User reviews

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.

I 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.

(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

At 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.

Rachel 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}

Another 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.

My 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.

Gorgeous 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.

A 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.

Poor 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.

Good in every department but lacks spark to elevate it to the next level.

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

I 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.

( 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

Zero 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.

A 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.