Friday, May 29, 2015

12. Save the Last Dance

The movie: Save the Last Dance (Thomas Carter, 2001)

Have I seen this movie before? No.

How I saw it: DVD (via Netflix)

The recommender: Sarah Orton

The rationale: The main character's name is Sara (her spelling, not mine) and she is confronted with her whiteness while learning to dance in the clubs. This is what I wanted my adolescence to look like, minus the sad parts. (Also, Sean Patrick Thomas was my everything in 2001.)

My familiarity with this movie: This is one of those movies that many people are surprised that I haven’t seen. In fact, I have probably lied and told people that I have seen this movie so as to avoid the “I can’t believe you haven’t seen that movie!” conversation. I do this a lot. Here is a (partial) list of popular movies that I have not seen: The Breakfast ClubClueless, Cruel IntentionsGladiator, Legally Blonde, Love & BasketballMiss CongenialityPitch Perfect, Pretty Woman, Remember the Titans, 10 Things I Hate About You. If I ever tell you that I’ve seen any of these movies, I am lying to you (unless, of course, I see them in between writing this and talking to you).

Sarah informs me that this is a personal film for her and her adolescence. If I had to name a similarly personal film for my adolescence, it would be 8 Mile.

Plot summary and trailer yoinked from Netflix and YouTube, respectively: “After her mother dies, aspiring ballerina Sara Johnson moves in with her estranged father, who lives in a largely black neighborhood. When Sara is befriended by a classmate's brother who shares her love of dance, an interracial romance develops.”

What I thought of the movie: It’s not bad! I learned a lot. Sarah and I have been close friends for six years now, but only after having seen this movie do I feel like I really understand her. There’s a scene where Sara wows everyone in the club with her newly learned hip-hop dance moves; previously the outsider, she even earns chants of “go Sara, go Sara.” I bet young Sarah watched that scene about twelve billion times, each time picturing herself as her h-less doppleganger. 

(Incidentally, I’m happy to report that Sarah’s adolescent goal of Club Queendom has indeed come to fruition. Once, we were all out dancing and a few random girls tried to push their way into our circle of friends. Sarah, at the top of her lungs, yelled at them to “GETTTTTTTT OUTTTTTTTTT.” I will remember that moment for the rest of my life. It is burned into my memory. My only regret is that I did not instantly start chanting “go Sarah, go Sarah,” instead of falling to the ground in shock, which is what I did.)

I’d seen this movie described as formulaic and unrealistic. Neither criticism is entirely untrue, but I think they both kind of miss the point. It’s somewhat formulaic, sure, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You don't get to become a formula if you don't work. Furthermore, there is a level of complexity and sensitivity that the movie displays in its handling of race that I did not fully expect. (There’s even some stuff about checking your privilege!) Sure, there are a few caricatures (I particularly enjoyed the minor character of Sara’s white friend from her original school, who says blatantly racist things while constantly informing Sara that she’s “praying for her”), but it’s a movie for teenagers. Honestly, I would rather have teenagers see this movie a thousand times than have them see Crash once.

Is it realistic? I don’t know. It's set in an inner-city school, and I'm conditioned to distrust any depiction of such schools in movies. I have a limited understanding of what constitutes good dancing, so I don’t know if Julia Stiles and Sean Patrick Thomas are actually good dancers, but they seemed p good to me. But I have a feeling that some things were as close to realistic as you'd want in a movie like this, and while other things were less so, nothing really took me out of the movie all that much.

However, I would like to point out one hilariously unrealistic thing that happens toward the end that did take me out of it a bit. (SPOILER ALERT, I GUESS) So after rediscovering her love for dance, Sara gets a big audition for the Juilliard School. However, she’s recently broken up with Derek due to the formula for the movie saying that they have to break up before getting back together at the end. Her confidence thus shaken, she messes up the beginning of her dance and is about to give up. Derek, a Man, arrives to save the day, going up on stage with her to restore said confidence. This is not the unrealistic part I was talking about, although it is wildly unrealistic.

With Derek, who somehow has not been forcibly removed from the theater, watching from the wings, Sara starts her dance again, this time doing an incredible job. When it’s over, one of the judges says, “I can’t tell you this on the record… but welcome to Juilliard.” WHAT. THAT IS NOT A THING. I’ve run auditions in the past, and while I know very little about the world of theater and dance, I do know that YOU DON’T DO THAT. ESPECIALLY not for an audition to GET INTO A SCHOOL. Did they even check her transcripts?

(Side note: I recall a similarly unrealistic plot line involving the Juilliard School in one of my all-time favorite films, The Last Song. The Juilliard School keeps allowing its name to be used in movies, which is kind of a mixed blessing for them: on the one hand, the references perpetuate the notion that Juilliard is the #1 school for the arts in this country; on the other hand, the way the audition process is depicted in these films indicates that the school has no idea in the slightest what it’s doing. In this film alone, we learn that they’ll let random people barge into private auditions, and that they’ll make immediate post-audition promises that they might not be able to keep! I’d almost rather go to the JK Simmons music torture school from Whiplash!)

Despite that rant, I promise that this is a very enjoyable movie. It's well-acted (what ever happened to Sean Patrick Thomas, BTW? He's excellent!), it has a positive message, and there are a lot of scenes that depict people expressing their emotions through dance. You can't ask for much more than that.

Am I happy I took Sarah’s recommendation? So much so that, if anyone ever denigrates this movie in my presence, I will tell them to “GETTTTTTTT OUTTTTTTTTT.”

What’s next?

UPDATE: Meg Moran, who definitely was not lurking in my classroom while I was writing this post during our shared planning period, recommends the Antonioni classic Blow-Up.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

11. Good Bye, Lenin!

The movie: Good Bye, Lenin! (Wolfgang Becker, 2003)

Have I seen this movie before? No.

How I saw it: DVD (via the DC Public Library)

The recommender: Emily Maude Prince

The rationale: So during my final semester of grad school my appendix burst and I spent a week in the hospital on a beautiful, steady drip of Dilaudid. Two weeks later, I went back to school and wrote a term paper* on this film and became 100% obsessed with it. What I'm saying is that I don't know how much of my devotion to it can be blamed on a residual high, but at the very least you probably won't be able to deny that this is the best movie starring a German Zac Efron that you've ever seen. Also, I think there is full-frontal male nudity. (Seriously though, this is a funny, nuanced film about how people carry on in the face of monumental change, and I am psyched you're going to watch it.)

*I'm pretty sure I still have this paper, it was very good and I think about motherhood and the patriarchal camera lens. And bodies? You will probably want to go ahead and read that as well. [Editor's Note: SMH SMH SMH.]

My familiarity with this movie: I’m pretty sure I was supposed to watch this movie for a film class I took during my study abroad semester in Prague. If this was this case, then, as noted above, I did not watch it, because who actually does schoolwork while studying abroad? (After reading EMP’s rationale, I would also like to blame the patriarchal camera lens. Ban Lens.)

There’s also a chance I’m just conflating the way this movie looks with other aspects of my study abroad experience. This movie is set at the end of the Cold War and depicts the beginnings of East Germany’s transition from communism to capitalism, a transition that had not yet occurred in the Prague dormitory in which I lived. Grim!

One last very helpful and relevant note about the title of this movie: you can definitely say it like the old “By Mennen” commercial jingle. (Good) Byeeee, Lenin! Cooooostanza!

Plot summary and trailer yoinked from Netflix and YouTube, respectively: “Alex's mother falls into a coma just as the Berlin Wall is about to come down. But when she wakes up months later, she's too weak to withstand shock -- so Alex goes to great lengths to keep the truth about her country's reform a secret.”

What I thought of the movie:  Look, I really hate to give any credit to EMP here, but this was an excellent choice. It’s extremely well-acted, featuring a very likable (pre-Inglourious Basterds) Daniel Brühl as the relentlessly doting protagonist. The screenplay takes what is arguably a ludicrous premise and turns it into something legitimately moving and funny. Most important of all, it really makes you think about how you need to appreciate your mother more. She’s done so much for you.

I was very taken with how vividly the movie brings this period in history to life. The movie was very well-received in Germany, presumably among people who lived through the period depicted therein, which indicates that the fall of the Wall and its effects are represented accurately. It’s really what keeps the movie from veering into the absurd. This is a movie about an elaborate ruse, and elaborate ruses are difficult to pull off. The movie strains our credulity, but never to the point where we aren’t invested anymore, especially when the screenwriters make an unexpected and excellent choice toward the end of the film that I will not spoil. It’s all very well done.

Enough positivity. EMP makes a few brash claims in her rationale. Let’s evaluate them:
  • Yes, this is probably “the best movie starring a German Zac Efron” that I’ve seen (that is, until they make a German version of Charlie St. Cloud).
  • Yes, there was (briefly) full-frontal male nudity.
  • No, I will never read that term paper. Ever.

Am I happy I took Emily’s recommendation? Don’t make me say it again.

What’s next?

UPDATE: Sarah Orton, former publicist of the Taste My Sad blog, gets in with a HUGE recommendation: Save the Last Dance.

Friday, May 22, 2015

10. In Time

The movie: In Time (Andrew Niccol, 2011)

Have I seen this movie before? No.

How I saw it: DVD (via Netflix)

The recommender: Kabeer Parwani

The rationale: INT: BOARDROOM. We see about a dozen movie execs.

Exec 1: We need an idea, and need one fast.

Exec 2: We have Justin Timberlake, he's hot right now, we just need a movie to put him in.

Exec 3: Well it doesn't matter what it is, we need to start production right away. Time is money.

The Boss: Wait… say that again?

Exec 3: … Time is Money?

All execs high five each other. Coke is shared.

My familiarity with this movie: Kabeer’s rationale has refreshed my memory of the main conceit of the film. I do have a soft spot for a good futuristic, high-concept movie, ones with trailers that start with words like, “Only a thousand people survived the nuclear holocaust. The only food left on Earth is jellybeans. And then the aliens came.” (I haven’t seen it yet, but I think this actually might be the plot of Mad Max: Fury Road.)

Now at first blush, this particular concept seems less “high” than “conceived of by a guy who was, in fact, high.” But I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, mainly because it was written and directed by Andrew Niccol, the writer of one of my favorite movies growing up, The Truman Show. I, like everyone else who saw that movie when they were a teenager, went through a period in which I was convinced that I was the subject of a Truman Show-esque show, and thus that the entire world revolved around me. (I have totally gotten over this, by the way.) I grew out of this period after I realized that, if it were true, my parents would never have let me see the movie. Bright kid!

Plot summary and trailer yoinked from Netflix and YouTube, respectively: “In a near future where aging stops at 25, time is the new currency and the wealthy can live forever. When Will Salas inherits decades of life from a wealthy murdered man, he’s pegged as the suspect by the Time Keepers, who enforce the law.”

What I thought of the movie: To enjoy a movie like this, a movie with an intriguing premise that raises a number of intriguing questions, at a certain point you really need to let go of some of the questions and just go with it. As will soon become abundantly clear, I was unable to do this.

Because as hilariously outlandish as Kabeer’s scenario appears to be, it really does seem like the idea-generating process for this movie didn’t get far past the phrase “wouldn’t it be cool if…” I didn’t need them to answer every single question I had about the backstory of this futuristic society, I just needed to get the idea that they had some of the answers. And I really don’t think they'd even considered (m)any of the questions.

I can’t be bothered to describe the entire stupid plot here, so I will try to focus on some of the things that took me out of it. JT, our hero, lives in the poor district -- oh yeah there are districts, like in The Hunger Games; there are also twelve of them in this movie (although there might be a thirteenth one that was previously bombed into submission by the Capitol but is secretly still in existence underground), and the higher the number of the district, the poorer you are; seriously, this is a thing -- and he works in a factory to support himself and his mom (played by Olivia Wilde; because everyone stops aging at 25, this movie employs lots of hot young actors to play older people, which is definitely some sort of metaphor for Hollywood).

One day, Wilde tries to catch a bus to meet JT after work, but is told that the fare is now “two hours” (get used to this). She only has an hour and a half left, and tries to run to meet JT (who has some time to give her) at their predetermined meeting place. They run toward each other across a large parking lot type thing, but she dies right before she reaches him. It is one of the more awful scenes I can remember seeing in a movie, as well as an unintentionally brilliant ad for Venmo.

DIGRESSION: they do not appear to have cell phones in this society (even the rich folks who we meet later only use landlines). If we still have regular phones, what happened to cell phones? Did the war I made up earlier eradicate all cell phone technology? I feel like when you’re creating a futuristic society, you have to go all the way in one direction (all phones and phone-related technology are now extinct) or the other (hologram videophone-type stuff). But instead we get Olivia Wilde and JT running across a parking lot and her dying in his arms right before he can transfer her some time, because that is a cool idea for a scene that Andrew Niccol had.

DIGRESSION TO THE DIGRESSION: You can just tell how pleased Niccol is with himself that he gets to recontextualize every phrase in the English language that has to do with the concept of time. (I started counting the number of utterances of the word “time” in the movie. I gave up almost immediately. According to a transcript of the movie I found online, the word appears 101 times in the script, which, having just seen it, feels like a very low figure. I was prepared to believe upwards of 500.) Examples of this include a poor girl who says, “Do you have a minute?” and a prostitute who says, “I’ll give you ten minutes for an hour.” It's as hokey as it looks. I don’t know for how long this society has had time as its currency, but after, I don’t know, a month or so, wouldn’t this start to get old? “Hey, did you hear the new GEICO slogan? Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen minutes on car insurance!” “I swear to God, Larry.” You have to imagine that they would eventually develop entirely new idioms, rather than just sticking with dumb puns for decades (to be clear here, I’m referring to decades as a unit of time, not currency).

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DIGRESSION: another thing that bothered me: all people need to do to transfer time to each other is do a Roman forearm/wrist grab handshake thing (which is why the Wilde death is so tragic, because they were so close to ugh whatever who cares). Therefore it seems incredibly easy to just take someone else’s time: when you do the wrist grab, whoever’s on top whisks time away from the person on the bottom. There are scenes in which people “fight,” and the fights consist of one guy trying to get his wrist on top of the other guy’s wrist, which is hilariously undramatic and made me wish that Kabeer had recommended the Sylvester Stallone arm wrestling/child custody drama Over the Top. Also, since stealing people’s time (and thus potentially killing them) is literally a matter of inches away from shaking someone’s hand, I imagine that thieves and murderers would have a much higher degree of plausible deniability in court. “We were just shaking hands and my hand slipped! What was I supposed to do?” The conviction rate in this society must be super-low. All lawyer friends of the blog (FsOTB) need to weigh in here.

Holy cats I haven’t actually talked about what happens in the movie for like eight paragraphs. Sorry. So all the people in the rich district can essentially live forever, since as the captains of industry they’re making time (not in the “making time with my best girl” sense) off the backs of the workers (this movie is v socialist). One night, JT is given a hundred-plus years by a depressed rich guy who then lets himself die (making JT a suspect in his death). JT goes to the rich district, meets Amanda Seyfried and her dad, and I have to stop again because a billion other ridiculous things happen in this part of the movie.

Vincent Kartheiser, who played Pete Campbell on Mad Men, plays the dad, a stuck-up rich guy with a punchable face. (Vincent Kartheiser is not afraid of being typecast.) He is introduced in a scene in which JT wins a huge poker hand off him, a scene which might be the most implausible thing in the movie, and lest we forget, this is a movie about people who have bright green timers on their forearms that counts down when they’re going to die. I don’t remember the exact details of the hand (and Lord knows I’m not gonna waste any more ~time~ going back and checking this again), but I’m nearly certain JT was pot-committed for a few hundred years (ughhh) on an inside straight draw, which then came through on the river to best a set of queens. Nonsense. And to top it all off, the best poker player I know, former roommate of the blog (ROTB) and current FOTB Matt Gottilla, recently told me that he liked this movie! WHAT GIVES, ROOMS? What would Roy Rounder think?

Eventually, Cillian Murphy’s timecop catches up with JT, and so JT and Seyfried go on the run together. Later in the movie, she says to him, “you saved my life,” which is… not true. Maybe in the sense that she’s lived a boring life before he came around and livened it up, sure, but… she could have literally lived forever (or at least until the violent, District 13-led revolution that eventually would have toppled this unequal, top-heavy society). Now she’s consorting with a suspected murderer, at one point has most of her time stolen from her, and has narrowly escaped death several times. I know JT’s on that suit and tie shit and that Pete Campbell’s not great, Bob, but c’mon now. (There’s also a ton of mansplaining in this movie; JT’s streetwise poor dude keeps telling Seyfried’s pampered rich girl how the world works. But it’s hard to focus on that with all the other nonsense.)

OK I’m done telling you what happens, in case you want to see this for yourself. A few last notes: there’s a key moment where a character literally forgets to check how much time he has left, and subsequently dies. I don’t really have anything to say about this other than HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN. IT’S YOUR LIFE. HOW ARE YOU NOT CONSTANTLY CHECKING TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME. The other day I forgot to stop at an ATM on my way home from work when I needed some cash. I felt really dumb! Imagine how this guy felt!

The movie is just so ham-handed. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie whose hands were more like hams. But it’s not the worst movie I’ve ever seen. Despite how silly the material is, the acting is fine (although your mileage may vary on JT), it looks cool, and it definitely made me think.

But when it was over, I was just left with so many unanswered questions. When did they make the switch from a money-based currency to a time-based currency? Why? How? Did they do it all at once or it was a longer roll-out? What was the exchange rate between the dollar and time? Whose idea was this? What are the fundamentals of this time-based economy? How did the recontextualization of the word "time" affect people's enjoyment of various popular songs, such as “Time Is On My Side” and “Basket Case?” It's never good when you feel like you've thought about the movie for longer than the filmmakers have, and when the movie was over, I highly doubted that the filmmakers would be able to answer any of my nagging questions, even if they had all the time in the world. (Last one. Sorry.)

Am I happy I took Kabeer’s recommendation? After this nonsense, I’m not even gonna give him the time of day. (I lied.)

What’s next?

UPDATE: After former recommender Micah Lubens's invalid comment, Emily "EMP" Prince comes through with the Mark David Chapman biopic Good Bye, Lenin! (I'm being told that's not what this movie is about, and that that joke is rather insensitive. Apologies.)

Sunday, May 17, 2015

9. All About Eve

The movie: All About Eve (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950)

Have I seen this movie before? Yes.

How I saw it: Netflix Instant Watch

The recommender: Cameron Chong

The rationale: So basically I watched All About Eve the first time because it's on the "Must Watch" list of every gay man. However, the reason I liked it and continue to watch it periodically is because it is one of the best films I've ever seen, from any era, with regard to its portrayal of women. Every female character is fully-developed and realized, and, while they are confined to societal roles of the time, they do not let those roles define them. I also like it because, unlike in many films of the era and even today where a happy ending for these women would involve a man and marriage, in this movie it is a deliberate choice rather than a deus ex machina solution to all of life's problems. On top of that it's just a great story about power, manipulation, and the things we're capable of doing in order feel powerful and in control. As they say, "When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die." HUGE THRONES REFERENCE, CAM. Bette Davis was pretty much the original Khaleesi. I wonder how she’d fare... in Qarth.

My familiarity with this movie: As noted above, I have seen this movie before, when I was in high school and I was trying to watch all the classic films (read: films on the American Film Institute’s Top 100 list). Ever impressed by fun stats, I noted that All About Eve holds, along with Titanic, the record for the most Oscar nominations (14), and henceforth headed straight down to the Oceanside Library to check it out. (I famously waited much longer to check out Titanic, because I am not down with the cool kids.) I remember really liking it, particularly the snappy dialogue, and am v excited for the opportunity to revisit it.

Plot summary yoinked from Netflix: “Bette Davis plays an aging Broadway diva who employs a starstruck fan as her assistant, only to learn that the woman is a conniving upstart.” Note to self: start referring to people as “upstarts.”

What I thought of the movie: It’s so great. I think I appreciated it even more this time, because of my increased awareness of how progressive this movie was for the women (as Cameron noted). For example, Bette Davis wears a dress with pockets in this movie. If I know anything about women, it’s that they love dresses with pockets.

Seriously, though: the movie tackles so many still-topical issues about women, particularly women in show business. One of the chief conflicts in the film is Bette Davis’s struggle to come to terms with her status as an “aging” (read: 40-year-old) actress, especially when she's confronted with a known conniving upstart. Unrelated: aside from being a conniving upstart, Eve is also extremely creepy, speaking in hushed tones about her reverence for THE THEATER. Sometimes Anne Baxter lays it on a little thick in these scenes, but that doesn’t make it inauthentic. Theater people can be really, really annoying.

It was also great to be reminded of how incredible the dialogue is in this movie. The characters -- especially my favorite character, the theater critic Addison DeWitt (one of the great names in all of cinema) -- are prone to speechifying, but it's such wonderful speechifying, full of choice metaphors and withering insults. If you can’t watch it right this moment, go here and just read some of those quotes. Lloyd, honey, be a playwright with guts. Write me one about a nice, normal woman who just shoots her husband. “Bill's thirty-two. He looks thirty-two. He looked it five years ago, he'll look it twenty years from now. I hate men.” BAN MEN. What a film.

Am I happy I took Cameron’s recommendation? Cameron is very much the Addison DeWitt of our generation: delightfully sassy, frequently drinking, and always right.

What's next?

UPDATE: Kabeer Parwani, whose comment initially displayed his name as a crude expletive, has recommended the Justin Timberlake futuristic thriller In Time. If I recall the reviews accurately, this recommendation is itself something of a crude expletive.

Monday, May 11, 2015

8. Casanova

The movie: Casanova (Lasse Hallström, 2005)

Have I seen this movie before? No.

How I saw it: DVD (via the DC Public Library)

The recommender: Brigid Hogan

The rationale: I was obsessed with this movie when I was a young teen in high school but haven't seen in about eight years. I recommended it because I honestly recall it being incredibly charming, romantic, and funny, but could not tell you whether that is at all true. So I am hoping you find it incredibly charming, romantic, and funny, because otherwise you're destroying all the sweet memories I have of Heath Ledger, RIP. (Slash I was sitting in a meeting, saw your post, and this was the first thing that popped into my head.) Both good reasons.

My familiarity with this movie: I am familiar with the idea of a “Casanova.” I am not as familiar with the actual guy; in fact, I don’t know if this is like a Robin Hood situation where he was just a character in folk tales and such. Give me a second while Wikipedia this.

OK I’m back. He was a real guy! Who knew?

Casanova was directed by Lasse Hallström. I am far more familiar with his work than I care to be, since Hallström has the “distinction” of being the only person to direct more than one Nicholas Sparks film adaptation (Dear John and Safe Haven). As noted in my aforelinked blog posts, it is my considered opinion that those movies are “not good.” Let’s hope ol’ Lasse raises his game when he’s working with some better source material. Although part of me is really hoping that this movie is really bad, so that I can call it Trashanova. (Listen, no one’s forcing you to read this blog.)

Plot summary and trailer yoinked from Netflix and YouTube, respectively: “Lasse Hallström's witty romantic comedy stars Heath Ledger as Giacomo Casanova, the infamous and dashing player of 18th-century Venice who holds the key to every woman's heart -- every woman, that is, but one.”

What I thought of the movie: I liked it! It’s not Trashanova at all. It’s a lighthearted romp that’s often quite funny, featuring a fine performance by Heath Ledger as the titular ladies’ man. Honestly, it’s everything that The Ladies Man starring Tim Meadows should have been.

I really liked the fact that the movie did not take itself too seriously. There are plenty of cheeky, winking-at-the-audience-type jokes, often involving what a hunk Casanova is. You've got your requisite shots of ladies sighing and moaning audibly whenever he walks by, which is fine, because, I mean, have you seen Heath Ledger? I myself sighed a few times there! I’ll allow it. 

It’s also a nice surprise that, for a movie about a legendary womanizer in 18th-century Venice, the movie is p feminist! Sienna Miller plays a strong, independent woman who spends the whole movie standing up to Men and writing all kinds of feminist literature under a pseudonym and getting Casanova to fall in love with her. And while she eventually also falls in love with him (and thus puts herself in a position to pick up a few... mementos from his past, so to speak), well... at least they have some nice conversations along the way about WOMEN.

Whatever. This is not a movie to analyze too deeply. It’s just fun to look at, with lots of flowy period costumes and Venetian locales. And it’s  even more fun to listen to, heavily featuring words like “debauchery” and “fornicator” and the L word (not in that way) Triple Crown: “libertine,” “licentiousness,” and “libidinous.” All of those are excellent words. We should all move to 18th-century Venice. It seems delightful.

Am I happy I took Brigid’s recommendation? I'm very happy that her memories of Heath Ledger have not been #tarnished.

What’s next?

UPDATE: Top lawyer Cameron Chong recommends the 1950 multiple Oscar winner All About Eve. I am very glad he did not recommend the 2009 multiple Razzie winner All About Steve.