Well, it's been showing here and there for a few weeks, actually. Another handful got a peek tonight, and while it isn't a reviewable product (Denzel Washington is still working on the film), there are some comments worth making.

Like pointing out a star-making turn from newcomer Nate Parker for starters. If any whispers carry on past the film itself (which will have its champions), it will be this actor's potential at the start of a new career. One fellow viewer tonight made a comparison to a young Paul Newman, and he isn't far off, I'd say.

It’s that time again; time to rattle off a list of anticipations for the 2007 film awards season. Starting with August releases and moving forward, I came up with only 17 films that have me chomping at the bit. A small number, but I’m picky. There are other interestes, but these are the only ones I’d jump at the opportunity to screen tomorrow.

Let’s get into this…

10. “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”
Warner Bros. Pictures; Directed by Andrew Dominik

This was high on my list of anticipations in 2006, its original year of release. But with every new bump down the schedule, every new bit of distressing information and the increasing likelihood of a studio hack job on the final cut of the film (word is director Andrew Dominik has been going back and forth with Warner Bros. on this very subject, holding up release as a result)…I have to say I’m having my doubts. But being a massive fan of the western genre and the Shakespearean power of this story, I still find myself hoping – and anticipating – this troubled project.

So here we are. The end of the line. All the critics’ groups have dished out their awards (did that make you dizzy enough last week?) and the guilds are soon to announce their nominees. Before we duck out for the holiday season here at In Contention, however, let’s toss up the obligatory rundown of kudos, as far as my wacky mind and opinion sees things. Again, that #1 tie Monday makes it clear that it’s very difficult to qualify “The Fountain” and “Inland Empire,” so I’ve opted ouot of letting those films top the Best Picture and Best Director categories here. It really is tough to describe, I guess, but oh well. I’m not curing cancer here…

A fine year at the cinemas is an incredibly subjective thing. After all, the worst year in a long time in my view (2005) could be seen as one of the best years in your view or the next guy’s. I fought hard to enjoy myself last year, but something about those 365 days made them a chore to weather. As I mentioned in an item posted earlier this year, that disregard for, and ultimate displeasure with what Hollywood had to offer manifested itself in a top ten list full of morose and down-tuned artistic endeavors, from Gus Van Sant’s “Last Days” to Gore Verbinski’s “The Weather Man.”

2006 started off quietly. Typical dumping ground efforts came and went (“Firewall,” “Freedomland”), while a number of disappointments lurked around the corner of spring (“Inside Man,” “V for Vendetta”). A cynical movie-goer in my position might begin to dread a woeful continuation of the prior year’s offerings. But there were shafts of light penetrating a darkened sky in those early months, hinting at a potential oasis beyond.

Just a quick note, if you’ll indulge me for a moment.

How did a film as vapid and misguided as “The Devil Wears Prada” – certifiably the worst film of 2006 – find itself in the midst of an awards season? Something that plays like stale cotton candy you’d catch on a WGN matinee some lazy Saturday afternoon, this is a film packed with reprehensible characters, half-baked performances, built on a clumsy screenplay that shockingly enough begins to take itself seriously when the third act rolls around in all its languid horror.

The chatter is all over the place, forum members are standing in for qualified sources, calls are being made and left unreturned, exhibitors are speaking up and through it all, speculation mounts. How will "Letters from Iwo Jima" affect the Oscar race if (and it's looking more like "when") it gets that one week qualifying run in December? I think major awards talk is a bit ahead of itself and, in the end, a move like this can benefit one man more than any other: Clint Eastwood.

"Letters from Iwo Jima," however splendid the film may be, isn't going to turn into a Best Picture nominee. Is it really expected to be in the realm of the select few foreign language films that have crossed that barrier in the past? Sure, the difference is we're talking about a domestically created piece of filmmaking that just happens to be in Japanese, but the facts are a subtitled film, whatever its origins, has an uphill battle in the Best Picture category.

Then there is the discussion that releasing "Letters" could spell renewed hope in a "Flags of Our Fathers" bid. Hardly. A failure is a failure, and "Flags" simply stalled at the box office and in the hands of Dreamworks/Paramount marketing.

Just to throw my opinion out there, I think if anything comes of this whole scenario it will be in the form of a Best Director nomination for Clint Eastwood. There might be some outside opportunities for, say, Best Original Screenplay or something in the tech arena, but Warner Bros. has a Best Picture nominee sewn up in "The Departed." Snagging a lone director bid for a director who was courageous enough to make these two films seems to me to be the only likely awards scenario. But lets wait and see how it pans out.

Not around these parts, anyway. I won't be attending next Wednesday's screening of the film at the Academy because, well, Wednesday is my birthday, and the Oscar race can be put on hold for a few days. Sue me. And I'd rather not experience the anxiety of tracking down Paramount/Dreamworks for a screening schedule on "Dreamgirls" (and specifically an invite to this particular event...I've heard zip so far) with the same amount of effort I've had to put into the studio on other films this year. Too much effort.

It makes no sense why they lag behind the times and remain at arm's length from the internet, and certainly with the awards-coverage faction of that medium, but that's a whole drawn out, bloody conversation

On "Dreamgirls," basically...I can wait. You'll have plenty to tide you over in the interim, but I won't be tossing another mundane voice into the fray on this one. I'll be welcoming 25 with a stiff Jameson and the antics of Lady Sovereign at the El Rey instead.

Enjoy the weekend.

EDIT (8:33PM): This piece has been truncated, as the prior content can no longer be of use to anyone. If you saw it, you saw it. If you didn't, it's not worth digging back into it.

This is off the beaten path around these parts, but I wouldn't really consider In Contention "on" the beaten path.

I never saw eye to eye artistically with Aaron Katz in college. We disagreed on movies with a ferocity that made us, ironically enough, decent friends. I think in all the time we spent creating films during that four year stretch, we each ended up truly enjoying only one specific work from each other (a poignant and meaningful screenplay he wrote for another student on my end, my own sophomore writing and directing effort on his). But even when we thought we'd be on the same page, we'd find ourselves at odds by the time we got around to discussing it (my distaste and his respect of "Spider-Man" comes to mind).

Well, Aaron's gone out and made a feature, and though I haven't seen it yet (the fellas are sending a screener I believe), I'm happy to see some positive marks coming it's way.

Last year’s cinematic output was a dreadful display in my opinion. It almost became infamously so, what with a number of readers questioning my passion for film, my dedication to balanced coverage and my overall lack of excitement for the 2005 season.

I’m nothing if not candid (well – not as candid as Sumner Redstone apparently was today), and I’m always the first to address my attitude and such criticisms. While the assumption that my passion was gone was certainly off-target (Why would I continue to write about such things otherwise?), the widespread interpretation of my sluggish reaction was pretty much on the money.

The simple fact was, last year it wasn’t connecting for me. It was all a drab affair and my feelings on the season played themselves out in a top ten list that was speckled with such down-tuned and brooding efforts as Gus Van Sant’s “Last Days,” Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins,” David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” (though I certainly wasn’t alone on that one) and Gore Verbinski’s “The Weather Man.” The feeling was as equally shared as it wasn’t, but that’s how my 2005 cookie crumbled. And I guess real-life stuff can play into such things as well.

This year, however, I am bursting with exhilaration, not only at what is on the periphery, but also at what I’ve already seen. This is the most difficult time, that pre-Toronto phase where you’re sitting on reviews of films for weeks upon weeks. Last year, all was well. Nothing much mattered to me in that regard. But this year – this year I’m just giddy, and that’s the best adjective I could possibly use. I’m giddy and rejuvenated by the films in play, both reviewed and kept under my hat, and there really is no point to this column other than to convey just that.

Sometimes you feel like it’s all sluggish and “work.” Other times, you feel like the luckiest person in the world because people are making fantastic and unique films. This year, I feel like the luckiest person in the world, and I hope my fellow journalists and filmgoers feel the same way. However, if they don’t, “one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.” Right?

(And no, the title of this blurb does not indicate anything. It just felt like the right extra touch.)

I didn't really feel the heat turning up until today's reviews of "World Trade Center" hit full blast, of course, but it seems the "United 93" vs. "World Trade Center" dispute is going to get nasty. Real nasty.

Let alone the fact that those out to disaprove of Oliver Stone's film are beginning to see their destinies self-served, or that vacant criticism the likes of comparing it to "United 93" runs far too rampant considering these are drastically different films. I have a lot of respect for each effort and simply consider one film to be "fuller" than the other. But each is effective and a testament to Hollywood handling themselves accordingly with this event, so much so that it seems foolish in retrospect to have assumed otherwise, no matter the past.

Ultimately I had hoped there would not be a "this versus that" story this year (last year's racism vs. homophobia battle in the form of "Crash" vs. "Brokeback Mountain" was pathetic and a disservice to both films), but it looks like we might have one after all, whether Oscars are involved or not.

Oh well. At least we get to see Sam take care of a bunch of mother fuckin' snakes on a mother fuckin' plane, right?

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.

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.