MY COUSIN RACHEL review

How is this movie rated PG-13?! It’s cousins having sex, getting married, and possibly killing each other! What the hell?! Fine, whatever! Different time period, different location!

So news to me, this is actually based on a book, which was adapted once before back in 1952. To my understanding though, the incest was heavily cut down to near-nonexistent. I guess that’s why this movie was made: to faithfully adapt the novel this was based on. But really… were we really clamoring for this? Oh well.

To be fair, before seeing this, I was only interested because… “My Cousin Rachel”… starring Rachel Weisz? There were jokes waiting to be made! But this was a serious and dark kind of story and cousin-on-cousin screwing aside, it didn’t look… awful per se. In fact, elements were intriguing. The movie was about this married couple and the husband passes away. Our main hero suspects that his cousin Rachel was responsible. However, upon meeting her, he becomes infatuated with her and begins to fall hard… though she doesn’t seem to share the same feelings. Yup! It’s that kind of movie! Hence, why I was actually pretty excited for this. I could always afford to see a bat-shit crazy movie like this.

Let’s take a look at the cast. Starring, we obviously have Weisz (DENIAL [2016], CONSTANTINE [2005], and THE MUMMY [1999]) and Sam Claflin (THEIR FINEST [2017], ME BEFORE YOU [2016], and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES [2011], where he also played a character named Philip.). In support, we have Holliday Grainger (THE FINEST HOURS [2016], CINDERELLA [2015], and ANNA KARENINA [2012]) and Iain Glen (RESIDENT EVIL: THE FINAL CHAPTER [2017], EYE IN THE SKY [2016], and TV show GAME OF THRONES).

Now for behind the scenes. Writing and directing is Roger Michell, known for HYDE PARK ON HUDSON (2012), MORNING GLORY (2010), and NOTTING HILL (1999). Composing the score is Rael Jones, known for a ton of short films and documentaries. Finally, the cinematographer is Mike Eley, known for NANNY MCPHEE RETURNS (2010) and a ton of short films and documentaries.

Overall, I’m sadistically looking forward to this. I love a fun and insane movie, so bring it on! Sanity’s overrated anyway.

This is my honest opinion of: MY COUSIN RACHEL

(SUMMARY)

Philip (Sam Claflin) was an orphan, until his older cousin adopted him and raised him as his own. After traveling afar, the cousin met up with a mutual cousin of theirs named Rachel (Rachel Weisz). The two married and before long, the cousin fell ill and eventually died, but not before sending a cryptic letter that seemed like he was in trouble and it’s later decided by Philip that Rachel is responsible for his death. Soon, he receives word that Rachel is visiting and Philip intends to confront her. However, when he meets her for the first time, he is immediately struck by her beauty and becomes increasingly convinced that she may not be what he initially thought and the two strike up a benign relationship… until he starts to develop feelings for her.

(REVIEW)

Hmm… it’s about as bat-shit as I thought it’d be… and yet, it wasn’t. It’s kind of weird.

Here’s what I mean, the movie is almost ripe to be self-parody, but the movie treats its own subject matter like it’s the norm. Suddenly, the cringing isn’t as strong because everyone has a nonchalant attitude toward cousins marrying and having sex. Again, I emphasize that I understand different times periods and places, so certain taboos today may not have been so taboo… whenever this movie takes place. I think that’s one of my initial pet peeves with this movie: the year is never specified. I mean, there’s horse-drawn carriages and not a single motorized vehicle ever makes an appearance, so… presumably pre-1880’s? I have no idea, y’all. But I guess the exact date doesn’t quite matter.

Let’s get some of the positives out of the way. The acting is quite good. Weisz is amazing in anything that she does, so she’s a class act here. And was she really speaking Italian? There’s a scene where she was speaking to an Italian character and she looked damn comfortable speaking it. Any who, Rachel is this woman who is clearly grieving over her dead husband slash cousin, but she constantly conducts herself as a pleasant and self-sufficient individual. She even vehemently protests when Philip secretly gives her an allowance, claiming that it makes her look like a beggar and that she’s only there for his money, which isn’t the case. But she is a sweet woman who cares deeply for her cousin and eventually cares for him in all the wrong ways.

Philip is… another story entirely, and I quite honestly don’t know how to feel about him. At first, his actions and motivations seem like they make sense. Who wouldn’t have guessed from the ramblings from the cousin that Rachel was responsible for his death? However, from the moment he met Rachel, I’m somewhat lost. I know the implication is that Rachel is so damn attractive that he’s totally entranced by her beauty, therefore forgets to question the death of his cousin. So the story essentially loses focus because… THE POWER OF BONERS CANNOT BE DENIED!!!

Now I’m not entirely sure if the rest of the movie is either that brilliant or that unfocused, but here’s what I’m getting out of this. Bare with me, this might get more convoluted than the movie intended. While Philip is being all hypnotized by Rachel, I feel like the way the movie’s shot and written is trying to keep the audience distanced from anyone’s particular point of view. I feel like we’re supposed to know that Philip’s infatuation is moronic and the audience is expected to maintain our suspicions of Rachel and make the deductions ourselves. I suppose that’s where most of the fun of the movie came in for me, which is odd to say because this movie isn’t meant to be “fun.” I honestly didn’t know what to make of Rachel. She seemed pleasant enough, but any really good murderer would be charismatic and unassuming, but it’s not like she doesn’t feed us suspicions. She’s incredibly persistent when it comes to serving tea to Philip. Kind of makes you wonder certain things. You keep your caffeinated horse piss to yourself, lady! Actually, I’m a “soak it with honey” kind of guy, but no one cares about that. My little theory that I went into could entirely be me grasping at straws, finding something good to say about it, but it’s entirely possible that this movie abandons its murder-mystery premise in lieu of an icky cousin-cousin romance, then dear God, what kind of sick novel was this? In order to preserve my sanity, I’m going with my theory.

I’m honestly trying to come up with a legit problem with the movie. I feel like the unfocused stuff that I mentioned earlier does feel like an issue and even my excuses for why that is feel like I’m just apologizing for the film in some way. On the other hand, that does feel like the point of the film. On the other other hand, does that mean this story is pure shock value? Throwing in an uncomfortable scenario for the audience to cringe at as opposed to actually making educated and logical guesses as to whether or not Rachel killed her husband?

I’m sure I’m missing something. This has to be a popular book for it to be adapted to the big screen twice. But honestly… yeah, this wasn’t something I could get into. And I wanted to this to be grotesquely enjoyable. Instead, I felt more confused than anything else. I can’t pretend that this was the worst thing in the world because I do enjoy the lead actors very much. I also can’t deny the gorgeous costumes and I do find my mind remembering the cinematography quite a bit, as well as the ending being deliciously nuts. However, this movie wasn’t what I thought it was going to be. It’s not the worst watch, but I think it’d help audiences interested in seeing it to not go in expecting a one-hundred percent bat-shit insane movie that would get a cult following like I did. I’d say unless you’re a die-hard fan of Weisz, save this for a either a discount theater viewing, or better yet, a rental. It’s not the strongest recommendation, I certainly don’t see myself revisiting the film, but I won’t pretend to have gotten nothing out of it.

My honest rating for MY COUSIN RACHEL: 3/5

17434744_1914677452098547_2460996709452620826_o

Advertisements

DENIAL review

Once again, I wasn’t familiar with the original source material, but it was an intriguing idea that I had no idea was a thing: denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Seriously? That just seems like such a bonkers thing to say didn’t happen. But I guess there’s some smartish people out there that made some rather poignant observations at the time that there were no documents that proved the Holocaust ever happened, and then go and accuse the entirety of the Jewish community for making up lies to gain sympathy for their religion, or whatever the hell the bullshit reasons would be for something like this. I guess finally this debate got to the point where this went to court. In any case, I was interested in the story because if it wasn’t well-presented, it would be a bad film. And I like the cast, so I don’t want it to be a bad film.

Speaking of the cast, let’s talk about who stars in it. Rachel Weisz is definitely one of my favorites, having been in some pretty good and fun films over the years, like the first two Mummy films, CONSTANTINE (2005), THE FOUNTAIN (2006), including some pretty unique films this year, including THE LOBSTER and THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS. Timothy Spall, an actor I really wish I was more familiar with. I remember him from Harry Potter films AZKABAN (2004) and on, as well as ENCHANTED (2007), but I had no idea he was CHICKEN RUN (2000), THE LAST SAMURAI (2003), SWEENEY TODD (2007), or A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS (2004). But the more I see his name, the more I want to see his work because he’s such an engaging actor and my eyes are always glued to his performance. Finally, yet another British hurricane of awesome, Tom Wilkinson, who’s been in some downright incredible movies. BATMAN BEGINS (2005), ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004), and THE PATRIOT (2000) being my favorites. But he’s also in SNOWDEN (2016), SELMA (2014), THE DEBT (2010), and so many more. Oh and Harriet Walter makes an appearance. Remember the scene in STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS (2015) when Chewbacca is getting treated for his injuries after the Resistance saves everyone and that woman says, “You must’ve been very brave.” Yeah, she’s in this movie. Oh, and she’s Christopher Lee’s niece. I don’t know why I find that cool, so let’s move on.

Behind the scenes. Directing is Mick Jackson, who is primarily a TV director and hasn’t done anything for the big screen since VOLCANO (1998). No comment… moving on. Penning the screenplay is David Hare, also primarily in TV and TV movies, but his big screen films include THE READER (2008) and THE HOURS (2002). Responsible for cinematography is Haris Zombarloukos, who’s worked on films like EYE IN THE SKY (2016), CINDERELLA (2015), THOR (2011), among others. Finally, and prepare to flip your lid because I didn’t know this going in, but the ever legendary Howard Shore is the composer. Oh yeah, the man behind the music for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogy is attached here. Of course, other works that he’s done include THE DEPARTED (2006), SPOTLIGHT (2015), and so many others.

Honestly, I went in with some higher expectations. I thought it might was pretty promising. How does it hold up now that I’ve seen it?

This is my honest opinion of: DENIAL

(SUMMARY)

Based on true events, set in 1996. Deborah E. Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) is a renowned historian and author, particularly regarding the Holocaust, who has recently been dealing with an resurgence of a particular historian named David Irving (Timothy Spall), who denies that the Holocaust ever happened, backing all of his claims that there isn’t one document that proves it. When the two finally meet, it doesn’t end well, resulting in Irving suing Deborah for libel. Now she travels to England where she and her team of lawyers and historians have to prove that the Holocaust exists, without the testimony of its survivors.

(REVIEW)

I kinda liked it, actually.

The more I watched it, the more frustrating it got. In a good way. I mean, really think about it, we’ve all grown up in school knowing the Holocaust happened. Maybe this is a big thing for you, maybe it’s just a historical event, either way, we know it happened. But then this guy, this very real guy who lives and breathes in our world, comes along and becomes the figurehead for any and all people who have the audacity to say that it didn’t happen. Right away, you feel as angry as Deborah. To make matters worse, she’s being sued for libel, and has be dragged from America to London to make her case in court… to clarify, SHE HAS TO PROVE THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED!!! Anyone getting whiff of pure bullshit up in here, or is it just me? What especially adds to the drama is how difficult it is to prove everything, and that Irving distorted truth to push his anti-Semite agenda. He didn’t have to prove anything.

It’s all very political, legal, and therefore complicated, so I can’t really explain what the details are. I’m not legally savvy. To make up for it, here’s the Wikipedia page for Irving v Penguin Books Ltd if you want the details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

Weisz owns this role. She perfectly portrays this woman who has to sit quietly in the court room and can’t argue with Irving in fear of making things worse for their case. But with every syllable that comes out of Irving’s mouth, you see the anger festering in Deborah’s eyes. Through Weisz, you hear every curse word, the pitch and volume of every scream that she’s bottling up, she is as usual, incredible.

And Spall, dear lord, this man… despite his unmistakeable face, he is a chameleon. The man may be a kind, quiet, dignified gentleman (I’m honestly just going off of what I saw from his THR interview) but he really made me want to punch Irving in his stupid little face. Spall is so slimy, so crude, such a sleeze-ball… it’s wonderful.

The performances all around make this movie, as well as the ideas behind the story. It’s an intriguing one and I think it’s worth checking out. Will this be for everyone? Probably not, but I think it’s pretty damn good.

My honest rating for DENIAL: 4/5

denial_movie_poster_p_2016

Upcoming films: 10/6/2016 – 10/13/2016

Upcoming films: 10/13/2016 – 10/20/2016

THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS review

Yeah, I may be looking forward to this movie, but I can’t deny that it can go either way as far as a sensible story is concerned. It looks like it’s about this couple, very much in love, tried to have a child of their own, but lost it for whatever reason. Then a baby washes up on shore and decide to take care of it as their own, until its mother shows up, not knowing the baby is really hers, but somehow pieces together that it is and it becomes a moral struggle to let go of the child they adopted back to the mother that gave birth to her. This could easily be a bad film if the characters aren’t well-written.

So let’s talk about the cast playing those characters. Alicia Vikander, for those of you that don’t know, is probably my favorite actress to come out of 2015. She won that Oscar for her supporting role in DANISH GIRL (2015 – my #5 of the year), and she’s just recently been cast as Lara Croft in the future-rebooted TOMB RAIDER. So on board with this chick doing anything. Michael Fassbender. What can you say about this manifestation of pure, concentrated awesome? Young Magneto from the prequel X-Men films, PROMETHEUS (2012), and his critically acclaimed performance in STEVE JOBS (2015), as well as his highly anticipated adaptation of the video game franchise ASSASSIN’S CREED later this year. I’ve never seen him in a romance role before. Should prove to be interesting. Last, but not least, Rachel Weisz. Been a fan of hers since THE MUMMY (1999), loved her in CONSTANTINE (2005), and everything else that she’s been in since, including this year’s THE LOBSTER.

Now for the crew. Directing and writing is Derek Cianfrance. He hasn’t done many feature-length films, but the one’s he’s done have certainly made waves one way or another: THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES (2012) and BLUE VALENTINE (2010). Continuing his busy and exciting year of composing is Alexandre Desplat, having done both this years’ SECRET LIFE OF PETS and FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS, and is slated to compose for ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY later this year. The cinematographer/director of photography is Adam Arkapaw. He’s mostly done short films, but has done films like MCFARLAND, USA (2015), and is slated to work again with Fassbender in ASSASSINS CREED.

I’m going in with wary optimism. I like the core cast, but it could easily be a bad movie too. But here we go. This is my honest opinion of THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS.

(SUMMARY)

Tom Sherbourne (Michael Fassbender) has returned from World War I and seeking any job that will allow him peace and quiet. The job he finds is the keeper of a lighthouse on a secluded island. He’s a quiet guy, but a gentleman, which catches the eye of the lovely Isabel Graysmark (Alicia Vikander). The two spend a little time together and while Tom’s at the lighthouse, they write to each other and fall in love. Upon his return, the two get married, live together on the island, and eventually Isabel gets pregnant. Unfortunately, the baby dies before it’s born. Despite the heartache, they try again, and that baby dies as well. But not long after the loss of their unborn child, Tom sees a stray row boat in the distance. Bringing it to shore, they find a male dead body and a baby girl in a basket, alive. Putting off reporting the incident until the next day, Isabel becomes attached to the baby and begs Tom to not report the baby as an orphan, or the found body. Years later, passing the baby off as their own, Tom eventually runs into Hannah Roennfeldt (Rachel Weisz), who lost her German husband out at sea, who took their baby daughter with them. Seeing the grave of her husband, the date aligns with when they found the baby girl, Lucy, which divides Tom and Isabel on what to do with what they know.

(REVIEW)

My opinion on this is going to be… a little long and complicated. Also, there’s going to be some major spoilers throughout that I don’t think I can filter in different parts of the review so… forewarning.

The first thing I’ll probably mention is that I called it, that Fassbender and Vikander would be great, and they are. They share wonderful chemistry throughout the film and I loved every minute of it. I will probably complain, however, about the pacing of their relationship. I know this is based on a book, and I’m sure the pacing of Tom and Isabel’s relationship is explored much more in depth, but the movie sort of blazes through it. The first time Tom and Isabel meet is through passing. IE: they walk past each other and go “hubba-hubba,” although to be fair, I’d do the same thing if I saw Vikander… except I wouldn’t be as graceful about it as Fassbender. I’d be walking into street lights, mailboxes, and tripping over fire hydrants. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS WOMAN?!?!?! Okay okay, suppressing my crush on Vikander, the next time the two characters meet is literally two minutes later at her house. They have dinner with her family and they go on a picnic in the next scene. They talk, sure, and it’s fine for what it is, but Isabel toward the end of the scene proverbially jumps Tom’s bones with a marriage proposition! Holy shit, woman, the only women I’ve met this desperate to get a ring on their fingers are in padded cells! Cool your jets! But honestly, and I’ll get to it, if this was my only problem with the film, it’d still be an amazing movie, which it is, but… yeah, I’m not done talking and I’m risking jumping guns here.

I like that the two have a kind of long-distance relationship and they write a lot to each other. It’s beautiful backgrounds might be seen as obvious and pandering, but being a sucker for a romance movie, I didn’t mind it so much and I found it romantic. So, I guess I got suckered in. Sue me. I was raised on romantic comedies and have developed a soft-spot for romance films. I never claimed to be a man’s man, folks.

Onward. The reason I give the set-up to their relationship a pass is not entirely dissimilar to the reasons I gave the set-up for THE MARTIAN (2015) a pass because it’s in the beginning of the movie and what they do with the rest of the story it unbelievably enjoyable, entertaining, funny, and emotionally gripping. Here, it’s very similar. How these two characters fall in love is rushed, but their relationship throughout the rest of the movie is very engaging and heart-felt, again, due in no small part to Fassbender and Vikander sharing ridiculously great chemistry. But I’m rambling, they’re great, we know, your unborn children know, moving on. When Tom and Isabel finally get married and start a life on the island together, the movie turns a very heart-breaking turn when Isabel loses her first child before its born. Naturally, she goes into depression, but Tom tries to cheer her up when he fixes the house piano that’s been broken since before he was hired to care for the lighthouse. Isabel used to play the piano and his efforts cheer her up. It’s such a small scene, but I love how sweet and thoughtful it is. In fact, the entire bit is kind of charming. Isabel doesn’t want doctors checking on her. But a boat from the mainland arrives and Isabel thinks that Tom went and called for a doctor anyway and overreacts. Now that I look back on it, it’s even kind of cute and charming her reacting that way and Tom just sort of takes it, knowing how it’ll all play out in the end.

Like I said before, the two characters try again, but her baby is born too early, resulting in another loss of a child. I sat in the movie afraid that this would be a consistent punch in my nads with no satisfying justification, but it doesn’t take long for the real story to take place. Tom sees a small boat driving toward the island both he and Isabel investigate to find a dead man and a basket with a baby inside. It’s Tom’s job to report to the mainland about their findings, but Isabel wants Tom to put it off until the next day, thinking that this baby has had enough of boats for one day. Tom agrees, but the next day is not so smooth. Tom’s on his way to write to the mainland, but Isabel has grown too attached to the baby and manages to convince Tom to let them pass off the baby as their own.

Now I know what a lot of people must be thinking when they get to this part of the movie. “She’s basically kidnapping the baby,” or any detailed variation of “she’s wrong” in some way. Honestly, I can’t blame anyone for thinking it and I’m not sure I disagree. But here’s my leap to Isabel’s defense: I’m not a parent. I have never had a child, so I don’t know what it’s like to be a father, or an almost-father. So being a couple who’s lost not one, but two children that didn’t get a chance to live life… I can’t imagine what kind of pain someone like that can go through, if even you can call it “pain.” To make matters even more complicated, on the day after their second child’s passing (or however long it’s been), a baby literally shows up out of the blue in need of caring, and Isabel takes the responsibility to care for it. Can you blame her? She wants to be a mother. She’s mothering this child. I can see anyone’s judgment going sideways after such trauma that she’s endured. Rational thinking so soon after a tragedy isn’t always in the cards. Look, if someone looked at this story and can’t get into it, it’s too convenient or whatever, yeah, the details may not change your mind. But I think the actions here are… not justified, but understandable. Mind you, I didn’t think this in the moment. I had to really think about this when I left the theatre. This opinion was formulated after a solid two hour debate with myself and I realized that this was the true beauty of the film: it got me thinking about the actions of these characters. It was never a question of whether or not they were right or wrong, but rather do I understand and empathize. This grey area of emotions is what really drew me in to the film and I truly love how it impacted me.

However, and there is a “however” here, for all that raving I just did that I claimed gravitated me into the story, the movie tied an uncomfortable tether around me and yanked me right back out of the story in the same God damned scene that engulfed me in it in the first place. What is this heinous act that ripped me out of this possible controversial mentality? When Tom asks Isabel, “What about the body?” Yeah, remember? That was a thing. Isabel, in easily the most unlikable thing in the movie, seriously, I could forgive the prolonged build-up to finding the baby, I could forgive the rushed beginnings of Tom and Isabel’s relationship, but the one act that Isabel commits that I simply cannot forgive is this: she says, “We’ll give him a proper burial!” Essentially, she’s telling Tom to not report on either the baby, or the body. Here is where I have a problem with the way the story is told. There is no reason for this to be a mutual decision. Fine, keep the baby as your own, but what does this poor soul have to do with your desires to be a mother?! Report the body for the mainland to retrieve and I would swear to everything holy and sacred that the story would progress the exact same way that it ultimately did. The mainland would get the body. Hannah would eventually claim it and ask Tom and Isabel if there was a baby with her husband, to which they would lie and say no. Cianfrance could even have written that she was so grief-stricken that she would accuse Isabel of kidnapping her baby, but no one would believe her because Tom and Isabel are good people and maybe even she would have a hard time believing that her accusations aren’t out of misguided depression. I mean, she basically would have lost both her husband and her daughter. Again, that’s drive anyone to false conclusions. Or maybe that’d be out of character for both Tom and Isabel to be able to lie and not feel guilty, which they later do when they find out about Hannah, but how they get to this point feels out of character for both of them anyway. At least make this out-of-character moment feel a little more logical than the movie makes it out to be. This was the cardinal sin of the film: burying the body instead of reporting it.

I’m not kidding, everything else after that is magnificent. Weisz’s performance is breath-taking. When Tom sends her messages that her baby is alive, and when Isabel discovers the truth, the tension is so thick, an amplified lightsaber would have a hard time cutting through it. As Hannah gets closer and closer to the truth, and when shit does hit the fan as Tom tells the truth about everything and is willing to lie to protect Isabel, it’s incredibly white-knuckled until the very end. I mean, watching a four-year-old Lucy (Florence Clery) being torn away from the only mother she’s ever known and forced to live with a woman that is technically her mother, but doesn’t understand why she’s with her at all, or why she’s calling her Grace… dear God, she tries to run away from Hannah twice! Fucking convince me that this shit doesn’t rip your heart out! Even when Hannah confronts Tom and Isabel directly, she’s not even full of venom when she talks to them, but she is clearly conflicted about what to say, do, or even how to react. There’s so much emotion and complex layers packed into these scenes, it’s hard not to get invested. Isabel claiming to never be able to forgive Tom for his actions, her sudden realization that she can’t let him take the fall for her actions, this shit got real.

But it all amounts to an ending that couldn’t be more beautiful. A couple decades at least go by. Isabel passed away and Tom lives by himself, but then one day, a strange woman arrives at his home. Oh sure, the audience knows who it is. It’s Lucy-Grace as an adult (Caren Pistorius), and she’s got a son of her own, looking to say thank you to Tom for saving her life as an infant and… look, anyone who knows me really well knows I love a good adoption story. It’s my cinematic kryptonite. I know this isn’t technically an adoption story, per se, but it is a story about a young person reuniting with someone that cared for her as a baby, so it’s close enough. I cried. Yup, I wiped away tears leaving that auditorium.

This movie’s brilliance to me comes from how wonderfully this movie built up its premise. Sure, the movie can be predictable at times, but it’s what it does with its upcoming scenes that really makes it a unique experience as far as romance films are concerned. It’s a challenging story, it’s a hard story to tell right, and I think Cianfrance did an unspeakably amazing job… with the exception of that ONE FUCKING MOMENT!!! Gah! But… I’m recommending this. I think everyone should see this film, even if you’re not a fan of the genre. There are some truly touching ideas that will leave you thinking and feeling. I would love to see this movie a second time.

My honest opinion of THE LIGHT BETWEEN OCEANS: a strong 4/5

The-Light-Between-Oceans-1-600x891

Alright guys, that’s all for this week in films. Keep an eye out for the next batch and have a great rest of the week! And happy belated Labor Day! Honest Puyda, Out!

Upcoming movies:

  • SULLY
    • trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKEXxO2KNE
  • WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS
    • trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws74Ie4fMc8
  • THE DISAPPOINTMENTS ROOM
    • trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7a-hmoh6Jw