February 2nd is Groundhog Day, a day when everyone anticipates the groundhog seeing his shadow because it's a harbinger of spring, along with baseball's spring training and the first robin. Around these parts, however, February 7th is the day that fills us with anticipation, because it means we'll be seeing The Shadow, and that just means a really good time.
Both shows are already reserved full, but we get cancellations right up until the day of the show, so you might want to call the number below frequently and see if any seats have opened up. Also, if you're near the bookstore that evening, we start a waiting list about a half-hour before each show time. Again, often groups wind up being smaller than expected or people don't show, so there's a good chance of getting in.
Here’s the lowdown:
THE DATE:
February 7th
THE SHOWS:
THE ADVENTURES OF SAM SPADE: "The Tears of Night Caper"
THE SHADOW: "The Isle of the Living Dead"
THE CAST:
Alan Dolderer, Heather Edwards*, Karla Hendrick*, Michael H. Johnson, Annalisa Loeffler, Rebecca Roe*, Bob Rutan, Steve Viola and DeLisa M. White
(* denotes member of Actors' Equity Association)
WHERE:
Partners & Crime Mystery Booksellers
44 Greenwich Avenue (between Sixth and Seventh Avenues), NYC
TIMES:
6 PM, repeated at 8 PM
PRICE :
$7
FOR RESERVATIONS & INFORMATION CALL:
212-462-3027
Hope to see you there!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Deranged Penguins and other Encounters at the End of the World
Werner Herzog - the filmmaker whose documentary ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD – just received an Academy Award nomination – once made good on his promise to eat a shoe (yes EAT A SHOE) as a motivation ploy for fellow filmmaker Errol Morris. It worked, Morris’ classic GATES OF HEAVEN was completed and released, and made the name of it’s now legendary filmmaker.
This anecdote should tell anyone, whether their familiar with his work or no, that Herzog is wackier than your average bear (his last film was GRIZZLY MAN, get it? Get it? heeehehhheeee :-)), and - btw - no less effective.
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD chronicles Herzog’s trip to the South Pole. He makes it clear from the get-go that this is no travelogue, no NOVA episode, and no romantic mediation on the demands of life as a cute penguin. His explorations have the same wanderlust as its subjects, whose reasons for being at the South Pole count as many as there are inhabitants of this unfriendly terrain. Herzog avoids entirely the “checklist of important facts” approach of so many television science docs, instead asking the kinds of random questions which beset any curious mind in a bizarre environ. Nor does he over-sentimentalize. Herzog’s voice sways from so many extremes that he could seem scattered. He could, that is, if these switches didn’t ultimately create a strange kind of balance. Just when you think Herzog is getting uncomfortably pretentious, he undercuts himself with self-aware humor. Just when he’s exploring the banal disappointments inherent in any visit to an exotic locale, he side swipes you with images full of true wonder. And where the film finds its most haunting resonance, in: the futility of nature, the isolation of the truly unique, the delay of science, the potential of extinction, etc. Herzog is savvy enough – and generous enough as a filmmaker - to refrain from stating those themes too explicitly. Instead, Herzog invites the most powerful ideas swim through the audience’s thoughts like the deep sea divers under the world’s icebergs, who inspired his adventure in the first place...
This anecdote should tell anyone, whether their familiar with his work or no, that Herzog is wackier than your average bear (his last film was GRIZZLY MAN, get it? Get it? heeehehhheeee :-)), and - btw - no less effective.
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD chronicles Herzog’s trip to the South Pole. He makes it clear from the get-go that this is no travelogue, no NOVA episode, and no romantic mediation on the demands of life as a cute penguin. His explorations have the same wanderlust as its subjects, whose reasons for being at the South Pole count as many as there are inhabitants of this unfriendly terrain. Herzog avoids entirely the “checklist of important facts” approach of so many television science docs, instead asking the kinds of random questions which beset any curious mind in a bizarre environ. Nor does he over-sentimentalize. Herzog’s voice sways from so many extremes that he could seem scattered. He could, that is, if these switches didn’t ultimately create a strange kind of balance. Just when you think Herzog is getting uncomfortably pretentious, he undercuts himself with self-aware humor. Just when he’s exploring the banal disappointments inherent in any visit to an exotic locale, he side swipes you with images full of true wonder. And where the film finds its most haunting resonance, in: the futility of nature, the isolation of the truly unique, the delay of science, the potential of extinction, etc. Herzog is savvy enough – and generous enough as a filmmaker - to refrain from stating those themes too explicitly. Instead, Herzog invites the most powerful ideas swim through the audience’s thoughts like the deep sea divers under the world’s icebergs, who inspired his adventure in the first place...
Surprises!! Yay!!!
There seems to be a rather annoying delay on getting the full list posted on www.oscar.com... urgh...but from what we got from the TV announcements - just a couple of thoughts:
- They reaaaallllly liked the READER and really DIDN'T like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, eh?
- Melissa Leo and Richard Jenkins!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!
- Sorry, Sally Hawkins.
- No DARK KNIGHT for pic or director but THANK HEAVEN MILK wasn't overlooked.
- The sheer number of BENJAMIN BUTTON nods gives it alot of momentum back....
- They reaaaallllly liked the READER and really DIDN'T like REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, eh?
- Melissa Leo and Richard Jenkins!!!!!! YAY!!!!!!!
- Sorry, Sally Hawkins.
- No DARK KNIGHT for pic or director but THANK HEAVEN MILK wasn't overlooked.
- The sheer number of BENJAMIN BUTTON nods gives it alot of momentum back....
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Man on Wire - A review
Over the years, from time to time, my beloved friend and intrepid journalist Kate Luce Angell has taken me to see people do the following things (among others):
• swallow swords,
• swallow neon tubes in a sword shape,
• walk on blades of swords,
• lie on beds of nails,
• lie on a bed of nails while sandwiched between another bed of nails that people stood atop,
• eat fire,
• eat GLASS….
…well, you get the picture.
See, she’s been working on a book about the resurgence of Sideshow. She’s a great writer and it’ll be a fascinating book, I’m sure. I tagged along partly because I love her, partly because she has a way of explaining things that makes anything sound interesting, and partly because, well, I’m game.
But at some point (I think it was around the time I saw a guy in Soho tape a bunch of firecrackers to his chest and then light them), the “side show” experience went from curious to profound.
See, first off, side shows differ from magic shows in that there’s no trick. Prior to Kate’s exploration of this world and her introducing me to it, I didn’t really realize that. I may have sort of known it, but I didn’t REALLY know it.
People ACTUALLY swallow swords. They ACTUALLY make themselves the meat in a bed-of-nails sandwich. They ACTUALLY eat glass. They are not a-foolin.
Some part of me had always assumed swallowed swords were retractable or something. But no, these people are truly taking bizarre (I mean that in a good way) health risks for our entertainment. There are parameters and necessary requirements for how to do those things so you don’t die INSTANTLY, of course, but the acts themselves and the risks for injury - however well calculated – are real.
For some people, that’s automatically thrilling. The potential for violent injury has a well-earned place in our recreational lives and rears its head in everything from car races to action films. And it should. Confronting and exposing ourselves to things we fear is how we conquer those fears. The process of desensitization is a necessary one or we’d spend our entire lives locked up in a padded bunker.
But what captured my interest was something less reactive and more inspiring. It struck me that these people were staring human limitations – and all notions of impossibility - in the face and defying them. That they shared this defiance with us for our entertainment wasn’t just for our curiosity, but for our liberation. While watching these irreverent souls defy physical limitations, I found myself realizing that “Achieving what is presumed impossible doesn’t rest only with astronauts or Olympians, but with anybody who chooses to re-make the rules of their own bodies.” As we all age, the risk of becoming prisoners to the hue and cry of our bodies aches and pains increases. It’s startling to find new limitations in your own skin. But here are people who artfully refuse to accept the should/shouldn’ts or can/can’ts. They remind us that as crazy or foolish as these acts may seem, you can’t call them impossible.
So when ones of the interviewees in MAN ON WIRE, the James Marsh documentary (newly available on iTunes) about Phillippe Petit’s stroll across a wire connecting the Twin Towers describes his feat as “profound,” I knew what he meant.
Because I’d seen the Sideshow.
But not because of MAN ON WIRE.
MAN ON WIRE is getting what seems to be uniform critical acclaim this awards season and is on the short list for Oscar. One can see why - it’s deftly constructed, sharply paced and has a compelling story.
But it left me quite cold.
James Marsh quite rightly makes no mention of the demise of the Towers. It would be inappropriate and exploitative. But the unspoken end of the story hangs over the piece like a dark and thunderous cloud. Perhaps in light of the extremely dark end of the Towers, Petit’s act seems to many to be particularly defiant, inspiring and glorious. But it struck me instead as frivolous. That could be just “where I’m at” with regards to the Towers, but I’m more inclined to blame the film, and I’ll tell you why.
Marsh has indicated in interviews that part of his attraction to the story was his sense that it provided much the thrill of a good heist movie. I love me a good heist movie. I love the Robin Hood quality of a rag tag group of guys going up against the system and getting their own little slice of the big pie. I love the craft and suspense of the well-laid out victimless crime. The film plays into that delight, as the films beginning involves THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR style behind-the-scenes glimpses of the fake ids and disguises used to gain access to the Towers.
MAN ON WIRE would have likely filled me with the same delight, if it weren’t for that ever present cloud. If it had been any other building, I too, might have thought it was thrilling and exciting. But the source of the suspense – that the gang Petit needed to support his elaborate goal might get arrested – seemed well, just irresponsible compared to the security needs of buildings which ultimately suffered three terror attacks, finally being felled by the last two. Marsh invites you to revel in the “crime”, which for me, simply served to remind me of crimes inextricably associated with those buildings and therefore made me feel a lot less sympathetic to criminals, as harmless their particular crime may seem. Rooting for Petit to succeed in his impertinent quest - and engagement with the film requires that we see Petit as the righteous perpetrator of a victimless crime against a large institution - is difficult in light of the victims that the Towers and their tragic inhabitants became. And frankly, the idea of his potential death in pursuit of an acrobatic dream feels not romantic and idealistic, but disrespectful and narcissistic compared to those who felt no choice but to drop that distance as the Towers burned.
I know I’m being DeLisa Downer here – I get that - and I’m glad for whoever might feel inspired by the film. But next time I need to see something “out there” and “silly” to remind me to set goals beyond my easy reach, I’ll be out at Coney Island looking for a man with a sword in his stomach.
• swallow swords,
• swallow neon tubes in a sword shape,
• walk on blades of swords,
• lie on beds of nails,
• lie on a bed of nails while sandwiched between another bed of nails that people stood atop,
• eat fire,
• eat GLASS….
…well, you get the picture.
See, she’s been working on a book about the resurgence of Sideshow. She’s a great writer and it’ll be a fascinating book, I’m sure. I tagged along partly because I love her, partly because she has a way of explaining things that makes anything sound interesting, and partly because, well, I’m game.
But at some point (I think it was around the time I saw a guy in Soho tape a bunch of firecrackers to his chest and then light them), the “side show” experience went from curious to profound.
See, first off, side shows differ from magic shows in that there’s no trick. Prior to Kate’s exploration of this world and her introducing me to it, I didn’t really realize that. I may have sort of known it, but I didn’t REALLY know it.
People ACTUALLY swallow swords. They ACTUALLY make themselves the meat in a bed-of-nails sandwich. They ACTUALLY eat glass. They are not a-foolin.
Some part of me had always assumed swallowed swords were retractable or something. But no, these people are truly taking bizarre (I mean that in a good way) health risks for our entertainment. There are parameters and necessary requirements for how to do those things so you don’t die INSTANTLY, of course, but the acts themselves and the risks for injury - however well calculated – are real.
For some people, that’s automatically thrilling. The potential for violent injury has a well-earned place in our recreational lives and rears its head in everything from car races to action films. And it should. Confronting and exposing ourselves to things we fear is how we conquer those fears. The process of desensitization is a necessary one or we’d spend our entire lives locked up in a padded bunker.
But what captured my interest was something less reactive and more inspiring. It struck me that these people were staring human limitations – and all notions of impossibility - in the face and defying them. That they shared this defiance with us for our entertainment wasn’t just for our curiosity, but for our liberation. While watching these irreverent souls defy physical limitations, I found myself realizing that “Achieving what is presumed impossible doesn’t rest only with astronauts or Olympians, but with anybody who chooses to re-make the rules of their own bodies.” As we all age, the risk of becoming prisoners to the hue and cry of our bodies aches and pains increases. It’s startling to find new limitations in your own skin. But here are people who artfully refuse to accept the should/shouldn’ts or can/can’ts. They remind us that as crazy or foolish as these acts may seem, you can’t call them impossible.
So when ones of the interviewees in MAN ON WIRE, the James Marsh documentary (newly available on iTunes) about Phillippe Petit’s stroll across a wire connecting the Twin Towers describes his feat as “profound,” I knew what he meant.
Because I’d seen the Sideshow.
But not because of MAN ON WIRE.
MAN ON WIRE is getting what seems to be uniform critical acclaim this awards season and is on the short list for Oscar. One can see why - it’s deftly constructed, sharply paced and has a compelling story.
But it left me quite cold.
James Marsh quite rightly makes no mention of the demise of the Towers. It would be inappropriate and exploitative. But the unspoken end of the story hangs over the piece like a dark and thunderous cloud. Perhaps in light of the extremely dark end of the Towers, Petit’s act seems to many to be particularly defiant, inspiring and glorious. But it struck me instead as frivolous. That could be just “where I’m at” with regards to the Towers, but I’m more inclined to blame the film, and I’ll tell you why.
Marsh has indicated in interviews that part of his attraction to the story was his sense that it provided much the thrill of a good heist movie. I love me a good heist movie. I love the Robin Hood quality of a rag tag group of guys going up against the system and getting their own little slice of the big pie. I love the craft and suspense of the well-laid out victimless crime. The film plays into that delight, as the films beginning involves THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR style behind-the-scenes glimpses of the fake ids and disguises used to gain access to the Towers.
MAN ON WIRE would have likely filled me with the same delight, if it weren’t for that ever present cloud. If it had been any other building, I too, might have thought it was thrilling and exciting. But the source of the suspense – that the gang Petit needed to support his elaborate goal might get arrested – seemed well, just irresponsible compared to the security needs of buildings which ultimately suffered three terror attacks, finally being felled by the last two. Marsh invites you to revel in the “crime”, which for me, simply served to remind me of crimes inextricably associated with those buildings and therefore made me feel a lot less sympathetic to criminals, as harmless their particular crime may seem. Rooting for Petit to succeed in his impertinent quest - and engagement with the film requires that we see Petit as the righteous perpetrator of a victimless crime against a large institution - is difficult in light of the victims that the Towers and their tragic inhabitants became. And frankly, the idea of his potential death in pursuit of an acrobatic dream feels not romantic and idealistic, but disrespectful and narcissistic compared to those who felt no choice but to drop that distance as the Towers burned.
I know I’m being DeLisa Downer here – I get that - and I’m glad for whoever might feel inspired by the film. But next time I need to see something “out there” and “silly” to remind me to set goals beyond my easy reach, I’ll be out at Coney Island looking for a man with a sword in his stomach.
Baffling BAFTAs
Well, some HUGE surprises at the BAFTA's!!! And as my friend, E, knows - I've said for years - NEVER underestimate the impact of the British wing of the Academy. Anne Hathaway was completely denied, which after the GG loss makes her chances of winning look dead, dead, dead in the water. Brad Pitt got DOUBLE nods (for BENJAMIN & BURN AFTER READING) so he's moved solidly into second place with Penn behind Rourke. If Rourke's publicist takes so much as a weekend off in the next couple of months and he gaffes it up, Pitt could pull a surprise, as Penn already has a statue on the mantle... The Changeling did surprisingly well all around, which bodes very well for Angelina to secure a nod after being passed over last year for MIGHTY HEART, but decreases Eastwood's chance of an acting nod for TORINO. Winslet increases momentum with her double nods, but a READER nod in the Lead category confuses the issue a wee bit. DARK NIGHT misses a Best Pic nod, but it got so much attention in the technical awards that I doubt that will have to much of an impact on its chances for Best Pic Oscar nod. Amy Adams picked up momentum, but Supp categories are always full of surprises so that hardly takes Viola Davis out of the picture.
The HUGE shocker????? Absolutely no mention of HAPPY GO LUCKY at all whatsoever. None. In ANY category. Was it not eligible for some reason??????? How could this be possible? It's a British film. By a beloved and legendary British Director. Sally Hawkins has been on an award parade. What happened there???
We are ONE week away from hearing the Oscar nominations. The BAFTA surprises suddenly make the roster seem more intriguing than they have in weeks!!! :-)
The HUGE shocker????? Absolutely no mention of HAPPY GO LUCKY at all whatsoever. None. In ANY category. Was it not eligible for some reason??????? How could this be possible? It's a British film. By a beloved and legendary British Director. Sally Hawkins has been on an award parade. What happened there???
We are ONE week away from hearing the Oscar nominations. The BAFTA surprises suddenly make the roster seem more intriguing than they have in weeks!!! :-)
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Oscar short films to be shown in theaters (yay!!)
(from AP) Shorts International has just announced that it will bring the Oscar-nominated short films (we'll know what they are when the nominations come out on Jan. 22) in the live-action and animated categories to U.S. theaters on Feb. 6, giving us a chance to see the quirky, fun, moving films before the 81st Academy Awards ceremony on Feb. 22.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
De-Lisa and De-Lurking Day!!!!
Hey Cats and Kitties!!!
So it's officially de-lurking day, which means if you're a DeLisa OnLine reader and haven't made a comment, it's a good day to come out of the closet and comment on sumpthin. No pressure - just welcome....
Monday, January 12, 2009
Goldie Locked Up
Okay – so CLEARLY everything has changed. Of course Oscar ballots are due TODAY, so if the Academy were to trump SLUMDOG for DARK NIGHT or MILK it’s game on, once again. And with BUTTON having lost momentum it’s wide open once again. There were many surprises, but all great ones, no? I could not love everyone associated with SLUMDOG more. They are divine and adorable. I look forward to actually seeing it and likely giving you my glowing review once I do ;)
And can you say KARMIC RETRIBUTION for Ms. Winslet who was the best thing about the night!!! (She was also the most beautiful woman in the room on the inside and out although the ever stunning Laura Linney gave her a run for her money. ) Sally Hawkins win and Oscars’ past attention to Mike Leigh’s leading ladies bodes well for her, although let’s hope she eats something before March so she can have the strength to carry a clutch purse...
All right, now – not everything has changed. Mickey Rourke? Sewn-to-the-up. Of course, I stopped the Tivo just before his began his speech and turned to my very patient and enabling companions (I love you A&T!!!!) in watching the program and said “He wins or loses the Oscar in the next two minutes.” Clearly, he won it. Great speech. The doggie section was very touching and not just because I obviously love doggies, but because we all understand loneliness. And nice of him to pass off “gaffe” duties to my beloved Mr. Aronofsky (who hasn’t learned yet that he should have married me and not Rachel Weisz who I would hate for stealing him if she wasn’t so clearly awesome in every way.) And Christopher Nolan is doing an exceptional job in honoring Ledger, which must be truly difficult to rise to among the sadness we all feel for his loss...
For TV, I’m thrilled that MAD MEN got the chance to reclaim the spotlight they didn’t get a chance to shine in last year, although it would have been nice to see HAMM get a chance to give a speech. Well, it’s nice to see HAMM do ANYTHING. He’s just breathtaking. I was disappointed that RECOUNT didn’t do better, but it’s hard to argue with the Giamatti, Linney, Wilkenson and Hanks corner.
Those who know me know that I’m no fashion maven, but even I can make some obvious observations:
- How did it become the hair style of the moment to look like you spent five hours on your hair only to mess it up after you got rough and tumble with someone in the coat closet minutes before the show started? (yes, Drew Barrymore I'm talking to you)
- Furthermore - powder blue eye shadow??? Sequins??? Metallic dresses??? Do you people not realize that the only reason they got away with that at Studio 54 was because everyone was on cocaine????
- Further furthermore - strapless dresses look WRETCHED on women who don't stand up straight. The stylist who starts making actresses practice walking around with a book on their heads will make a mint this season...
- Furtherest - I’m putting Renee Zellweger on a fashion time out until Carolina Herrera recovers her mind. Or eyesight. Or both.
- Lastly, Hollywood - please note: You do not look tan. You look like a pumpkin. Please stop.
And can you say KARMIC RETRIBUTION for Ms. Winslet who was the best thing about the night!!! (She was also the most beautiful woman in the room on the inside and out although the ever stunning Laura Linney gave her a run for her money. ) Sally Hawkins win and Oscars’ past attention to Mike Leigh’s leading ladies bodes well for her, although let’s hope she eats something before March so she can have the strength to carry a clutch purse...
All right, now – not everything has changed. Mickey Rourke? Sewn-to-the-up. Of course, I stopped the Tivo just before his began his speech and turned to my very patient and enabling companions (I love you A&T!!!!) in watching the program and said “He wins or loses the Oscar in the next two minutes.” Clearly, he won it. Great speech. The doggie section was very touching and not just because I obviously love doggies, but because we all understand loneliness. And nice of him to pass off “gaffe” duties to my beloved Mr. Aronofsky (who hasn’t learned yet that he should have married me and not Rachel Weisz who I would hate for stealing him if she wasn’t so clearly awesome in every way.) And Christopher Nolan is doing an exceptional job in honoring Ledger, which must be truly difficult to rise to among the sadness we all feel for his loss...
For TV, I’m thrilled that MAD MEN got the chance to reclaim the spotlight they didn’t get a chance to shine in last year, although it would have been nice to see HAMM get a chance to give a speech. Well, it’s nice to see HAMM do ANYTHING. He’s just breathtaking. I was disappointed that RECOUNT didn’t do better, but it’s hard to argue with the Giamatti, Linney, Wilkenson and Hanks corner.
Those who know me know that I’m no fashion maven, but even I can make some obvious observations:
- How did it become the hair style of the moment to look like you spent five hours on your hair only to mess it up after you got rough and tumble with someone in the coat closet minutes before the show started? (yes, Drew Barrymore I'm talking to you)
- Furthermore - powder blue eye shadow??? Sequins??? Metallic dresses??? Do you people not realize that the only reason they got away with that at Studio 54 was because everyone was on cocaine????
- Further furthermore - strapless dresses look WRETCHED on women who don't stand up straight. The stylist who starts making actresses practice walking around with a book on their heads will make a mint this season...
- Furtherest - I’m putting Renee Zellweger on a fashion time out until Carolina Herrera recovers her mind. Or eyesight. Or both.
- Lastly, Hollywood - please note: You do not look tan. You look like a pumpkin. Please stop.
Friday, January 2, 2009
WWOW Radio in January!! :-)
Hope you'll be able to join us this Saturday for our January show, as we celebrate the birthday of that master detective, Sherlock Holmes. (He'll be 155 on January 6th, and looks pretty darned good for his age. Must be the royal jelly.)
Here’s the lowdown:
THE DATE:
January 3rd
THE SHOWS:
RICHARD DIAMOND, PRIVATE DETECTIVE: "Louis Spence Escapes"
THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES: "Murder in the Casbah"
THE CAST:
Alan Dolderer, Heather Edwards*, Michael H. Johnson, Rebecca Roe*, Bob Rutan, Steve Viola, Ross Wade & DeLisa M. White (see picture above :-))
(* denotes member of Actors' Equity Association)
WHERE:
Partners & Crime Mystery Booksellers
44 Greenwich Avenue (between Sixth and Seventh Avenues), NYC
TIMES:
6 PM, and/or at 8 PM
PRICE :
$7
FOR RESERVATIONS & INFORMATION CALL:
212-462-3027
Hope to see you there!
Here’s the lowdown:
THE DATE:
January 3rd
THE SHOWS:
RICHARD DIAMOND, PRIVATE DETECTIVE: "Louis Spence Escapes"
THE NEW ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES: "Murder in the Casbah"
THE CAST:
Alan Dolderer, Heather Edwards*, Michael H. Johnson, Rebecca Roe*, Bob Rutan, Steve Viola, Ross Wade & DeLisa M. White (see picture above :-))
(* denotes member of Actors' Equity Association)
WHERE:
Partners & Crime Mystery Booksellers
44 Greenwich Avenue (between Sixth and Seventh Avenues), NYC
TIMES:
6 PM, and/or at 8 PM
PRICE :
$7
FOR RESERVATIONS & INFORMATION CALL:
212-462-3027
Hope to see you there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
