Rachel, of course, comes out of the heart and mind of Daphne Du Maurier, the same author who gave us Rebecca and even if we never met her we discover she was a nasty piece of business, she also gave us Melanie Daniels in The Birds, the spoiled rich girl from San Francisco. Here, Rachel is more of an enigma and as played by Rachel Weisz, a dangerously, too good to be true lady of mystery. Rachel Weisz is absolutely captivating and perhaps that's why I was so aware of Sam Claflin's shortcomings as an an actor. I don't want to be unkind. He has presence and charm but I was painfully aware of the performance, specially when he has Rachel Weisz being totally present in the moment. Roger Michell allows the candles, the jewels and the locations to have their moments, beautifully. Recommend it for a stormy Sunday afternoon.
Add a Review
-
damian-fuller12 March 2018
-
"My Cousin Rachel" is the second film to have been based upon the novel by Daphne du Maurier. The first was made in 1952, only a year after the novel was first published. The action takes place in early Victorian Cornwall, with a few scenes set in Italy. The central character is Philip Ashley, a young man from a Cornish landowning family. Philip is an orphan, and has been raised by older cousin Ambrose, who has been like an adoptive father to him. On a trip to Italy Ambrose meets and marries Rachel, a half-Italian cousin to both himself and Philip, but later dies in mysterious circumstances.
We learn that Ambrose attempted to leave his fortune to Rachel but never signed the will, leaving Philip as his sole heir. When Philip and Rachel meet for the first time, he is smitten with love for the beautiful older woman. He is, however, never sure whether he can trust her. He discovers letters from Ambrose, suggesting that his wife may have been trying to poison him for his money. We are left with two possibilities. On the one hand, Rachel may indeed be a sinister poisoner. On the other hand, Ambrose may have fallen prey to delusions produced by the same illness which was eventually to kill him and Rachel may therefore be the innocent victim of unjustified suspicion.
The film is unusually sexually explicit for one made in the traditional British "heritage cinema" style; there are several instances of bad language and a love scene between Philip and Rachel. (Rachel Weisz described her character as "sexually liberated"). There is, of course, a reason why the makers of period dramas tend to avoid such matters. In the 19th century swearing was regarded as socially unacceptable, at least in polite circles; even "bloody", today a relatively mild oath, was considered shocking. As for "sexual liberation", that is generally an anachronistic concept in period dramas set at any time prior to the mid-twentieth century. Victorian women, even independent-minded and free-thinking ones, did not normally claim the right to sleep with any man who took their fancy. Those who did would have been designated by the most opprobrious terms. We say "sexually liberated", they said "whore".
I think, however, that there is a reason why writer-director Roger Michell introduced a sexual element into the storyline, and this reason has nothing to do with a mere desire to titillate or the need to court controversy for controversy's sake. In the 1952 version, the question of whether Rachel, played in that film by Olivia de Havilland, is a villainess or a virtuous heroine is quite deliberately left ambiguous. I felt, moreover, that although ambiguity can in some circumstances be artistically beneficial, it does not work in the context of that particular film, which might have been improved had it come down on one side or the other argument.
Here, however, although Michell never definitely says whether Rachel is a murderess or not, the one thing she cannot be called is a virtuous heroine. By the moral standards of Victorian England she is an immoral woman. Even by 21st century moral standards, her treatment of Philip, whom she rejects after sleeping with him, and after he has signed his property over to her, seems rather heartless. Whatever else she may or may not have done, we cannot help feeling that she has taken unfair advantage of a naïve, virginal young man's infatuation with her, and suspecting that even if she did not kill Ambrose she may have taken advantage of him too. There are two good performances from Weisz and from Sam Claflin, an actor I had not come across before, as Philip.
The film is attractively shot with a good deal of attention to period detail, although its look is less visually sumptuous than some period dramas, doubtless because the Ashleys are minor provincial gentry rather than grand aristocracy. (It is Rachel, with her elaborate dresses, who seems more sophisticated). Following on from the Jane Austen-inspired "Love and Friendship" and a new version of Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd", it shows that the heritage cinema movement is still strong in Britain. 7/10 -
guylyonsntlworldcom15 June 2017I found this film frustrating as I expected a lot more. Had Hitchcock directed it, then in my opinion it would have been a great watch. The chemistry between the main leading actors was poor, and the script offered little, except to confuse the viewer. Unlike the classic Rebecca film, this was dull, slow, and complex, all because the longer it went on the less you cared.
Beautiful photography and quality actors are not enough to entertain , and in my opinion this film was such a disappointment. The director might have checked out other films on books by the author, and then no doubt made a far better job of this story. -
Lejink8 December 2017"My Cousin Rachel" based on the Daphne Du Maurier novel, is a satisfyingly traditional murder mystery with a did she or didn't she riddle at its heart and an equally traditional love story thrown-in for good measure.
The "she" in question is of course the Rachel of the title, played by Rachel Weisz, as the recently dispossessed widow of the adored cousin of Philip Ridley, a young man soon to come of age and who by dint of his cousin's failure to leave a will and the archaic law of the time which meant a man's estate must bypass his wife and in the absence of any children go to his nearest male relative, inherits everything.
However a cryptic note from beyond the grave which reaches him casts doubt on the widow's part in the deceased cousin's death and fired up by rage and revenge, young Ridley determines to have it out with her only to fall victim to her older, feminine wiles as a relationship starts to blossom between them. All goes well, until the day she gives him the ultimate coming-of-age birthday gift and then suddenly it seems changes towards him, as he gallantly if impetuously makes her a gift of the estate. Worse yet, he starts to fall ill just like his cousin before him and finally starts listening to the warnings coming from his guardian and his daughter, Louise, the latter of whom is obviously in love with him.
There are a fair number of plot holes to be overlooked if you want to enjoy the film, like the way incriminating beyond-the-grave letters keep turning up from his late cousin, the way that Ridley falls ill just like his cousin did, seemingly after tasting Rachel's very own special brew and why the keen rider that she is couldn't keep her horse away from a not-that-dangerous cliff-edge. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that little glint in the eye of Louise at the end-credit sequence with her now safely married to her man, but I think her possible culpability, however faint, seems a more plausible outcome than Rachel's apparent innocence after the latter leaves such a guilt-ridden trail.
Nicely shot in and around pretty English scenery and country house locations, well acted by Sam Claflin as the besotted young man and Weisz as the femme fatale, so long as you can excuse the various liberally-strewn red-herrings on display this was an entertaining enough, if far-fetched melodrama perhaps more redolent of old-fashioned story-telling movie-making of several decades ago, which I didn't mind at all. -
jadepietro13 June 2017(RATING: ☆☆☆ out of 5 )
GRADE: C+
THIS FILM IS MILDLY RECOMMENDED.
IN BRIEF: A romantic mystery that downplays the romance and mystery.
SYNOPSIS: A man falls in love with a mysterious woman who may or may not be a murderer.
JIM'S REVIEW: The remake...such a big part of the film industry, both here in America and abroad. The crazy notion that the original needs a new audience is big business with the end results usually being that the remake is new but not improved. The reason for this practice is twofold: 1. to bring instant revenue from a known product and 2. to update for today's modern moviegoers and re-imagine that original source.
The film adaptations of Daphne Du Maurer's romance mystery, My Cousin Rachel, seem to have a difficult go from the start. The plot lays down an interesting premise about love, greed, and murder amid the landscape of Cornwall, England, but never fulfills its promise of intrigue, allowing for a very ambiguous ending and questionable characters and actions rather than solve the mystery. Both versions, old and new, suffer the same results.
The 1952 film heralded a young Richard Burton in his Oscar nominated film debut and Olivia DeHavilland in the title role. While Mr. Burton was perfectly cast, Ms. DeHavilland played the role too demurely, never giving the character that necessary air of mystery. The romance was missing too. In this current film, Sam Claflin plays Cousin Philip to Rachel Weisz's Cousin Rachel and they too are mismatched. In this case, Ms. Weisz is perfectly cast has the lady of mystery and gives an arresting performance, but Mr. Claflin comes up empty, playing his role as an adolescent in dry heat. The actors try but their relationship lacks credibility as written in Roger Michell's screenplay.
The script fails to address the main mystery: Is Rachel a black widow or just misunderstood? The plot devices are all there (the dangerously high cliffs, the possibly poisoned teas, the hidden letters, etc.) but they never amount to much, in most cases. The melodrama is essentially well played but the reactions of the townsfolk toward this beautiful stranger seem off. (They forgive her trespasses rather too easily and rarely question her actions or motives. Yes, some do periodically suspect something odd but they are beguiled quickly...too quickly for logic sake.) As written, Claflin's Philip comes off as a simpleton when he should be viewed as a passionate victim transfixed by her beauty and exotic manner. Mr. Burton could project that well, Mr. Calflin projects strong cheekbones and dimples.
The cast of talented actors is underused and rarely hit their marks in this lackluster film. Iain Glen is wasted in his small supporting roles and as Rachel's confidant and friend, Pierfrancesco Favino seems more the foolish fop rather than possible romantic rival. Only Holliday Grainger as Louise, Philip's loyal friend, delivers a fully nuanced performance.
The production values are standard and the photography by Mike Eley provides little atmosphere, relying heavily on soft focus, close-ups, or dark shadows to provide mood. Objects and props always seem to bookend the actors as if both are vying for one's attention.
Mr. Michell's direction doesn't help matters, but then neither did his script. He paces the film so slowly, uses voice-over narration to fill in missing exposition and scenes, builds little suspense, and doesn't allow his characters any meaningful exchanges. He may be earnest and sincere about his project, but he needed to distance himself from his material to see the end result more clearly.
Relatively speaking, My Cousin Rachel, is a disappointing family affair.
Visit my blog at: www.dearmoviegoer.com -
rogerdarlington12 June 2017At an age (late 40s) when sadly many actresses start to find it tougher to obtain decent roles, Rachel Weisz is really coming into her own with central roles in films like "Denial" and now "My Cousin Rachel". Based on the 1951 novel by English writer Daphne du Maurier (previously filmed in 1952) and both scripted and directed by South African-born Roger Mitchell, this is a Hitchockian- type work, full of intrigue and mystery in a bucolic 19th century context.
Throughout the narrative, we are presented with information which forces the viewer to revise constantly one's view as to whether the eponymous relative is a callous and scheming malevolent or totally misjudged and misunderstood. In a wonderful performance, Weisz enables us to be equally convinced by both interpretations. The work is embellished by well-acted support roles (notably by young Sam Claflin) plus excellent cinematography and some graphic countryside. -
danielharden16 June 2017Daphne Du Maurier's work in no stranger to big screen adaptations. Alfred Hitchcock brought Rebecca and The Birds to the screen, immortalising them in cinema as well as their initial novel format. Now in 2017 Roger Mitchell, director of Notting Hill, brings us another adaptation of Du Maurier's My Cousin Rachel. The film tells the story of Philip, the young heir to his guardian's land who blames his guardian's widow Rachel for his demise. Phillip plots his revenge but upon meeting her his feelings begin to change, and he becomes almost possessed by her beauty. My Cousin Rachel doesn't break any new ground in the period drama genre, but it's acting performance and psychological elements save this film from total blandness.
As mentioned, the acting from My Cousin Rachel's key cast is solid. Sam Claflin nails the naive schoolboy character of Philip, presenting a keenness and innocence of someone his age. Phillip after all is a young boy having his first encounter and relationship with a woman, and thus Claflin portrays Phillip as such. Iain Glen is also good as Nick Kendall, Philip's trusted adviser and shareholder until Philip becomes of age to claim his property. The stand out performance of this film is by far of the title character. Rachel Weisz plays Rachel Ashley with such ambiguity and strength it makes her utterly compelling. She is the life of the party while later crying her eyes out, showing her acting range perfectly and nailing every second she is on screen. It is in no small part that the success of this film is down to her engaging and entertaining portrayal of the films title character.
The films first half is purely setting the scene and character development. This is natural for some period piece films to do, however My Cousin Rachel doesn't do this at a good pace. The film opens and within 5-10 minutes we know all we need of the story, and we patiently wait another 10 minutes for Rachel to be introduced, and then another 60-70 minutes for anything to really happen. The film takes its time to develop character and I understand and accept that, but the film does very little with that time it has and not a lot more is gained from this extended period of time. The film is extremely slow moving and feels about 30 minutes longer than it actually is, and this is down to the films poor use of time.
This isn't helped by the predictable nature of the majority of the films run time (I haven't read the book, nor knew the story before hand). The films synopsis sums up about 90 minutes of the films 106 minute run time to a tee and thus you end up waiting for what feels like 2 hours for the characters to discover what you already know. This again isn't helped as the film seemed to go to the A Cure For Wellness school of "less than subtly forcing a drink onto the protagonist to no end" thus making later revelations pathetic. The film is largely eventless and predictable, however the films final act saves the film.
Normally the final act of the film will resolve all unanswered questions and leave the audience satisfied, however this is thankfully not the case with My Cousin Rachel. The most compelling aspect of this whole film is by far the psychological thriller aspect and ambiguity surrounding the character Rachel. Is she a psychopathic murdering gold digger, or is she just a genuinely nice person? The film doesn't answer this question and instead leaves the character and her many enigmas unanswered. I was not expecting this, bearing in mind I had no prior knowledge of the book. I do understand however this is more down to the book itself than the filmmakers, but I am grateful they didn't adapt this bit differently to which they possibly could have. So either way, the films final act saves My Cousin Rachel from full scale predictability and so I appreciate the restraint needed for this to happen. I must also add my admiration for the films final shot, as it lingers and for that, I believe could provoke an interesting discussion and possibly opens a door to rewatching from a different perspective, that of Louise Kendall. It's the enigma codes that hold My Cousin Rachel together and, to me, the final shot added another enigma.
My Cousin Rachel is a real slow burn period drama that doesn't make very good use of its time, but fortunately features such a compelling performance and character in Rachel, as well as, a psychological element to the film which makes it so much more enjoyable. Ah Rachel, my Torment. -
mycannonball2 February 2018I love gothic.... I love dark.... I love flawed characters and moral gray area. This movie has a great setup. Philip played by Sam Claflin believes that his cousin Rachel played Rachel Weisz by is responsible for his beloved cousin's Ambrose's death (the man who raised Philip). He is full of anger. He is going to hold this awful, reprehensible person responsible! Except he meets her... and promptly falls in love. Oh, the conflict. Oh, the complications. Oh, the anguish. Right? Well, kind of. In the scene where Philip meets Rachel, it's never clear why he abandons his original plans. Yes, she's pretty but he doesn't seem completely taken with her in that first scene. But I guess we are to believe that is the moment he falls in love with her? So the entire movie's setup feels hard to believe.
The movie then plods along under this emotional theme for a while, taking all the way to the later part of the film to get into more of the mind-twisting conflict that I was expecting earlier in the film. A lot of potential here bu the middle of the film fell short. -
good-decision14 June 2017My Cousin Rachel is one of my favourite books. I was full of awe at how passionate and skilled Daphne du Maurier's mastery was. I was excited at the thought that a very skilled actress like Rachel Weiz will now bring Rachel to life. I was terribly disappointed. The movie left out key elements from the book, which is fine if the movie itself was intent on having its own direction. But it neither followed the book nor presented anything new. It felt like an edit of a better story. In the book, Du Maurier leaves us to make up our own minds whether Rachel was a murderer or not. Personally, I thought she was innocent. The movie doesn't present us with the same question. It tries but fails and instead presents us with a flat and annoying obsession from a young lad with a woman of the world. Rachel in the movie is not Rachel in the book. In the movie she's more obvious and boring. In total the whole movie is dull. Might entertain someone who didn't read the book although I even doubt that.
-
nancyldraper17 October 2021Rachel Weisz plays the subtleties of the titular character with perfection, however, the many twists and turns of the "Did she?!" "Maybe not!?" tension eventually tires and the resolution is made completely flat. This was rather disappointing. I give the film a 6 (fair) out of 10. {Gothic Romantic Mystery}
-
MissSimonetta16 June 2020Another reviewer on here said this might have been amazing with a Hitchcockian style of direction and I have to agree. The story has all the ingredients for a good slow-burn suspense mystery, but the necessary ingredients are missing from this adaptation-- namely tension or intrigue. The leads have no chemistry and the presentation of the material is just plodding and dull. The whole affair was so cold that the passion needed to make the behavior of the characters work was simply not there.
It's pretty but that's about all I can give it. -
OlgaGorelik18 September 2017Gorgeous landscapes. Moody interiors. Beautiful and haunting music. But to be honest, I couldn't pay much attention to them. I was too busy watching the characters, their slow moving yet fascinating in every minute dynamics. The acting, by everyone but especially by the two leads, is what made this movie for me.
It's a film about love and obsession, deception and survival. It's about the dangers of ignorance, especially when combined with arrogance. Ambrose Ashley was afraid of women, so he fenced himself and his young charge Philip into a world without them. Meeting Rachel became a self fulfilling prophecy for both men. Did she or didn't she? The answer became much clearer to me after the second viewing (which I highly recommend doing) that allowed me to pick up many more clues. The question remains, however, who is to blame. Philip was warned, not once but twice, albeit in a vague, 19th century appropriate language, about Rachel's penchant for promiscuity. Both times he was asked, "Do you understand?" Both times the answer was a blank stare. Had he actually understood, he may have still fallen for her, but at least he would have never equated her agreeing to have sex with him to accepting his marriage proposal. When you mistake a cougar for a house cat because you "know nothing" about the former, whose fault is it if it bites your head off?
I am by no means absolving Rachel. Even if we leave the poisoning out, she was after Philip sexually from the night she met him. "The butter is melting. You better lick your fingers." Yeah, right. Ever heard of napkins? Handkerchiefs? She carefully felt around Philip and Louise's relationship to make sure there's nothing there. And then she seduced him. As smitten as he was with her, I don't think it would have ever occurred to him to take their relationship there had she not done it. He was sincerely clueless about why he would ever need a woman in his life until he met her. Did she do it because getting to his money through his genitals was always her plan? Or did she just find him irresistibly good looking? Either way she seduced someone she knew was vulnerable with no intention of a relationship. Imagine if a man did that to a woman? Or maybe it really was just her way of thanking him? Maybe she did actually have feelings for him? That's what I liked the most about Rachel Weisz's performance in this film. On one hand Rachel the character is always acting, cold and calculating in virtually everything she says and does. Yet somehow something human manages to seep through. Before I knew it I was questioning what I saw and starting to feel for her.
Sam Claflin played Philip as a complete opposite. While Rachel (the character) seemed fake, Philip was 100% real. His feelings were genuine, his emotions - raw. While she was cold, he came across so alive, sometimes I felt I could reach to the screen and feel his warmth. It's a thankless part though. Philip had to be an open book to Rachel's enigma, because as a narrator he knew exactly how he felt while he could only guess what was going on in her head and heart. And he had to go from very sympathetic to rather pathetic. Although I never stopped rooting for him, had he remained completely likable, it would have been a lot harder to give Rachel the benefit of the doubt.
The chemistry between Weisz and Claflin matched perfectly the fluidity of Rachel and Philip's relationship. It sizzled when things were going well and disappeared as they became distant.
Whoever is to blame, in the end my heart ached for both of them. -
boblipton11 June 2017Based on the Daphne DuMaurier novel, this concerns Sam Clafin, who was raised by his misogynistic cousin. The cousin falls ill and is shipped off to sunny Italy to recover. Imagine Sam's surprise when he writes about how he has fallen in love and married! Further letters take a darker, paranoid turn, and when he goes to Italy to investigate, his cousin is dead and the widow has disappeared. Sam returns to England to resume the life he has envisioned, when up pops Rachel Weisz, who quickly charms the dogs and then him. He gives her everything, then develops his own dark suspicions about the tisanes she gives him to drink.
After a while in the dark, I developed the feeling that the movie would be admirable, if only it showed any sign of getting on with it. Set during the Regency, it offers beautiful clothes and country scenery, and a typically fine performance by Miss Weisz. After the first eight months of sitting in the theater, I noticed its slow pace. After a year or two it ended. Imagine my surprise when I got out and discovered that through some time-warp effect, it was only a couple of hours! -
SnoopyStyle10 February 2018Poor orphan Philip (Sam Claflin) was taken in and raised by his rich cousin Ambrose. Ambrose is sent to Italy for the sun by his doctors and he marries his cousin Rachel Ashley (Rachel Weisz). Philip receives a hidden message begging for help but Ambrose is dead by the time he arrives. He suspects Rachel of foul play but soon falls head over heals for her. Despite his godfather Kendall (Iain Glen)'s protest, he gives the family estate over to her. Louise (Holliday Grainger) is Kendall's daughter.
Philip is an infuriating character. I would believe it if the story writes in a love potion from Rachel. He is a crazy concoction of reckless naivety, puppy love, and jealousy. He is a maddening character as the protagonist. It's well acted but they are not an appealing couple. It is beautifully filmed. It's a maddening tale of human fallibility. -
richardchatten20 February 2022A pretty but lifeless version of Du Maurier's gothic melodrama. I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but Henry Koster did it better. Mind you he did have Olivia de Havilland and a brooding young Richard Burton in the leads.
-
brankovranjkovic17 June 2017Philip Ashley is an orphan and adopted by his cousin Ambrose.
Ambrose goes to Italy due to ill health where he meets, falls in love and marries Rachel, he frequently writes to Philip suspecting that she is poisoning him. Philip urgently travels to Italy but by the time he arrives Ambrose has died and Rachel has disappeared. Philip wants revenge and returns to the estate in England that he will inherit on his 25th birthday.
Would you believe it! Philip falls deeply in love with Rachel, so much so that he hands over his entire inheritance on his birthday (yes really!) It is then that Philip starts to get sick after Rachel makes him a special tea (do you think it contains the same poison?!)
The question we ask at the beginning of the film is "Did she? Didn't she? During the film we ask "is she up to the same shenanigans?" At the end a lot is left unresolved and I felt a little unsatisfied. (of course she did it!) -
Rachel Weisz plays Rachel, which I'm sure made it easy for her on the set. She's worth watching on the big screen. Well almost. My Cousin Rachel was dull and painfully slow. So one of the hot dudes from The Hunger Games series plays this dude who has a cousin who raised him like he was his own son. Suddenly this cousin dies from a tumor, but letters he sent the family indicates that his wife, Rachel may have had something to do with his death. Interesting enough this dude was mad and ready to kick her butt when he meets her, but when he finally meets Rachel, she was so charming that he instantly falls in love and begins to give her everything he is. What a turn around. One minute you want to kill this woman because you think she killed your fav cuz then he does a 180 instantly. Maybe the movie would have been more interesting if they would have stretched out this a little more cause it's so wild how sprung he got so quick. Then the movie becomes more about what jealousy can do to your mind. Make you see what is not there. You know what I see? a dull movie, maybe I'm being deceived by a plot that is not well thought out or put together interesting. It's boring for my taste and does nothing to really hold my attention enough. The story is just not all there. Just boring.
http://cinemagardens.com -
alcrecy18 June 2017( sorry for my English )
i was eager to see this movie especially having read recently the book .
The atmosphere was well created , Victorian style . but the adaptation leaves to be desired . first not faithful to the novel , then the sex scenes spoiled the climate .
the actors performance was not very natural .
therefore i prefer Olivia and Richard But at certain moments i could feel Du Maurier masterpiece -
epaulguest15 June 2017I admire Daphne du Maurier's 'Rebecca' and Hitchcock's film, as well as her short stories; also, I love Roger Michell's 'Notting Hill'. So I really wanted to enjoy this film.
It has its strong points: it's a pervasive mystery combined with a complicated love story, it's beautifully shot in a period setting and the action in a sense turns full circle quite satisfyingly. The acting by Rachel Weisz as Rachel and Sam Claflin as Philip is generally quite engaging, too. There are even a couple of jokes: Rachel makes one about a smoking room for women and, when called a 'stickler' by Philip, his lawyer Mr Crouch (Simon Russell Beale) retorts that he will 'stickle'.
Unfortunately the film's pace was too slow for me. It held my attention, paradoxically, because I was waiting for a decisive moment. There are numerous pregnant pauses in the dialogue but I would say there's very little emotional intensity or mounting suspense.
Of course I wasn't expecting an action movie (not a favourite genre of mine), but I believe the film could have done du Maurier more justice. It might have been more interesting if one character had been developed: Rachel's friend Rainaldi (Pierfrancesco Favino). He is enigmatic and she hints at his sexuality, but that is all. I still want to read the novel. -
DHWaldron12 August 2017After the death of a cousin, Philip (Sam Claflin)believes his cousin's wife was responsible due to incriminating mail he had been receiving. The wife, Rachel (Rachel Weisz) comes to meet Philip, at his estate, for various reasons. As could be expected, the pair fall in love, and Philip, mesmerised by Rachel's beauty, blows his inheritance in attempting to win her over. But, as the movie continues, Philip begins to grow ill and his suspicions turn to Rachel.
The movie is an interesting concept, one which is successful in keeping the viewer interested and engaged... but only for so long. The movie seems to drag on, in some parts, being slow and tedious. The movie felt a little longer then what it actually is, but the performance by Sam Claflin was perfect as a crazed love-obsessed male. Some scenes also seem repetitive, like: "We've already heard it, now move on". Overall, though, the movie is an unregrettable watch, and an interesting twist on a romance story. -
K3nzit4 January 2020Good in every department but lacks spark to elevate it to the next level.
-
perisho23 August 2017This movie made me mad. The main character is an idiot who is dumb and does dumb idiotic things. I understand he is supposed to be naive, but I've know plenty of naive people who were smart. This guy is just an idiot. His behavior makes no sense, and I wouldn't blame anyone for poisoning the annoying twit. I hate him for being so stupid, by the second half of the movie I wanted to poison him myself!
I'm not sure what the intrigue is supposed to be in this film. You can only be intrigued and curious about people you care about on some level. I didn't care about this guy at all. I was hoping that she would kill him and leave with all of the money. That would have been the happiest ending in my opinion.
Maybe the book was better... -
kaptenvideo-898752 September 2017A damn good costume drama based on novel by Daphne du Maurier published in 1951. It's the third big screen adaptation so far – this time from the creative mind of Roger Mitchell, the director still best known for 1999's romantic comedy Notting Hill". Mitchell felt so sure of his classic adapating abilities that he also wrote the screenplay which he hasn't tried before (at least it's the man's first writing credit in IMDb). And the double job is well done, too, the movie feels exemplary and enjoyable in every aspect. So, about the mysterious Rachel, played by Rachel Weisz following in Olivia de Havilland's and Geraldine Chaplin's footsteps. A fine woman can drive men wild, and all the more so in the world of 19th century rich Englishmen who are used to getting all the fine things they desire. Philip (Sam Claflin) dislikes her at first, believing she is responsible for his guardian's and best friend's death whom she was married to. But the radiant widow wins him over in no time, the boy falls hard for her, and then we can only hope to figure out what Rachel is really after. Also playing: Iain Glen, Holliday Grainger, Pierfrancesco Favino et al. If you ask me, a quality costume drama needs to look beautiful and offer good acting above all else, and My Cousin Rachel" delivers both in abundance. The visual side is noticeably good-looking without trying to steal the attention from actors or story – all the English countryside almost feels like an important character in its own right. And the cast plays superbly, the central place belonging to Sam Claflin whose competent and nuanceful performance is a joy to witness and carries the story well. Until Rachel enters, of course – Weisz has so much elegance, flame and sheer physical presence that it's easy to buy her as a mystery woman winning people over instantly wherever she goes. Her character is supposed to intrigue and make us question her true motives till the end, which could easily turn the result into a mediocre B-thriller with lesser actress involved. But Weisz stays classy, natural, and charming however the story twists and turns and depicts the character. In conclusion, I have nothing bad to say about the movie. It's not always perfect, some developments could have been played out to offer emotional impact, and the final chapter of the story feels perhaps rushed. But I really liked everything the makers did with the material, and I especially applaud the choice to stay subtle and not turn the dramatics up to 11 just because they could have. For example, there's no epic" finale or steamy sensual scenes just to win over some more of that mainstream public. Not that the result isn't sensual.
-
coco123457 September 2018Zero chemistry between the leads. First he hates her, then he instantly loves her, then he hates her again...and on and on. Why? We don't know. She's not particularly appealing or seductive or interesting. She's dull, he's dumb and dull, they're all dull.
-
neil-4769 May 2018In Cornwall, Orphan Philip is brought up by his cousin Ambrose. Ambrose dies in Italy in mysterious circumstances, shortly after having married Rachel. Rachel comes to Cornwall: Ambrose didn't change his will after marrying, and Philip suspects Rachel of poisoning him. Despite his initial suspicions, Philip gradually becomes besotted with Rachel, gifting her jewellery and gifting Ambrose's estate to her. But then he falls ill - could she be poisoning him, too?
This adaptation of Deaphne Du Maurier's mystery romance novel fiddles about with the mechanics of the ending but otherwise stays faithfully to the dynamics of the original. And it is with the original that I must take exception for denying me satisfaction. Because the one thing you want to know is "Is Rachel guilty of plotting and poisoning, or is it all an unfortunate combination of circumstances?"
Well guess what, and I'm sorry for the spoiler, but you're not going to find out here. Oh, there will be some who will say "Of course she's guilty, look at da de da de da. But there will also be those who say "Oh, of course she's innocent, look at da de da de da," and this proves my point. There is nothing here to resolve the mystery. And I find that annoying.
The film is beautifully staged - locations, costumes, cinematography, all are gorgeous. And the acting is excellent, with Sam Claflin's conflicted Philip being particularly effective. Rachel Weisz is Rachel, and I simply don't care for her screen presence in pretty nearly everything I've seen her in, but she does a tolerable job in presenting an ambiguous Rachel.