Tag Archives: terence malick

Sam’s Most Anticipated Films of 2010

Not ranked, but just sixteen movies I picked out for my enthusiasm to be aimed at this year. Just a note the following have been excluded for a variety of reasons: Kick Ass/Shutter Island (both coming out pretty soon), The Tree of Life (was on last year’s list and may still not come out this year), Inception/Toy Story 3 (too big to need my advocacy) and Scott Pilgrim vs The World (purely because Tommy was always going to choose it). Also, remember to check out Chris’ list here.

So, here are the sixteen I’ve chosen, in alphabetical order, after the jump:

Continue reading →

Let the Oscar Buzz Begineth!!


As we are prone to do, it feels like to kick-off the Oscar buzz season as awards from major film festivals begin to roll in and the ceremony approaches. I realise that this may feel like the kind of wishing-life-away feeling that it given as you walk into shops in mid-September and see Christmas stock out all over the place, but these will get more frequent as we get closer and can begin to actually predict what could win. This is more to provide an interesting gauge of how buzz works, how it changes and how wrong we could well end up being by the time the awards come around.

So, just for the big few categories, here’s what seems like it’s going to cause a stir this year: Continue reading →

Why 3D Isn’t Needed, Briefly

Days of Heaven Prod Still

Writing for The Guardian in the past week, Dave Eggers ran down the movies of his life and provides some information on how they fit into his make-up. It caught my attention partly owing to our recent autobiographical season on the podcast but also because of one small comment he makes which seems so beautifully to illustrate why I have such an aversion to 3D movie-making.

Talking about Days of Heaven, the elegiac and drop-jaw beautiful Terence Malick film, Eggers writes that Malick’s films ‘are 3D without being actually 3D, if that makes any sense’. That is such a great way of describing why 3D is completely pointless to the artistic process. Not everyone in the world can be Terence Malick, but great films do tend to have a sense of place and time, a texture to them in the way they are film, the juxtaposition of lighting, sound, performance and style. Putting a film into 3 dimensions seems pointless if you have the ability and understanding of how important it is to put films into their spatial context.

Just think about the great films you have seen and how they transport you to a place and time, then consider why on earth any of them would need to be shorn of that extra modicum of imagination.