Thursday, February 4, 2010

The 2010 Oscar Nominations

BRIAN: So the nominations came out this morning. I don’t really care, but out of obligation to all the readers who are only reading this because we just badgered and begged them to, I feel a moral responsibility to discuss. This is for you, guys. Thank you.

And it’s not that I don’t care because I’ve become disillusioned about the whole process (well, maybe); I just feel like 2009 was a pretty weak year for movies, and there’s no film I’m all that excited about. Hey, Academy, great timing in expanding the best picture nominees to 10. Critics’ top 10 lists are always more interesting to me than Oscar nominees – am I alone here? By the way, we never did our 2009 top ten lists. We should do that next.

So how ‘bout we just go through and list off our choices for most egregious snubs and inclusions independently. We’ll post them at the same time and compare/contrast afterwards. That way, you can’t copy off mine. Cool?

In the meantime, dear readers, you can watch this clip to prime you for all the hate that's about to spew from our keyboards:

GOLAN: Before I do my list, I just want to point out that even Jack almost vomited before he said CRASH. He had to literally hide his mouth with the envelope as his gag reflex kicked in.

As for what you were saying, I hate to admit that I do still care. I still get a jolt out of the whole thing. Even after the year FORREST GUMP beat out PULP FICTION and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, even after the year that TITANIC beat out L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, even after the year that CHICAGO beat out THE PIANIST, and - yes - even after the year that CRASH beat out BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (man, why do I care anymore?), I still give a shit or two about the Oscars. At this point, I feel like the only person in the industry that still watches them or wants to throw a party about them.

Here's the sad truth - I was up this morning when the nominations were being read. Go on and judge me.

And I happen to not think that 2009 was that weak a year for movies. Any year that yields this many movies that made me cry can't be all bad (and I mean "made me cry" in the good "UP moved me" kind of way, not the "WOLVERINE destroyed another of my childhood memories" kind of way).

Let's be honest - there are very few years in recent memory that would warrant ten nominations. I would have to go all the way back to 1999 - the year of FIGHT CLUB, THE MATRIX, AMERICAN BEAUTY, BEING JOHN MALKOVICH, THE SIXTH SENSE, MAGNOLIA, THREE KINGS, ELECTION, THE IRON GIANT, BOYS DON'T CRY, THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, THE INSIDER, TOY STORY 2, EYES WIDE SHUT and, of course, THE OTHER SISTER.

But I digress. This year ain't all that bad. I could give you five seriously strong nominees for Best Picture. And yes, our top ten lists for 2009 will be exciting. So will our top ten of the decade lists. Yay us.

As for listing our snubs and surprises (which is what I think you mean by inclusions), I'm all for it.

Ready? Set? Go!

BRIAN: Okay. Best Picture. The best surprise of the bunch is A SERIOUS MAN, clearly one of the 5 beneficiaries of the expanded category. Let’s run through the others real quick, since the recent development of the Best Picture 10 should be addressed: AN EDUCATION, DISTRICT 9, THE BLIND SIDE, and UP (none of these films’ directors got a nod, which is pretty much a disqualification to win Best Picture, so I’m applying that logic here). Of the five, three are money-makers – the proverbial DARK KNIGHTs that the Academy was hoping for – and the other two are limited release titles. So a 3/2 split – not too pessimistic one way or the other. The expanded slots made way for the crowd-pleasers appealing to a broader Oscar telecast audience, while still leaving room for arty fare that could still really use the box-office boost of a Best Picture nod. Still, I don’t like the expansion. I mean, I haven’t seen THE BLIND SIDE, but really? I’d only see it if James Van Der Beek showed up in the locker room out of nowhere to say, “I don’t….want….your life.”

Come to think of it, I haven’t seen any of the nominated Best Actress performances, so I don’t have as much ammunition as I’d like. My favorite female performance this year was Gwyneth Paltrow in TWO LOVERS. So I guess this isn’t really a snub if no one saw it, but come on – it’s Gwyneth Paltrow! Hollywood loves its starlets, especially when it looks like they’re stretching. Shit, if Angelina Jolie can snag a nomination for acting the shit out of her costume in CHANGELING, surely Gwyneth deserves a nod for this! (Team Gwyneth!) But seriously, the performance is revelatory. Without taking on physical transformations (her hair is still blonde, she’s still movie-star thin), she is absolutely convincing playing against type – working class, not entitled; Brooklyn, not Manhattan. She plays a sad twenty-something caught in a love affair with a wealthier older man, and it’s her mannerisms (too often arbitrarily employed by actors) that clue us into her character’s insecurities. Her smile comes quick and easy, happy at the slightest compliment rather than being stingy with her approval and doling it out in small portions as if it were a rarefied commodity. Her voice sounds like it’s caught in male puberty, cracking at excitement, eager for attention. It’s a complete, inside-and-out performance that you wouldn’t expect from a star. Anyhow, it’s great. And Joaquin Phoenix was quite good too. I would have been happy if he got a nomination. I also really liked Abbie Cornish in BRIGHT STAR. There’s an immediacy to her performance -- hard to do within the usually stolid setting of a period piece without seeming anachronistically contemporary (ahem, Keira Knightley), but she’s great. The cinematography in the film is also deserving – and it’s not just that the countryside is picturesque. It’s ridiculously gorgeous and – like Cornish’s performance – immediate and tactile: necessary for a film about Keats. We needed to feel the imagery that populates his poetry.

I’m fine with the Best Actor nominations, although Clooney should not win. There are holes in his performance, exposing the limits of his range. There was ample opportunity to show the real jerk in his character, but he played it safe – the audience never stops liking him every second of the movie. Look, it’s hard to make a cad so likeable, but it’s fucking Clooney. I felt there were a few scenes he was phoning it in instead of exploring his character. So give it to Jeremy Renner. The dude from A SERIOUS MAN should have gotten Clooney’s spot.

As for Supporting Actress, I can’t believe Amy Adams wasn’t nominated. The snub of the decade, surely. Well, no. I just figured she got nominated last year for sitting there in DOUBT, I thought she was a shoo-in this year. Samantha Morton gives a very good performance in THE MESSENGER though. Her first scene, when she is told her husband has been killed, is a marvel to watch. The way she repeatedly looks off to the side to make sure her son doesn’t see the soldiers on her lawn is devastating. Best performance in the movie. Better than Woody Harrelson, who got a nod. He was good, but he had the unfortunate task of having to say the occasional too writerly line in a movie that doesn’t need them. And so his acting came off a little more polished and back-storied than it should have.

Animated Film – umm….

Ponyo Ponyo Ponyo tiny little fish!
She’s a little fish from the deep blue sea
Ponyo Ponyo Ponyo she’s a little girl!
She’s a little girl with a round tummyyyyyy

Wtf?! Did the Academy not hear me singing that incessantly around our offices? Even you started singing along! That movie’s irresistible.

Directing. Alright, so WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE wasn’t nominated for anything. Anything. There may be more skill involved in Bigelow’s direction of THE HURT LOCKER, but I felt WILD THINGS was the best directed movie of the year. The entire film is a high-wire act. I have never experienced a fantasy world that felt that real, that quotidian. It’s such an original accomplishment that I think it will be a reference point for filmmakers in years to come. It didn’t get a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination either. I don’t understand, especially with an Academy that likes to reward degree of difficulty. Jonze and Eggers extrapolated from what’s essentially a picture book. Their major achievement is that it’s convincingly written from the point of view of a child. The fantasy world is all in Max’s head, and what might seem like plot holes is actually representative of how inchoate Max’s imagination is in spinning the story. When K.W. enters the scene, her motivation for coming back is to get a stick – it’s a substitute for a real reason as Max grapples with the reasoning of the adult world. For a kid’s film, it might be the deepest, most mature film of last year.

And how did it not get nominated for Best Visual Effects? The monsters in WILD THINGS were amazing. I couldn’t tell at first whether it was CGI or animatronics – but of course, animatronics could never achieve the level of nuance and emotion in the facial expressions. I was moved by these visual effects, and instead, a nomination went to DISTRICT 9, whose handheld jittery camera was intended to mask the shoddy CGI. Jesus Christ. HARRY POTTER also made brilliant use of its visual effects. No nod either. Best Digitized Lens Flare goes to STAR TREK.

Adapted Screenplay. So, when they read off the nominees come Oscar night, are they gonna say, “Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire – screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher, based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”? I really want them to.

Original Screenplay. Movies today are overwritten. Even underdeveloped movies are overwritten – in the sense that things are over-explained, there’s too much exposition, and dialogue is used as a crutch. So this category is particularly tricky for me (as a grumpy writer) because it tends to reward scripts that have flashy writing and are hence overwritten (JUNO, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE). HUMPDAY had a brilliant script, if you consider the lines that were ultimately delivered in the movie as the script, but only because it was mostly improvised. There are much funnier lines in that film than in UP IN THE AIR, but the script would never get recognized because the writer had the humility to let the actors contribute. I thought THE HURT LOCKER had a decent script (and I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t get nominated), but there’s that completely unnecessary monologue when the younger soldier yells at Jeremy Renner and explicitly describes his character like a book report. As I stated above, I thought the dialogue in THE MESSENGER was far too writerly from time to time. But it’s those same writerly lines that showcase what a good writer Oren Moverman is. Didn’t the period pop culture references in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS seem a bit forced and clumsy? Still, I feel like his movies are immune from the overwritten gripe, because his movies are so movie-movie. I hope it wins.

Best Animated Short. Pixar should have submitted the first seven minutes of UP and junked the rest of the movie. You know how Chumbawamba started off their album with “Tubthumping,” and the rest of the songs you listened to while driving back to Tower Records to see if you could return the CD? That’s what UP was like.

Man, CD's -- ho ho, remember those? Welcome to 2010. Technology!

Alright. Those are my initial thoughts. Yours?

GOLAN: I'm going to be realistic here. And honest. I could pull out choices that I haven't seen that other people keep mentioning (even though – let’s be realistic – they probably haven't seen either). I’m referring to the oft-mentioned likes of Julianne Moore in A SINGLE MAN and Christian McKay in ME AND ORSON WELLES. I have not seen these films (nor a slew of others), so please do not take my omissions to necessarily mean that I did not think people were worthy.

So let’s talk about the movies I have seen.

I’ll start off with Best Picture, since that seems like a logical place to start. While I loved THE BLIND SIDE (and I truly did, despite seeing all the heartstring-pulling moments coming from a mile away), do I think it deserved a Best Picture nomination? Not likely…

Then there’s AN EDUCATION. A beautiful movie, no doubt. One of the best acted of the year – Carey Muligan is transplendent, Peter Sarsgaard is great as usual, and Alfred Molina proves once again that he can do anything (if you don’t believe me, go back and watch him in BOOGIE NIGHTS, then SPIDER-MAN 2, then this). The script, by one of my favorite writers, is all crackly with witty repartee and clever bon mots. But the Best Picture of the year? Hardly. I have had this argument with plenty of people, and in the end, it does come down to people agreeing that it’s a fine film anchored by a great performance.

I also have big problems with PRECIOUS, but not enough to pull it from the ten nominated film list for fear of a visit from Oprah.

My big admission is that I have not seen DISTRICT 9 or A SERIOUS MAN, so I will leave them alone and not pick on them. I likewise missed INVICTUS, so I can’t comment on whether it was snubbed.

But if I were to have the power to yank the two (or even three) movies mentioned above and replace them with movies that were my favorites, I would throw WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE into the mix in a heartbeat. Moving, creative, heartbreaking, revelatory and uplifting all at the same time.

I would not, as many have suggested, include THE HANGOVER or CRAZY HEART, despite making me laugh a lot, showing me Zach Galifianakis’ weiner, serenading me with great songs and giving an icon a chance to shine in one of his best performances (I'll let you guess which movie did what).

I would have loved to have seen ADVENTURELAND in the mix, but we all knew that wasn’t going to happen, despite everyone who sees it loving it. It's a movie that really spoke to the younger me – almost as much as UP IN THE AIR spoke to the older me. But since we knew it wasn’t going to make it, I’m thinking STAR TREK would have been cool. Since I loved IRON MAN, I discovered I'm a big fan of taking something that could be popcorn bullshit and making it into something deeper and more resonant. I thought JJ Abrams managed to do it right. I also would have liked the acknowledgement of my friend Damon Lindelof for helping him pull it off.

While I’m in Best Picture-land, I should mention Best Foreign Film… where’s BROKEN EMBRACES, pray tell? Just curious, as it was great. That being said, I’m just happy that Israel got its third nomination in a row. Is it ironic that it will lose to the German flick? I’ll let you be the judge.

Speaking of Best Director (I wasn’t, but this is the best transition I can come up with at the moment), if you want to know what movies would not have received Best Picture nominations if there had still been only five nominees, look no further than the Best Director category. The other five may as well not be in the hunt. Which means that THE BLIND SIDE, DISTRICT 9, AN EDUCATION, A SERIOUS MAN and UP were the also-rans. The funny thing is that none of those movies made me feel like they did deserve a Best Director nomination, so that kinda works out.

The two directors that I would have liked to have seen in on the action are:

1) Spike Jonze for his wonderfully inventive and sensitive direction in WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. This is a movie that could have been silly. Stupid. Ridiculous. Fake. Somehow, Jonze, as he has done several times before, manages to bring together real emotion with a world we should never buy for one of the most emotionally interesting and deep movies of the year. His direction, coupled with that magnificently adapted screenplay (which amazingly did not get any Oscar love), made this movie what it was. Those of you who wrote this off as a kid’s film and skipped it are seriously missing out.

2) Greg Motolla for ADVENTURELAND. Here’s a guy, coming off of SUPERBAD, that could have taken on any number of idiotic studio teen comedies, and chose to tell this personal and realistic story instead. He deserves a nomination just for that, but I may as well throw in that he gets some of the best performances out of a group of people who already give great performances.

The only one that I would push (get it?!) out of there would be Lee Daniels, over-directing at times what I think is essentially an over-praised film.

The acting nominations I was more or less okay with (again, not judging the stuff I didn’t see).

A lot of people are bitching about Meryl Streep getting her 8,012th nomination (this time for Best Actress) with JULIE AND JULIA, but I will defend her as there are very few actors in the world that can take a person that was loud, high-pitched, exaggerated and slightly over-bearing, and portray them in a way that still made me cry (don’t judge me!). I suppose I would be okay swapping her out for one of three other performances, if anyone had seen them – Penelope Cruz in BROKEN EMBRACES, Catalina Saavedra in THE MAID or Abbie Cornish in BRIGHT STAR. But since no one did see those, Meryl is fine with me.

As for Best Actor, there’s probably nobody on there I’d like to see get removed… but I kinda wish that Sam Rockwell could have at least been recognized for his great performance in MOON. On the other hand, he’s about to make a big splash in IRON MAN 2, so maybe that’s reward enough.

Does it matter who is nominated in the supporting categories, when the front-runners for the awards (Christoph Waltz and Mo’Nique) are so ahead of the pack? But let’s pretend it matters anyway, and at least mention that Woody Harrelson is having a hell of a year. Between ZOMBIELAND and his nomination for THE MESSENGER, he hasn’t had a year this good since he teamed up with Wesley Snipes. I’m happy for him and all, but in that film, I felt that Samantha Morton’s performance was stronger, more visceral, more real. The concept that she was passed over in order to give Penelope Cruz a nomination for the wrong film is pretty gross. I also would have been happy to hand that nomination to Melanie Laurent for her nuanced work in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. Say what you will, non-believers, about Tarantino’s pulpy writing and flashy direction (and I happen to like both more often than not), the man can direct the hell out of some actors. He even managed to get an almost-Oscar-worthy performance out of Diane “NATIONAL TREASURE” Kruger. Kudos, sir.

Screenplay time! I’ve already mentioned how ridiculous it is that Spike Jonze and David Eggers weren’t nominated for Best Adapted for WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. Calling something like DISTRICT 9 an adaptation is always weird to me when it is literally a longer version of a short made by the same guy. Again, I didn’t see it, so I can’t judge the quality overall, but it’s kind of like if I started writing this blog, fell asleep, then finished it when I woke up… and then claimed the finished product is adapted from my earlier unfinished blog. How about a new category for Best Expanded Screenplay, where movies like NAPOLEON DYNAMITE, DISTRICT 9 and BOTTLE ROCKET can duke it out? That way, the category for screenplays that took a modicum of skill to actually adapt wouldn’t get diluted down. Not to beat a dead horse, but imagine the skill and effort that went into adapting WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE. The book (if you can call it that) was like six pages long and consisted mostly of Maurice Sendak’s awesome illustrations. To turn that into a feature-length movie, much less the movie it became, is a true adaptation. Ditto Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach for the not-nominated FANTASTIC MR. FOX. In fact, of the films nominated, only one (that I saw – I missed IN THE LOOP) really displayed a true and complete adaptation, and that was Sheldon Turner and Jason Reitman’s screenplay for UP IN THE AIR. In the book, the tone is whiny and annoying, the supporting characters are nearly non-existent, and the main character suffers from - at best - memory loss and - at worst - psychosis. To take that and make it into the snappy, relevant and insightful film it became is a real adaptation. And yes, I’ll flog this horse one more time and mention that while UP IN THE AIR is the best of the bunch, it’s still not quite on par with WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, which should win (yes, I said win, like Bill Murray in RUSHMORE, who also wasn’t nominated).

On an unrelated note, over in the Original Screenplay category, a friend of mine wrote (500) DAYS OF SUMMER, so I want to say it should be nominated, but I think we all know that he will win an Oscar later in life, so I’m good moving on. At least AVATAR didn't get a screenplay nomination.

I don’t remember who wrote that the makers of CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS will never forget the title THE SECRET OF KELLS because it’s the movie that stole their Best Animated Film slot. Um… what? Someone thought that CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS deserved a nomination? That’s ridiculous. That person should have his or her ability to write things out loud on the Internet where children can see them revoked. So what were the movies I would have liked to have seen get recognition in this category? There were three that were ignored, in my opinion.

You convinced me a long time ago to watch PONYO, and I’ve been sold since then. How many times did we sing “Round Tummy” with big smiles on our faces? Aw, that little fish girl thingy. For those of you who haven’t seen it, do – worthwhile. Ditto MARY AND MAX, a little seen but really great animated flick. Saw it at Sundance last year, and it stuck with me ever since – great voice acting from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Toni Colette, a wonderful true story and luscious (I can’t think of another word for it) animation.

I also would like to give a shout-out to MONSTERS VS. ALIENS. Yes, I know it’s not popular, and I know that most people thought it stunk, but I enjoyed the hell out of it, and want to at least give a salute in its direction. The fact that I can even think of one, much less three animated movies to add to the existing list speaks to what a good year for animation it was, which makes me happy. I love me some animated movies.

I only saw two of the films nominated for Best Documentary, but I was just curious where THIS IS IT and CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY are. I’m sure there are technical reasons why these two were left out, but I just don’t care enough to go find out what they are.

I suppose that I shouldn’t mention the songs that aren’t nominated if I haven’t seen the film that they were in, but despite having skipped BROTHERS and EVERYBODY’S FINE, I’ve heard their respective songs (U2's “Winter” and Paul McCartney's “I Want To Come Home”), and they both seem pretty great to me. Mostly though, I am just shocked that the Academy was able with a straight face to ignore Karen O and the Kids’ “All Is Love” from WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE in lieu of anything from NINE. Shame on you. At least AVATAR didn't get a nomination for Leona Lewis’ “I See You” or I'd have to bust a cap up in this bitch.

Likewise, many many scores were ignored this year. Some of them just don’t make any sense. James Horner’s over-bearing and incessantly bombarding score for AVATAR was the worst part of the movie. For SHERLOCK HOLMES, Hans Zimmer just did the same thing he always does, but with more bells and whistles... literally. It’s like he got a new keyboard that plays sound effects and just went to town. Where is Marvin Hamlisch for THE INFORMANT!? Carter Burwell for THE BLIND SIDE? Karen O (with Carter Burwell again) for WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE? Most egregiously, where is a nomination for T-Bone Burnett and Stephen Bruton for CRAZY HEART? That movie rests on the music so much, they made a composer a producer! What does that tell you?

[So… here’s a quick update… I decided to go trolling online to see if anyone else agreed that these were some crazy omissions, and it turns out that a bunch of the scores I mentioned above (WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE, CRAZY HEART and THE BLIND SIDE, along with FUNNY PEOPLE, BRUNO and THE LOVELY BONES) were disqualified or deemed ineligible. Here’s their language as to why: “[S]cores diluted by the use of tracked themes or other preexisting music, diminished in impact by the predominant use of songs, or assembled from the music of more than one composer shall not be eligible.” In other words, the fact that WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE and CRAZY HEART used songs as well as a score earned them slots at the “fuck you” table. Gotta love the Academy.]

Let’s skip over a few. We know that Best Art Direction goes to the most elaborate fantasy flick (PAN’S LABYRINTH much?), Best Costume Design goes to the most detailed period piece (yay AGE OF INNOCENCE), Best Editing goes to the movie with the most editing (BLACK HAWK DOWN over MEMENTO) and Best Sound and Sound Editing go to the loudest films (PEARL HARBOR and U-571 won Academy Awards, for the love of crap).

So, with that, let’s jump over to my last category – Best Visual Effects. AVATAR is the only film in this category that matters, but let’s discuss the fact that there are only three nominees. According to the rules, if I understand them correctly, they could add two more flicks to the mix, though they traditionally don’t. If they had two additional slots available to them, how do you ignore 2012 or WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE? 2012 has only crazy special effects going for it. The movie wasn’t directed, acted, written, DP’d, mixed or anything else – it was effected. How do you ignore that? Likewise, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE’s monsters. You’d be hard-pressed to find a movie that melds physical effects with CGI effects better than this one, and just try to find creatures that should, by all rights, be ridiculous and silly looking, and instead make you cry. I just realized how many times I mention the recurring theme of me crying in movies. Yikes.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t remove any nominees from this category – I would supplement. The effects in STAR TREK worked for me (with the exception of the incessant fake lens flares to prove to the audience that what we’re seeing is real despite the fact that it isn’t). And even though I didn’t see DISTRICT 9, I’ve seen enough to give Neill Blomkamp credit for being the anti-Stephen Sommers, using hand-held shaky-cam tricks to mask weak effects, making them that much more effective and realistic-looking. And for doing it all on a budget. But come on – if the nominees were AVATAR, STAR TREK, DISTRICT 9, WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE and 2012, would it make AVATAR win any less? No. But it would highlight some great accomplishments by people who surely deserve the recognition and the paycheck bump.

Oh, and Best Abs goes to that guy from NEW MOON.

And that’s my brain dump for the day. What do you think? We more or less on the same page?

BRIAN: Huh. You do cry a lot. It’s weird. Let’s not ever see movies together. We’re gay enough as it is. Oh, btw, do you want me to pick you up when we see VALENTINE’S DAY, or should we meet at the theatre? I’m just asking because it was hard recognizing you last time in that trench coat when we met up for HE’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU.

You also wrote a rant about being depressed over the Golden Globes. Do you need to speak with somebody about this? It’s okay to say yes. It’s not okay to hurt inside. It’s also not okay to pay attention to the Golden Globes.

So, we are on the same page about WTWTA. Also unexpectedly about Samantha Morton and Abbie Cornish. I applaud you for watching non-blockbusters, btw. You surprise me every day. I will pick you up for VALENTINE’S DAY.

I also loved ADVENTURELAND. I’m not really sure if any one element deserves to be singled out among the five best of anything. It’s a classic example of a film being more than the sum of its parts. That being said, I loved the cinematography. It looked like it was filmed on dated film stock. Perfect for a movie wrapped in nostalgia.

And yeah, weird about DISTRICT 9 being considered an adaptation. You know what was weirder? BEFORE SUNSET being nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay because it had characters from BEFORE SUNRISE – you know, as sequels usually do. Explain that to me. Disagree about your point regarding the DISTRICT 9 Viz f/x nomination. They should reward the director for cleverly masking the effects based on what you said, not the f/x team.

MARY AND MAX looks awesome.

No comments:

Post a Comment