may find the spotlight as the year continues forward. From here, however, they remain performances, seen or otherwise, lacking the coverage they might deserve. So I’m happy to point some attention their way, as these are various acting contenders that I’m surely taking into consideration.

(NOTE: These are listed in order of my subjective take on the lack of attention the performances are receiving halfway through the year.)

The trailer for “A Good Year” finally hit this week, and though it looks light and fluffy, I still think Ridley Scott always makes the best of even the most derivative of material. “Thelma & Louise” and “Matchstick Men” could easily have gone the way of second or third tier work, and they’re both fantastic outings, one of them a certifiable modern classic. So – that was all just buildup for justifying consideration of the love interest in this romantic comedy, opposite Russell Crowe. Marion Cotillard is largely an unknown right now, but a little screen time opposite the rowdy Aussie could make all the difference in the world for her career. And if the film proves to be a heavy-hitting awards contender, it would be quite foolish to disregard her.

The question of whether Clint Eastwood’s “Red Sun, Black Sand” will be released this year is still floating around. Designed as the Japanese perspective Eastwood felt he was missing while filming “Flags of Our Fathers,” the film will be in Japanese with English subtitles. That might immediately keep it at arm’s distance from the Best Picture category, but Oscar nominee Ken Watanabe could have therein the perfect opportunity to be the standout in the film.

The buzz out of Cannes on William Friedkin’s adaptation of Tracy Letts’s “Bug” centered on Ashley Judd, in, most assuredly, an awards-begging role. However, most seem to be forgetting that Judd has a co-lead in Michael Shannon who, freaking out and sinking into paranoia due to the “bugs” he sees everywhere (hence the title), could chew as many curtains as Judd’s junkie. Meanwhile, boasting the perfect opportunity for his own scene stealing is Harry Connick, Jr. as Judd’s obsessive and deranged ex-husband. But this sort of insularity remains a thin line to walk during the awards season, as Richard Linklater’s brilliantly adapted “Tape” showed us a few years back.

Why is no one talking about the imminent comeback of Robert Downey, Jr.? Last year he stirred waves for his performance in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang,” BIG waves in fact out of Cannes (where the waves are admittedly hyperbolic). That film happened to go on to decent critical praise but woefully underrated status on the whole. Downey was also a part of one of the finest ensembles of the year in Best Picture nominee “Good Night, and Good Luck.” But this year he’s forging ahead with FIVE major roles. And that’s, of course, not counting his better-forgotten stint in “The Shaggy Dog.” The indy hit out of Sundance, “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints” and a showy turn in Richard Linklater’s "A Scanner Darkly” can only assist in highlighting his fall efforts in Curtis Hanson’s “Lucky You” and, most especially, David Fincher’s “Zodiac” and Steve Shainberg’s “Fur.” All of that traction and something HAS to stick. Right?

A lot of people are talking about Salma Hayek’s bat-shit insane killer opposite Jared Leto in “Lonely Hearts.” If the film ever finds distribution, she’ll certainly have a fair shake from the awards-watching community. However, while I haven’t seen “Lonely Hearts,” I have read the script, and James Gandolfini has a nice role as the detective opposite on-screen partner John Travolta (another great role). The story is told from the perspective of Gandolfini’s character, and it’s the sort of thing that, given the right attention by a studio Oscar campaign, could load up on awards consideration. Gandolfini also has what has been considered a rather showy turn in “All the King’s Men,” and then of course, there’s the whole “Sopranos” brouhaha. The guy is going to be nominated for something…someday. But not enough people are looking at the potential of this role and performance.

Christian Bale received the best reviews yet of an actor in the superhero genre last year for Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins.” This year he teams up with Nolan once more, and again, takes on a slightly psychotic character, in “The Prestige.” Bale seems to specialize in these introverted nuts-o characters, and if the trailer for this film is any indication, he’s got a stage set for the taking. Brilliant turn after brilliant turn has come out of this actor, from “Empire of the Sun” to “American Psycho” to “The Machinist.” The Academy will surely take notice someday, and while many are looking at Hugh Jackman (largely due to four prominent roles this year) and Michael Caine (double-dipping himself with this and “Children of Men”), the possibility is certainly there that Bale could garner intense critical praise two years in a row.

Kevin Kline won an Oscar nearly 20 years ago for “A Fish Called Wanda,” one of the coolest decisions the Academy has ever made. This year he put forth a cute and at times hilarious performance as an on-set security guard/self-fashioned noir-ish private eye in Robert Altman’s “A Prairie Home Companion.” Many keep that performance high on their radar for supporting actor hopefuls this season, but most seem to miss this little indy role coming down the line, in Marco Kreuzpaintner’s “Trade,” that could explode as Kline’s real awards opportunity. The subject matter of the film – sex trafficking – could certainly be touchy, but in the indy world, anything can stick for a lead performance. The Screen Actors Guild lauded Kline in 2001 for “Life as a House” while the Academy skipped the opportunity, but regardless, that “Prairie Home” performance could end up serving his role in “Trade” at the end of the day.

It seems to me people are starting to come around on this one, so maybe mentioning Maggie Gyllenhaal’s one-two punch (three if you count Sundance sensation “Sherrybaby”) is ill-timed. But all year long it has simply seemed like many were missing the notion that these two roles, in Marc Forster’s “Stranger Than Fiction” and Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center,” are catty and painful respectively, two things the Academy likes in their supporting women. In Forster’s film, Gyllenhaal portrays the bohemian/sexy/no-bullshit baker that assists Will Ferrell in turning his by-the-book life around, while in Stone’s 9/11 entry she plays an emotionally distraught (and pregnant) Port Authority wife awaiting news on her husband, trapped under the rubble of the World Trade Center. People WILL be talking about this girl, folks. They’ve already begun…

“Hollywoodland” will tell the tragic and controversial story of the death of George Reeves, the actor most famous for his portrayal of Superman in the 1950s television serial. In the film, Adrian Brody takes on the fictionalized role of a private investigator, looking into the closed case (ruled suicide) himself. In the periphery, told in flashback, the story of Reeves’ inevitable decline offers the perfect opportunity for an actor with the right amount of charisma and fortitude to sink his teeth into the role of a man eventually beaten down by the industry in which he longed for success. In the film (which I have seen, but cannot yet review), Affleck nails the performance, despite any stigma the actor may have been enduring due to questionable professional decisions in recent years, and I think he will really kick off the supporting actor race when the film is released September 8. No one seems to really be looking that way yet, however, and I honestly expect that to change in a few months – but I’ve been wrong before.

Closing off the list is a role (and really a film) that remains off the radar of awards prognosticators insistent on the tealeaves that are in front of their face or far-too-obvious. “Catch a Fire” (formerly “Hotstuff”) is Phillip Noyce’s film centering on the life of South African freedom fighter Patrick Chamusso. Plenty of people are starting to see the promise of Derek Luke in a role like Chamusso, but what about that suffering wife mold the supporting actress category holds so dear? Not to overly draft things into such barbaric categorization, but I really do think Bonnie Mbuli could be the awards discovery of the season as Chamusso’s wife in the film, and the vast avoidance of that possibility really stands out to me. But, as can be said following any of the above commentary – it’s only July. Things have a way of not turning out according to expectation.

(COMING FRIDAY: Pre-Oscar Week concludes with "THE LONE DIRECTOR," a look at that ever-present phenomenon within the directing category - helmers who garner recognition while their films sit it out in the Best Picture race. Who will it be this year?)

In years past it has always been a smart decision to look to studio history when laying out a set of Oscar predictions. After all, studio pedigree can be as important as filmmaker pedigree. But with the demise of the Weinstein Miramax and the collapse of Dreamworks into the Paramount fold, not to mention a shifting and sliding of Oscar consultation all over town, things are in a consistent state of transition the last few years.

That having been said, the tealeaves are beginning to settle once again, and a few studios are laying claim as awards houses to watch (Sony, Warner Bros.), while others cling to recent success as a hopeful current driving force of consistency (Focus, Universal).

Last year’s Best Picture victor Lionsgate Films doesn’t look likely to approach the higher levels this time around, and in fact it doesn’t look to be such a miraculous year for the specialty divisions of other studios on the whole. Even still, it looks like six companies have solid enough slates worthy of discussion here today.

Over on Buena Vista Blvd., the Walt Disney Company certainly doesn’t have a glut of awards hopefuls, but they do have a solid concentration that will likely gather a large number of nominations collectively. Not usually known for its Oscar successes outside of the animation division, Miramax has always been Disney's awards hound. Though, curiously enough, a one-two punch in 1999 came out of nowhere as “The Insider” and “The Sixth Sense” both sailed to Best Picture nods.

This year “Cars” and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” are the summer popcorn entries that will mop up in categories like visual effects, sound and sound editing, amongst others. Meanwhile, “The Prestige” seems to be the right mixture of genre and unique storytelling that might surprise. But big dog “Apocalypto,” from the increasingly eccentric Mel Gibson, could certainly stand on its own two legs throughout a number of categories.

Universal is still the most consistent Oscar studio in recent years. Some might chalk that up to the campaign structure laid out each year by Tony Angellotti. Others would look to the rose-colored nature of films like “A Beautiful Mind,” “Ray” and “Seabiscuit,” the sort of cinema Academy members eat up, for the answer to the studio’s success. But “Munich” kind of knocks that logic. Regardless, Universal always seems to tap into something urgent and powerful when they run with a contender, and they’ve got a number of choices in that regard this year.

“United 93” is already the critical champion of the year, bursting with “urgency,” while “Children of Men” looks to tackle tough issues in the realm of science fiction later in the year. Additionally, the studio boasts entries from veteran directors Brian De Palma (“The Black Dahlia”), Spike Lee (“Inside Man”) and Michael Mann (“Miami Vice”) that could certainly provide outlets for various other notices. From here, however, it still looks like “The Good Shepherd” is where we’ll find most of the eggs, a rather epic story penned by Eric Roth, directed by Robert De Niro and sporting a who’s who of Oscar-winning talent behind the scenes.

(NOTE: Specialty division and general Oscar hound Focus Features is curiously thin on awards hopefuls this year. However, I still expect they will find the right marks with “Catch a Fire,” “Hollywoodland” under former Weinstein Oscar consultant Karen Fried.)

Sony is going to have a lot of decisions to make this fall as to positioning. Last year one of their Oscar hopefuls was bumped to the 2006 slate, while their Best Picture contender, “Memoirs of a Geisha,” crashed and burned with critics (though still went on to score the second highest tally of nominations and share in the highest total of wins). We don’t tend to see a lot of love for the studio outside of specialty division Sony Pictures Classics, but things might change in that regard this year.

Coming down the pike, Sony has a nice mixture of prestige/Oscar bait contenders (“All the King’s Men,” “Marie Antoinette”), quirky offerings that tug the heart strings (“Running With Scissors,” “Stranger Than Fiction”), and typically unique entries coming out of Sony Classics (“Friends With Money,” “Who Killed the Electric Car?,” “Volver”). At the end of the day, I actually expect the studio’s efforts to turn toward the less obvious films for awards clout, rather than lean on the bait-ish stuff that somehow seems destined to disappoint.

What continues to be the most awards savvy specialty division amongst the studios, Fox Searchlight landed their first Best Picture nomination in 2004 with “Sideways.” Things were a little sparse in 2005, but the studio really got things started early this year when they sent out a press package containing the source materials of their 2006 film adaptations. “Fast Food Nation,” “The Last King of Scotland,” “Notes on a Scandal” and “Thank You For Smoking,” plus original hopefuls “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Margaret,” combine for a highly diverse mixture, one that could easily speckle the list of Oscar nominees in January.

All of that said, the power of “The History Boys” can’t be ignored as, potentially, the studio’s top contender – especially coming off a record-tying Tony collection a few months ago. “The Last King of Scotland,” though, seems like a threatening and powerful opportunity to make a run, but luckily these decisions are not mine to make. Furthermore, if you add parent company’s “A Good Year” to the equation, it becomes clear that Century City might be a happening place indeed this film awards season.

Warner Bros. has always been somewhat notorious for missing the boat on the Oscar procession. Not that the studio has been in need of awards hopefuls, but it’s always been rough sailing without Clint Eastwood at the helm of this endeavor or that. Well, things are slowly changing, and with the hire of former Focus Oscar consultant Michelle Robertson (a huge step in the right direction), I’m betting the studio will inevitably grow to be a dominant awards season force in the near future. This season will be the training wheels, however, but there is a promising crop on the horizon. Though the recent lack of financial (“Poseidon,” Superman Returns”) and creative (“Lady in the Water”) success could be an obstacle.

As for the films, it seems as many people are writing Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed” off as too commercial for its own good as are looking to it for a return to form. Darren Aronofsky’s “The Fountain” might be the right sort of Kubrickian individuality that turns a head or two, or it might wither away as an also-ran in most categories. Meanwhile the Curtis Hanson/Eric Roth collaboration “Lucky You” is lurking as something potentially surprising in the mix. The real contender looks to be Steven Soderbergh’s “The Good German,” George Clooney in black and white one more time, though that may change if the studio picks up Milos Forman’s “Goya’s Ghosts” (what with the past relationship Forman and producer Saul Zaentz have with the studio). Specialty division Warner Indpendent also has its hands full (“For Your Consideration,” “Happy Feet,” “Infamous,” “The Painted Veil,” “The Science of Sleep”).

Only Sony matches the multitude of films coming out of these merged conglomerates this year, vying for awards consideration. However, the difference here is the unique nature of the film output from project to project. Dreamworks was the challenger to Miramax’s throne once upon a time, while Paramount has long been one of the weakest Oscar studios in town. All of that seems destined to changed, even in the wake of a dramatic year on Melrose.

“Dreamgirls” and “Flags of Our Fathers” are already the Oscar bait contenders heavily observed from afar. But then there is “World Trade Center,” screening the past two weeks and opening at the end of the summer, much like “The Constant Gardener” last year, but likely to be touted as the beginning of the Oscar season much more strongly than that film was. “Zodiac” is being considered something of an opus from David Fincher, while the animation branch will be quite familiar with the studio (“Barnyard,” “Flushed Away,” “Over the Hedge”). Toss in potential technical branch love for “Ask the Dust,” “Charlotte’s Web” and “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” add a dash of Paramount Vantage’s Cannes success “Babel,” and you’re looking at a machine, folks.

(COMING WEDNESDAY: Pre-Oscar Week II: UNDER THE RADAR, a look at potential surprise performances lurking in the awards season mix.)

It looks like the ADG is following suit with a similar move made by the costumers last year.

The official press release:

LOS ANGELES, July 17 -- The Art Directors Guild has added a third category of competition for feature films in its annual Excellence in Production Design Awards by separating Period and Fantasy films that were previously linked together. The third feature category continues to be Contemporary. The addition, effective with this year's contest, was jointly announced today by ADG President Thomas A. Walsh and Awards Producers Tom Wilkins and Scott Meehan.

The other five categories of competition continue to be Single and Multiple Camera Television series; Television Movie or Mini-Series; Awards Show, Variety or Music Special or Documentary; and Commercials. In addition, the guild annually presents honorary awards for Lifetime Achievement and Cinematic Imagery. The 11th Annual Excellence in Production Design Awards will be presented Saturday, February 17, from the International Ballroom of the Beverly Hilton Hotel. Entry forms for television and commercials and overall rules and general awards information may be accessed on the ADG website: www.artdirectors.org.

I just took a look at the new trailer for Lasse Hallstrom's "The Hoax," which Miramax is releasing later this year. In the film, Richard Gere portrays Clifford Irving, who infamously sold a falsified biography of Howard Hughes to McGraw-Hill in the 1970s.

The film looks light and fluffy, if you ask me, with a performance from Gere that looks as potentially eccentric as it could be rote. But the sell is obviously full-blown comedy, so maybe that talk of Gere's Oscar prospects that has been circling the project for some time was all for naught. Globes attention? Looks more likely, but these are decisions left to be made once we've actually seen the film.

Further trailer talk ("The Prestige") at The Blog.

UPDATED: 7/14/06, 10:25PM:

A few things. I'll have a full review of the film Monday.

First, I was likely wrong in jumping the gun and assuming "Miami Vice" will be "panned." In conversations with various people over the last 24 hours, I've come to find that there is more love for the film out there than could be discerned from last night's somewhat jarred and mixed crowd. On top of which, tonight's audience, a much smaller one, was extremely positive. But last night - there was plenty of negativity to be found. Regardless, I think we're looking at a mixed bag from the critical community. But in both positive and negative reviews, I fully expect lazy analysis.

The film is better in my eyes than last night, but there are justifications on various levels that are difficult to swallow and accept. There are gaps in tangibility that have just never existed in a Michael Mann film before. "Miami Vice" is undoubtedly a step down, the least creatively compelling movie he has made since "The Last of the Mohicans," perhaps since "The Keep."

More on Monday.

EARLIER:

1) When they pan the film - and they will - expect the critical consensus to have a hard time justifying the gratuitous violence.

2) Expect that critical consensus to be typically lazy and avoid taking a deeper look at the film in order to identify the purpose of said violence.

3) Expect a longing for one-tenth of the emotional complexity layered throughout the toughest of Michael Mann cinema, and a disappointment at the cheap effort found here in that regard.

4) Expect to ask yourself why Mann decided to even bother with this project in the first place.

5) Expect, as always with Mann, to take away from the experience more and more as you spin away from it, and therefore, don't expect to have your mind made up when you leave the theater. Despite what I've said above, mine isn't made up yet.

And so I will take in "Miami Vice" once more tomorrow night before committing any in-depth thoughts. I think it is a mistake to jump the gun and print a review of this film without having digested it and gone back for seconds, because this is a director - one of the few - who works on so many unseen layers as to manifest experiences, more so than "movies." And experiences are anything but one specific thing. I made a mistake judging "Collateral" too soon in 2004. Like that film, "Miami Vice" plays on the surface like a 'B' movie. But the potential for depth is too apparent to avoid giving it another shot.

I just don't want to allow myself to believe that my favorite working director has taken such a drastic step down. Not yet.

With the year a little more than half-way behind us, I figure now is as good a time as any to look ahead to the projects that linger on the horizon, piquing my interest. Sadly, one of my most anticipated films of the year, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” was bumped to 2007. But there is still a decent amount of promising films to look forward to.

Now, I don’t tend to heavily anticipate Oscar fodder, so you won’t see a list speckled with “Goya’s Ghosts” or “Flags of Our Fathers,” etc. – just a forewarning. Now let's get into it...

10) “Casino Royale”
I never anticipate Bond films, and this slot was boiled down to about three films, including “Dreamgirls” and “The Black Dahlia.” I look forward to both of those films, but I have to say “Casino Royale” is shaping up to be an intriguing project. It’s always interesting to see what the new Bond will do, and Daniel Craig has caught a lot of flack from fans of the classic “suave” character that wasn’t even true to the works of Ian Fleming. Perhaps it could be an exciting re-launch.

9) “Sicko”
Michael Moore sure has taken his time getting “Sicko” to the screen. Ever since it was announced in 2004, Moore has tried to avoid notice while questioning pharmaceutical companies, sent out a plea for participants on his website declaring “tell me your nightmare HMO stories,” and even taken time out to visit a fat farm. The Weinstein Company will release his “Fahrenheit 9/11” follow up in the fall, and perhaps we’ll see another Oscar contender.

8) “Little Children”
Todd Field has taken his time between freshman and sophomore efforts. This time around, he looks to dark literature yet again with the adaptation of Tom Perotta’s Little Children. New Line Cinema, largely diversifying its output in recent years, hopes to land critical and awards notices with another down-tuned drama as it did with last year’s “A History of Violence.” This one will be one to watch in the ensemble awards.

7) “Catch a Fire”
Phillip Noyce is a highly uneven, hit and miss director. However, he turns his mind to politics more often than most filmmakers, and sometimes those decisions happen at the right time. “Catch a Fire” (formerly “Hotstuff”) could be one of those instances, as Derek Luke stars in the likely Oscar caliber role of South African freedom fighter Patrick Chamusso. This looks to be the big film in the Focus Features stable this year.

6) “The Departed”
This one is high on many viewers’ radars. While I don’t expect any real return to artistic form for Martin Scorsese with this remake of “Infernal Affairs,” I always look forward to a Scorsese film. Even his critical and popular misses I find thoroughly engaging. The cast he’s assembled for “The Departed” is an intriguing one, but the notion of seeing Jack Nicholson in a Martin Scorsese picture is admittedly at the top of reasons to anticipate this thing.

5) “The Good German”
George Clooney in black and white again? Let’s see it. Steven Soderbergh takes a break from the foolish experimentation and empty romps and digs into this Joseph Canon adaptation. Warner Bros. has highly skilled Oscar personnel this year, and so we could certainly see this film competing for Best Picture representation. Clooney stars opposite Cate Blanchett and Beau “Where ya been?” Bridges.

4) “Charlotte’s Web”
A live action version of note of E.B. White’s classic book has evaded screens for a long time. This year, Walden Media steps back up to the plate of children’s entertainment with this adaptation, boasting effects on the level of 1995’s “Babe.” We could be looking at a holiday box office smash, or perhaps merely modest returns are in its future. Regardless, a warm time at the movies, and a nostalgic one, this promises to be.

3) “For Your Consideration”
A film that dissects and borderline ridicules Hollywood’s yearly parade of public relations in the form of Oscar campaigns has been needed for quite some time, wouldn’t you say? I’d like to see the shenanigans put on display by no one other than Christopher Guest, whose poking and prodding skills have been honed through years of mockumentary filmmaking. And wouldn’t it be a hoot to see something like this actually embraced by the Academy?

2) “Fast Food Nation”
I recently read through Eric Schlosser’s book, which Richard Linklater adapts to the screen later this year, and was thoroughly disgusted and fascinated at the same time. I’m highly interested in seeing what the process of developing this dense piece of journalism into a film has been, and if it holds up to the labels comparing it to “Traffic,” I think we’ll be in for a highly interesting experience to say the least.

1) “Miami Vice”
My most anticipated of the year back in March is still going strong, as I truly cannot wait to see what Michael Mann has in store for a project he’s nurtured for years. It took a while for “Collateral” to grow on me in 2004, but literally everything else Mann has touched (well…with the exception of the horrid “The Keep”) turns to gold as he remains one of, if not the most interesting working director in the game.

We're stepping things up a notch here at In Contention. Please allow me to take a moment and orient you to your surroundings. The new site hopes to be a relatively familiar extension of the work done last year on the Blogger server, only bigger and, hopefully, better.

On the right sidebar of the main page, in our typical style, you’ll find a listing of Oscar predictions for the 2006-2007 film awards season. Please bear in mind that, while the site will have multiple contributors this year, these predictions reflect the ponderings of the editor and the editor alone. You’ll find all categories currently updated in full from the year-in-advance predictions released in March. In the coming weeks, I’ll slowly push through analyses of the major categories in preparation for the film awards season. I'll also cobble a set of charts together soon enough. However, as I have learned year in and year out, none of this makes much credible sense until we’re in the waist deep in the middle of things.

To the left, in addition to a typically comprehensive list of links to various sources, film coverage outlets and news sites, you’ll find a listing of the site's current features. At the moment, these features include my "Page to Screen" series, outlined in detail below, as well as "Tech Support," a weekly column which will be authored by Gerard Kennedy (whose work you may have read at Oscarwatch last season). Gerard's column, which should prove to be a unique and thought-provoking look at the various technical branches recognized by the Academy, will launch in a few short weeks. However, "Page to Screen" is already off to the races with its first installment. Rounding out the left sidebar, you'll also find obligatory category listings for the various posts on In Contention's main page, as well as archiving.

As far as commenting on entries is concerned, I have to do something to combat a rash of "anonymous" postings, so in order to post a comment you'll have to have a Typekey identity. But signing up for Typekey is no hassle in the slightest, and if you already comment on the MCN blogs, for instance, then you know what I'm talking about. If you'd like to briefly set up a Typekey identity, please click here to do so.

Finally, I've carried a couple of more recent entries over from the old site, and I hope to continue the transtion of material so that everything is archived here for your perusal. That will be a long process, however, but in the meantime, the old blog is still up and viewable here.

All in all, I hope this proves to be a smooth transition, and as always, I hope you enjoy the output. So please feel free to drop me a line anytime at the new email addres, ktapley@incontention.com.

I'd like to extend one more special thanks to Sasha Stone for helping get the new site rolling. Oscarwatch has also experienced a beautiful reload, so be there or be square!

Welcome back to In Contention.

It has been four months since I gave any serious consideration to this year’s Oscar race, and even in the year-round business of Oscar prognostication, it was nice to shrug the whole mess off for the spring and early summer. Shockingly, the 2006 film awards season is right around the corner, as this year seems to just be whizzing by. As such, here we are, ready to get our feet wet once again.

Now, even on hiatus, I took the opportunity during the last few months to familiarize myself with some of the year’s Oscar hopefuls, in script and/or source material form. I’ve also seen a couple of the awards season’s upcoming films, but given the test screening nature of those viewings, I won’t be commenting on them in any depth. But you’ll pick up the clues here and there, I’m sure. Suffice it to say, I’m decently prepared to dive back into this crazy mix of glitz, glamour and gluttony.

But let us first recap. As far as the first half of the year is concerned, the stories have been few and far between. But already, I have to say that 2006 has shown the signs of a much more satisfying year than we saw in 2005 at theaters.

After the insanity of Oscar night, Universal Pictures dropped a few critical hits on the scene in the forms of Spike Lee’s overrated “Inside Man” and Paul Greengrass’s awards hopeful “United 93.” The former came and went, thankfully, while the latter boasted, at the very least, a directorial talent to be taken seriously. Universal will hope to ride the critical reception of “United 93” all the way to the awards season, but it’s yet to be seen whether Oliver Stone’s upcoming “World Trade Center” will affect it in anyway. It is also yet to be seen whether the Academy will be as respectful of the film as the critics were.

Also releasing in those early months were two independent gems that I fear will be lost in the shuffle and long forgotten when all is said and done. Doug Atchison’s “Akeelah and the Bee” was a heartfelt story that certainly did its job on screen, while Sidney Lumet’s “Find Me Guilty” boasted what is still one of the year’s best performances from a hair-piece-laden Vin Diesel. The handling on that one really was botched, but hopefully it can find an audience on DVD.

The summer arrived in the form of sequel splendor, and the press actively sought the story they’d hoped for in “Mission: Impossible III”: a weak box office showing that would somehow reflect on negative reaction to Tom Cruise’s private life. In so doing, the media pretty much avoided any sense of historical typicality where third installments in franchises are concerned.

Next up, “The Da Vinci Code” swept in and REALLY stunk up the joint, proving just how unnecessary adapting a book that essentially reads like a screenplay is. The audiences showed up, however, and so commerce outweighed art as always.

Speaking of art getting the short end of the stick, Fox’s “X-Men” franchise finally hit a snag – one hell of a snag – as “X-Men: The Last Stand” proved just how foolish it can be to rush a project of substance to the screen. Despite the position the studio was put in by an abandoning Bryan Singer, and despite the fact that Brett Ratner held the threads together to provide at least a WATCHABLE movie, it really was painful to witness that franchise crash and burn like it did. But, again, the commerce was certainly there for the taking, and the “X-Men” series is now one of the few trilogies to best itself at box offices each time out.

Also having a world premiere in May was Alejandro González Iñárritu’s “Babel” at the Cannes Film Festival. The film received wide-spread acclaim and was a real threat to win the Palm d’Or. Iñárritu took home the Best Director prize and Paramount Vantage laid claim to the second real Best Picture contender of the year. The film, which will be featured here in the coming days, absolutely lives up to the hype, becoming Iñárritu’s crowning achievement in a trilogy that has defined his sensibilities and strengths as a filmmaker. I look forward very much to seeing it again.

June saw the first truly substantial domestic release in Robert Altman’s “A Prairie Home Companion.” Though hindered ever-so-slightly by bookends that do not lend to the conviction of the film’s themes, the film is a wondrous experience from the mind of the timid but assured Garrison Keillor. The ensemble is fabulous, including another exceptional turn from Meryl Streep, who has also further stirred the awards buzz waters with her scenery chewing in “The Devil Wears Prada.”

The rest of the month was rather drab, including lame horror remakes, repetitive fart gags, Adam Sandler and yet another sequel to “The Fast and the Furious.” But things really hit a high note when “Superman Returns” landed two weeks ago, as the discussion of art versus commerce took a whole new meaning.

There has been no question that the budget for “Superman Returns,” amongst those of numerous other tent pole productions, reached embarrassing heights. But the most expensive movie ever made certainly won't be the highest grossing film of the year - or even of the summer. I wrote about this subject as one of my final points of business at the old site, but as Bryan Singer left the “X-Men” franchise alone to wither away, he may have in turn crippled another franchise before it even has the chance to take off. “Superman Returns” really is one of the best films of the year, but I hope what it does to the check book of Warner Bros. doesn’t negatively affect the future of the series.

Now...we finally got a story this past weekend, as "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" swept in and demolished box office records left and right. However, the excitement rather stops there as the bloated and drunken screenplay of this follow-up to the 2003 smash hit needed some drastic lessons in structure, even if it does boast highly creative action set pieces that bring with them a delightful and at times hysterical sense of humor. We can pretty well expect this one to march on toward further monetary accomplishment. However, while many found the film to be terribly empty, I at least caught glimpses of Gore Verbinski cutting lose and experimenting as a director. I find him to be one of the more underrated filmmakers working today, to be quite honest, and to see him stretch his legs here and there within the confines of this admittedly trying story brought a smile to my face at times.

In the thick of summer now, we’ve still got M. Night Shyamalan’s follow-up to the atrocious “The Village,” testing his box office valiance with “Lady in the Water;” Michael Mann’s “Miami Vice,” stealthily skimming along all year with stylish trailers and rampant budget speculation; a Woody Allen comedy in "Scoop" that looks like the old guy might be grinding the rotors; Oliver Stone’s 9/11 drama “World Trade Center” that, if executed beyond the flatness of the script, could resonate as a Best Picture hopeful; and the already-a-cult-phenomenon “Snakes on a Plane,” hoping against hope not to have peaked too early buzz-wise (anyone even care about it now?).

Tucked in here and there are a few films that could make a stand awards-wise, depending on the handling (“The Night Listener,” “Quinceañera,” “The Illusionist,” “Little Miss Sunshine”). However, Oscar season really kicks off on September 15 with the wide release of Universal’s “The Black Dahlia” and the limited engagements of Warner Independent’s “The Painted Veil” and “The Science of Sleep.” And I guess Michael Moore’s “Sicko” will hit eventually in September – that is, unless no one responded to his plea for assistance.

And at that point...expect the heat to turn up around here. The next two months will be mere preparation for whatever surprises lie in store. What film will lurk about and become this year's "Crash?" Does "United 93" have the chops? Can Streep really pull out a 14th mention for one of her two stellar performances this year? Will "Superman Returns" prove to be more than a popcorn flick in the minds of Academy voters? Or is the cream of the crop still to come?

We'll know soon enough.