RSS Feed

Review – The Giver


With Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skarsgård, and Katie Holmes; Written by Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide; Directed by
Phillip Noyce; Rated PG-13 for a mature thematic image and some sci-fi action/violence. 94 minutes.

“The book was better than the movie,” is usually a statement made not as a matter of fact, but as shorthand to say, “I have the mental focus, the copious leisure time, and the kind of cultured upbringing required to actually read a book, you illiterate, populist plebian.” Making the comparison is not only passive-aggressively dickish–and often spoken with the same teeth-gnashed, barely-contained, Thurston Howell III disdain as the dig “I don’t even own a television”–but also misses the point. Yes, Plato, men and women sure are different, a dog is not a cat, and a book is not a movie. And congratulations–you’re an insufferable baggadouchio and a master of the obvious. Now, in the spirit of the book, take off your shirt, lie face-down on the bed, and prepare to be on the receiving end of an unpleasant rub.

Predictably, many will make the same ol’ snooty-snotty Buch-über-Film claim of THE GIVER, the long-brewing adaptation of Lois Lowry’s 1993 dystopian YA novel. “The Giver” tells the story of young Jonas (Brenton Thwaites of “Maleficent”), the oldest child in a future-y planned community (that looks very much like Walt Disney’s original vision for EPCOT). Here, life is perfect, because it is engineered that way, from the precision of the language, to the job you will train for starting at age 12, to the person you will marry. But Jonas is very different and special, and his very different specialness catches the attention of the Elders (the Chief of which is played by a surprisingly one-note Meryl Streep). The Elders inform Jonas that his path is that of “The Receiver,” the esteemed keeper of all the knowledge of the very, very bad world that came before. This reality is kept from the citizenry, which is kept in docile darkness with a daily morning dose of what’s probably a cocktail of Zoloft, lithium, and Flintstones chewable salt peter (kind of like a hypodermic Philip Glass record). His secretive, not-at-all-creepy man-boy training with “The Giver” (producer Jeff Bridges) begins, and he takes it upon himself that the world should know all the joys and horrors that existed in it before it turned so very, very bad.

However, ‘baggery-be-damned, “the book was better than the movie” is a hard claim to support here, as neither the book nor the movie is particularly well-written. Rather, they are both spartan to the point of being vague, and in both cases we never recover from the awkwardness of the very structured and precise language (also: why Bridges talks like Carl from “Sling Blade” is never explained). Neither the book nor the movie is refreshing, either, instead smacking of a forgettable, late-series “Twilight Zone” episode, in much the same way that M. Night Shyamalamadingdong’s derivative “The Village” did. The book is significant, though, as it was the modern dystopian novel that primed the pump for the likes of “The Hunger Games,” “Divergent,” and [whatever the kids are totes-magotes into this school year]. This may or may not be a crime against humanity, depending on how difficult it is to get your child to read a book without the aid of a quarantine, histrionic ransoming of handheld devices, or an EMP that mercifully takes out the power grid.

The gimmick in which a character sees only in black-and-white until he or she finds enlightenment was done defter in 1998’s “Pleasantville.” That movie’s director, Gary Ross, directed the first “Hunger Games” movie and created with it an immersive post-apocalyptic world. Here, the usually stalwart mercenary Phillip Noyce (TV’s “Revenge” and a laundry list of fair-to-middling movies you’ve probably half-enjoyed on cable TV over the years) makes the right stops through Lowry’s book, but in a very mechanical, book report-y kind of way. And for every dystopian cliché that adapters Robert B. Weide (“Woody Allen: A Documentary”) and first-timer Michael Mitnick avoid, like milking a romantic off-roading between Jonas and Fiona (Odeya Rush of “The Odd Life Of Timothy Green”), they are saddled with servicing two of Lowry’s clunkers. There’s the one in which Jonas must single-handedly free the world from its ignorance, and the one that has the entire society hidden away and not allowed to have knowledge of its very, very bad past. If romantic trope fetishist Nicholas Sparks wrote sci-fi, this would be his “Logan’s Run.”

It is the illustration of this very, very bad past during which the movie’s jagged seams become evident. When the Giver is imparting visions of the world before to Jonas via a handshake/psychic link (which was wisely changed from the slightly-nambla-riffic, half-naked back-rubbing in the book), they actually use GODDAMN YOUTUBE CLIPS. Nice production value, guys! Did you shoot the rest of the film on iPhones? Text-message script revisions back-and-forth? It is this kind of laziness that sums up the long journey of a movie that actually had the chance to rise above its unspectacular upbringing, but instead plays it safe and lives out its destiny as a cable TV staple that you kinda watch because you kinda remember it from middle school. It makes you wish that with all the apologizing that goes on between the characters in the movie that Bridges would show up in a post-credits stinger scene and say sorry for not giving us enough movie for our $11.00.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 2 out of 5.Robert Newton is Editor of North Shore Movies Weekly, and also the founder of the wicked quaint, living-room-style Cape Ann Community Cinema in Gloucester.

Review – The Expendables 3

With Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Wesley Snipes. Written by Sylvester Stallone and Creighton Rothenberger & Katrin Benedikt. Directed by Patrick Hughes. Rated PG-13 for violence including intense sustained gun battles and fight scenes, and for language. 126 minutes.

Perhaps the most ironic thing about Sylvester Stallone’s series of movies featuring aging action stars is that most of them–including Stallone–can’t attract audiences for their own movies. However, throw them all together in an over-the-top picture featuring more bullets fired and bombs exploding than in a small war and it’s a huge hit. THE EXPENDABLES 3 shows no sign of the franchise slowing down.

As before, the plot is disposable. Barney (Stallone), Christmas (Jason Statham), Gunner (Dolph Lundgren), Toll Road (Randy Couture), and Caesar (Terry Crews) open the film with a big action set piece where they bust their compatriot Doc (Wesley Snipes) out of prison. It opens the film with a bang–including a train crashing into the prison–and marks the first major film appearance of Snipes in five years. Where has he been? Well, Doc tells us in the first of several in-jokes that makes the audience feel they’re part of the game.

While many critics have, correctly, noted how much the “Expendables” series owes to ‘80s action films, Stallone has a deeper debt to an entirely different group of movies:  the 1956 “Around The World in 80 Days,” “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,” and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” Those films each had a list of guest stars (or guest toons) and part of the attraction was recognizing each one as they appeared.

Here it’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, returning as Trench, a competing mercenary who sometimes works with Barney. Oh look, it’s Harrison Ford, replacing Bruce Willis (with a quip acknowledging that), as Barney’s CIA contact. Hey, there’s Mel Gibson as Stonebanks, the arms dealer who is the film’s villain. Isn’t that Antonio Banderas as the motormouth who wants to join Barney’s team? Wow, there’s Robert Davi as someone wanting to buy a nuclear device from Stonebanks. What’s Kelsey Grammer doing here? Probably the oddest casting of the film, Grammer proves perfect bringing his droll delivery to the role of Bonaparte, who helps Barney put his new team together.

New team? Yes, the plot contrivance here is that after a botched job where they are outwitted by Stonebanks–whom everyone thought was dead–Barney lets his old team go and brings in a new crew (Kellan Lutz, Ronda Rousey, Victor Ortiz, Glen Powell) who are younger and more adept at modern warfare. You can guess where the plot is going, leading up to a big showdown with virtually the entire cast–plus Jet Li.

Stallone, who shares credit for the script, remains the leader of the group and the star of the film, but he’s generous with all his co-stars, making sure each of them get moments to shine. If you get into the rhythm of it, there’s definitely fun to be had, from Ford’s character not understanding Statham’s British accent to Banderas’s manic warrior who stops in the middle of a battle scene to pay court to Rousey. Rousey is the one woman in the crew and a real life MMA fighter. It’s to the film’s credit that she’s taken seriously and not just used as eye candy.

“The Expendables 3” is late summer fun for action fans. You don’t take it seriously for a moment, nor are you expected to. For fans of the genre, though, this series is their “Roger Rabbit.” The only regret is that some older action stars, like Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson, didn’t live to appear in them.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 3.5 out of 5.Daniel M. Kimmel is a veteran movie critic and author of a host of film-related books. His most recent book is Shh! It’s a Secret: a novel about Aliens, Hollywood and the Bartender’s Guide. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Review – Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles


With Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner, Whoopi Goldberg, voice of Tony Shalhoub . Written by Josh Appelbaum & André Nemec and Evan Daugherty. Directed by Jonathan Liebesman. Rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence. 101 minutes.

There are many reasons to reboot an old film series but the worst one is, “We already own it and can make some more money.” Not that the profit motive is inherently bad, but it helps if you have a story to tell or there’s a huge public demand for the characters to come back. The audience for TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES seems to consist of children watching the current cartoon on Nickelodeon and adults who recall the original comic books/cartoons/movies with nostalgia. The kids may enjoy this movie because kids enjoy most anything that’s not broccoli. Adults may be another story.

For those of you coming in late, the title characters are about as contrived as you can get. You either accept them or you don’t. They were pet turtles mutated into human size talking creatures who are both teenagers and ninjas. We know they’re teenagers because they like pizza–a particular brand that is one of many shameless plugs in the movie–and they’re ninjas because they wear masks and call their leader sensei. Oh, and they’re all named for Italian Renaissance artists: Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, Raphael.

Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with a science fiction action movie that features unbelievable and cartoonish characters and relies a lot on CGI. This summer’s “Guardians of the Galaxy” is a perfect example of that sort of film being done exceptionally well. However, it helps to have actors interested enough in their roles to make them interesting, as well as a script that consists of more than fight scenes and lame one-liners. Unfortunately, the movie fails on both counts.

When the film opens with Megan Fox as reporter April O’Neil, you already know you’re in trouble. April is doing fluff pieces but wants to break open the story of the mysterious Foot Clan, which has been engaging in a series of criminal acts. Her cameraman (Will Arnett) and producer (Whoopi Goldberg) are skeptical, especially when she claims to have seen heroic turtle figures fighting them. The Turtles (led by a giant rat named Splinter and voiced by Tony Shahloub) are fighting an evil plot by the seemingly indestructible Shredder, a big guy in a heavily-metal version of a samurai outfit. The real villain, though, is Eric Sacks, friend and colleague of April’s late father. That’s not a spoiler. We know he’s a villain from his first onscreen appearance because he’s played by William Fichtner, who’s at his best when he’s cast against type which, alas, is not the case here.

At this point if you still care enough about the movie, then only two things need to be said about it. For anyone who is beyond their pre-teen years, the movie isn’t very much fun. The action makes one appreciate the subtlety of the “Transformers” movies and the humor consists of things like one of the Turtles facing death admitting he didn’t get the ending of “Lost,” a TV show that ended four years ago.

As for youngsters, the movie is properly rated PG-13. There is a lot of violence, and threats of violence, that may frighten very young or sensitive children. Parents know what’s appropriate for their own families, but it’s worth mentioning that this series was not originally intended to be kiddie fare. Showing the Turtles (well, three of them) chained up as the evil Sacks drains their blood for his nefarious scheme isn’t the sort of material most people would use to entertain six-year-olds.

“Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” may succeed at the box office but, if so, it will only show that if a fan base is strong enough, one can make money with anything.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 1 out of 5.Daniel M. Kimmel is a veteran movie critic and author of a host of film-related books. His most recent book is Shh! It’s a Secret: a novel about Aliens, Hollywood and the Bartender’s Guide. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.

-30-

Review – The Hundred-Foot Journey


With Helen Mirren, Om Puri, Manish Dayal, Charlotte Le Bon, Michel Blanc. Written by Steven Knight. Directed by Lasse Hallström. Rated PG for thematic elements, some violence, language and brief sensuality. 118 minutes.

In the 1980s, Swedish director Lasse Hallström, previously known for doing a documentary about ABBA, gained fame with American arthouse viewers with a lovely film called “My Life As A Dog.” He arrived in Hollywood in the 1990s, and since then has become the go-to director for what might be called the “well-made film.” For every “The Cider House Rules” or “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” there’s been a lot of commercial pap. Some, like “Chocolat,” were box office hits, but most were more like “Dear John,” “Salmon Fishing In The Yemen,” and “Safe Haven.” These are safe movies that are slickly made and intended to give viewers the effect of a warm bath: comfortable for a bit and then something you never think about again.

THE HUNDRED-FOOT JOURNEY is likely to fall into the same category as “Chocolat,” and not simply because it’s a French-based story involving romance and food. It’s pleasant, it’s professionally produced, and leaves you with that warm bath feeling. It’s not a great film but it is one that will please many.

Based on the novel of the same name by Richard C. Morais, the story has the substance of a fairy tale. The Kadam family, having fled violence in their native India, seek a place to live somewhere in Europe. Their car breaks down outside a village in France and the family patriarch (Om Puri) decided that this is where they should open up a new restaurant, featuring an Indian menu. Across the street–one hundred feet away–is a restaurant spotlighting classical French cuisine run by Madam Mallory (Helen Mirren). She is not happy about the competition.

Some tit-for-tat fighting occurs, leaving the poor mayor (Michel Blanc) in the middle when he’d rather be enjoying the food. Without giving away too much more of the plot, two things signal where things are headed. First, Hassan (Manish Dayal) is a gifted cook who is eager to learn French cuisine and experiment with combining French and Indian flavors. Second, Madame Mallory’s sous-chef Marguerite (Charlotte Le Bon), is the one who first encounters and rescues the stranded Kadams. Oh where could this story possibly be going?

Hallström makes everything so comfortable and charming that you tend to go with the flow. If Mirren is prickly and brittle at the start, we know she will soften as the story goes on. Dayal and LeBon provide the romance with just a touch of tension: are they destined to be rivals or partners? No fair guessing. Puri provides much of the fun, although his cantankerous Papa is also a character we’ve seen many times before, shifting from comical optimism to grim determination without breaking into a sweat.

If there’s any irony here it is that “The Hundred-Foot Journey” is ultimately a celebration of daring and originality. Both Papa and Hassan take the view that if what they’re preparing is good the public will come to them, a view that Madam Mallory eventually comes to share as well. However the people who have made the film apparently believe just the opposite: if you give the public the cinematic equivalent of comfort food they will wolf it down and be grateful. They may well be right here, and viewers who demand nothing more from their movies need not feel guilty. However, this is the movie version of a tuna fish sandwich, not haute cuisine.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 3.5 out of 5.Daniel M. Kimmel is a veteran movie critic and author of a host of film-related books. His most recent book is Shh! It’s a Secret: a novel about Aliens, Hollywood and the Bartender’s Guide. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.

-30-

Review – Into the Storm


With Richard Armitage, Sarah Wayne Callies, Matt Walsh, Max Deacon, Nathan Kress. Written by John Swetnam. Directed by Steven Quale. Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense destruction and peril, and language including some sexual references. 89 minutes.

The best way to describe INTO THE STORM is that it is weather porn. That’s not a glib cheap shot. It’s an accurate summing up of a totally empty film that exists for one purpose: to thrill people who get off on extreme weather.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. While you would be foolish to put your life at risk viewing storms like these up close, there is something very exciting about nature gone wild whether it’s a blizzard, a thunderstorm or, as here, a series of tornadoes. It’s what the creators of the Weather Channel count on since almost everyone now gets the temperature and forecast on their smartphones or other electronic device.

The people who created the special effects for “Into the Storm” did a very good job in showing both tornadoes and the destruction they leave in their wake. You’ve read news reports of roofs ripped off or cars flung around like toys. Here you get to see all that and much more. Indeed, these are the film’s “money shots.”

Certainly no one will be going for the story or the performances. Like classic porn, the plot points are just set ups for the action. It’s not quite the pizza boy at the door. Instead, it’s the storm chasers desperately needing film footage and a teenage couple trapped in a building that has collapsed. There’s a cast list at the movie’s end noting that professional actors are playing these parts. It’s nice that these people found paying work, but all of them could have been replaced by CGI characters or models or even hand puppets for all of the depth of character that’s displayed.

It’s the tornadoes who are the real stars here. The scenes of destruction are exciting and terrifying. Anyone still recovering from the real life tornado that hit Revere last week might want to give this a pass. In one scene, a high school that has been a designated shelter is suddenly in the direct path of the storm and everyone has to quickly clear out. We get a sense just how volatile and unpredictable these storm systems can be.

Another scene seems more like something out of “Sharknado” and fairly begs confirmation or debunking from someone who actually knows meteorology. One of the twisters hits a fuel pump and starts sucking up gasoline into the vortex. We then see it ignite and the tornado itself seemly catching fire. Is this real or Hollywood hokum? (Apparently this is based on a real phenomenon known as a “fire whirl” but it’s not clear if the depiction in the movie is realistic.)

Naturally, this all builds to the big weather orgy in the last act when the mother of storms chases our heroes–at least the ones still alive at that point–and it’s an open question who will make it to the end of the film. The answer to that question is not likely to be of interest to anyone in the audience because we have little to nothing invested in the characters. It’s okay, then, to sit back and root for the storm. That’s what you’ve paid to see, after all.

“Into the Storm” is something fans of extreme weather will want to see on a big screen. And it’s something that no one else needs bother with at all.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 2 out of 5.Daniel M. Kimmel is a veteran movie critic and author of a host of film-related books. His most recent book is Shh! It’s a Secret: a novel about Aliens, Hollywood and the Bartender’s Guide. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.

Review – Guardians Of The Galaxy


With Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker. Written by James Gunn and 
Nicole Perlman. Directed by James Gunn. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and for some language. 121 minutes.

There have been some extremely entertaining movies based on comic book superheroes and a few have been outstanding. What they have in common though is that they go from being serious to being very serious. Sure, some feature occasional comic relief, but it only serves to remind us how dark and brooding the film is the rest of the time. Coming into GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY without having read the comics but being told it’s another entry in the “Marvel Universe,” it was hard to know what to expect.

It turns out to be the goofy and action-packed antidote to most of the summer’s blockbusters. After a tragic opening in which young Peter Quill witnesses the death of his mother only to be abducted by a UFO, we’re thrown into an adventure that owes as much to “Indiana Jones” and the TV series “Farscape” as to its source material. Peter (Chris Pratt) has become a sort of space rogue and has stolen a mysterious and valuable orb. Soon everyone is after both it and him, none more so than the evil Ronan (Lee Pace).

The plot is the least important part of the film. What the story is really about is how Peter (who bills himself “Star Lord”) turns a ragtag group of rivals into the heroic group of friends suggested by the title. Gamora (Zoe Saldana) has been trained as a fighter by the even-more-evil Thanos (Josh Brolin), who is apparently the Big Baddie in the next “Avengers” movie. She’s been loaned to Ronan, but is pursuing her own agenda. Then there’s Rocket (voice of Bradley Cooper), a raccoon who speaks and likes to steal, and his pal Groot (voice of Vin Diesel), a living, walking tree whose conversation consists of “I am Groot.” After a stint in space prison, they are joined by Drax (Dave Bautista), who wants vengeance against Ronan for killing his family.

The movie has two things going for it. One is its terrific cast which includes everyone mentioned above plus notable bits by John C. Reilly, Glenn Close, Benicio Del Toro, Djimon Hounsou, and Michael Rooker. Rooker is standout, playing the leader of the gang that kidnapped Peter who likes reminding him about how the other aliens wanted to eat him.

The other thing going for it is the look of the film. Credit goes to everyone from cinematographer Ben Davis to production designer Charles Wood, to everyone else involved in creating the imaginative sets, costumes, and make-up effects. The aliens come in a wide range of colors, and such is the attention to detail that Gamora’s green skin is perfectly set off by the yellow prison outfit she has to wear at one point. The integration of the CGI generated characters of Rocky and Groot with the human actors is seamless. Groot, in particular, becomes so real in expression that he seems completely real. A mixture of motion capture work (as in the recent “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”) and computer wizardry, it raises the bar for this sort of work.

The bottom line is that “Guardian of the Galaxy” is fun. You don’t really have to be immersed in the Marvel Universe to get it (although there are plenty of references and in-jokes for the initiated), and as the group get over their problems and bond as friends and allies, we find ourselves joining in the celebrating as well. The film ends on a note that the Guardians will be back. There have been other films promising sequels that never came, but one suspects that isn’t going to be an issue here.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 4 out of 5.Daniel M. Kimmel is a veteran movie critic and author of a host of film-related books. His most recent book is Shh! It’s a Secret: a novel about Aliens, Hollywood and the Bartender’s Guide. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.

-30-

Review – Get on Up


With Chadwick Boseman, Nelsan Ellis, Dan Aykroyd, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer. Written by Jez Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth. Directed by Tate Taylor. Rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug use, some strong language, and violent situations. 138 minutes.

Without even knowing which musician’s life story is being dramatized, you already know how the film is going to go: He starts out from a poor or modest background, but already has the raw talent and ambition that will define his career. He’ll struggle, but eventually be recognized and get a big break. Having enjoyed great success, he’ll face serious problems–drugs, womanizing–that threaten to not only destroy the important relationships in his life, but also derail his career. He’ll get through it and return greater than ever. The film will end with a moment of triumph.

I’ve just described the plot of not only this summer’s “Jersey Boys,” but also “Walk the Line,” “Ray,” “The Buddy Holly Story,” and many others. It’s also the plot for GET ON UP, a dramatization of the life of James Brown. The details may vary, but it’s the same well-trodden path. It’s why most of these films are notable for two things: the music being celebrated and the lead performances. “Get On Up” proves to be no different.

The filmmakers have chosen to jump around in time, so one moment Brown is a little boy and the next he’s on a plane going to entertain the troops in Vietnam,  but it can’t distract us from how familiar the story feels, even if you know nothing at all about Brown. What makes the film worth seeing–even if you don’t know his music–are the two lead performances.

Chadwick Boseman is an actor to watch, having played Jackie Robinson in “42” and a key football player in “Draft Day.” He really gets to show his range here, from the young Brown on the make to the older performer who isn’t used to being questioned even by employees demanding back pay. If his turn as Robinson was about holding his emotions in so as not to give satisfaction to those attacking him, he lets it all loose as Brown, on stage and off.

Nelsan Ellis will be instantly recognizable by many as the outrageous Lafayette on the HBO series “True Blood,” but even his fans will be surprised by his very different turn here as Bobby Byrd, Brown’s longtime friend and long-suffering colleague. He also has to work a range of emotions from the eager gospel singer giving Brown–in jail for stealing a suit–a leg up, to the seasoned performer who realizes that Brown is rightfully the star of the act, a role he’ll never attain. Brown could sometimes be abusive to those closest to him, including Byrd, but Byrd had the advantage of always being able to tell Brown the truth. The most interesting moments of the film focuses on their friendship.

Other relationships get short shrift, and there are so many loose ends that the nearly two-and-a-half hour film threatens to unravel. Viola Davis, always a welcome presence, has just a few scenes as Brown’s mother. Octavia Spencer plays a madam who takes young Brown in for a while. Both actresses were standouts in the director Tate Taylor’s previous “The Help,” but seem to be here largely for publicity value. The supporting player who is the biggest plus is Dan Aykroyd as Ben Bart, the promoter who was instrumental in Brown’s career.

Overall,the film is like a collection of the greatest hits of Brown’s life, from “You’re So Good” to his Boston concert the night after the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination, where he was given credit for bringing people together at a time of crisis. That’s makes “Get On Up” a film that Brown’s legion of fans will want to see. As for everyone else, it’s a workmanlike movie that’s worth seeing to catch two young actors on their way up.•••

North Shore Movies has given this film a score of 3.5 out of 5.Daniel M. Kimmel is a veteran movie critic and author of a host of film-related books. His most recent book is Shh! It’s a Secret: a novel about Aliens, Hollywood and the Bartender’s Guide. He lives in Somerville, Massachusetts.

-30-

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers