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.

Roger Michell's 'My Cousin Rachel' is derived from a novel by Daphne du Maurier. Set in the early 18th century, it tells of a man who falls for a woman who may or may not have murdered (after marrying) his beloved step-father. At stake, potentially, is his inheritance, not to mention his life. At heart, it's a straightforward story; either she did it or she didn't. Michell tells the tale nicely, although there's no great depth in it, while a real life Rachel (Weiss) plays the female lead quite well. But it's a bit more engaging than the Austen-style romances we more commonly see set in this period.

A naive gent prepares to confront the mysterious shrew who caused the death of his beloved cousin and mentor, but finds himself bowled over in her charismatic presence ...

Ambiguous mystery that left me unsatisfied. The storytelling, especially in the extended 7 minute montage at the beginning, is brilliant - enough detail and depth and character for an entire feature film packed into that opening sequence. And the anticipation of Rachel's arrival builds exquisite tension, which is then released with great intrigue as she throws herself into the society of the country estate.

I enjoy DDM's writing, as it combines beautiful character observations with a black lining of horror - but with this the horror loses its thread, and the opportunity for delicious deviance is passed over. I would have preferred if Louise, the hero's real love, had entered the arena - although I understand it's not that kind of story. Instead we're left with an insightful portrait of misogyny, in a plot that hinges on a legal technicality.

Music, photography, sets and locations are superb, and the performances are good all round. Weisz leaves us guessing, but as the story approaches the climax I just feel there's less and less to get excited about.

Overall: Fascinating set up, with a faint finale.

I watched this latest film version of Daphne du Maurier's novel My Cousin Rachel immediately after finishing reading the novel itself and was reminded what, in some ways, a thankless task it is to 'make the film of the novel' or even to 'make a film of the novel'. The saying - well, make it 'the cliche' - is 'comparisons are odious', but all too often 'the film' is adversely compared to 'the novel' and all to often comes off second-best by stalwarts who 'just loved the book, loved it!' It would seem filmmakers just can't win.

Those who do make such comparisons are being unfair. For one thing a writer can do things which a conventional filmmaker simply cannot (and I stress 'conventional' filmmaker because those of a more arty and experimental bent sometimes do attempt to translate literary devices into film techniques, quite often successfully, although the rule of thumb seems to be that there is an inverse proportion between how arty and experimental a film is and the numbers which bother to see it). So perhaps it would be best if we spoke of 'the film based on the novel' rather than 'the film of the novel'.

Bearing that in mind, writer/director has made a very good fist making his film based on du Maurier's novel, and those coming to it who have not read the original will enjoy a well-made, intriguing and entertaining two hours. He has necessarily adapted the story a little and 'left out bits', but - well, see above. I can recommend it. But I can also recommend du Maurier's novel, and it is not for nothing that her biographer, the novelist Margaret Forster insists that du Maurier should be regarded as a bona fide literary writer rather than its poor relation 'the romantic novelist'. She is that, certainly, but she - sometimes - is much more, too.

As for the film, go for, it's worth every minute. In his conclusion Michel does rather water down the essential ambiguity which makes the novel so intriguing, but his film is none the worse for that, and as his conclusion is the one I reached after reading the novel, I don't disagree with it. Sorry, but I can't say more for risking of spoiling a rather good mystery.

Rachel Weisz is sensational as the dark, seductive stranger in this Gothic tale based on the novel by Daphne DuMaurier.

While Rachel is sensationally seductive and sinister, with a husky voice and a host of enticing mannerisms, the rest of the cast is only fair to middling. Sam Claflin is the male lead, but instead of projecting youth and vigor he projects baby-like gullibility and not much more. The rest of the cast are just bland.

One final thought: if you read the original novel, it begins with the narrator (as a very small boy) coming up on the rotting corpse of a man who was hanged for murdering his wife. The point DuMaurier is making is not that one sexy lady is dangerous, but that it's a dangerous world.

This movie totally misses that point, giving us yet another picture postcard English village where everyone is lovable and gullible except the Mysterious Stranger.

Chocolate box production with captivating tale, that sidesteps you throughout. Well-acted and leaves a satisfying conclusion.

From one humble Christian's perspective...

Language level: 4 out of 5 A few utterances of high-level profanity. Large parts of the movie seem clean.

Sexual level: 2 out of 5 One scene shows two people crawling into bed together, and the next morning, both are probably not wearing any clothing. Another scene shows them having sex, though no nudity.

Violence level: 1 out of 5 Barely none, perhaps just a fiery argument or two.

Personal Thoughts: A beautifully-made and haunting version of a Gothic classic. There are some instances of the story veering slightly from the book, but for the most part, it was done very well.

Philip Ashley, a Cornish landowner, learns of the mysterious death of his cousin Ambrose in Italy, which occurred shortly after his secret marriage to Rachel, a young and beautiful widow. What really happened? Philip wants to know. One day, the new cousin conveniently arrives at Philip's house. At first suspicious, the young man falls passionately in love with Rachel.

A fairly good adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's novel. There is fine image composition, attractive colors (especially in the candlelit scenes), good actors (Rachel Weisz, an attractive black widow; Sam Claflin, a touching big baby in love) but it lacks the spark that would set this too mild story on fire. One may prefer the previous version signed by Henry Koster, with a more bewitching dark

It says a lot about how good Rachel Weisz looks still - or maybe that Sam Claflin has seen better days - that I didn't buy that these two were *so* far apart in age that Rachel would consider Phillip Ashley a "boy". Also, Roger Michell shouldn't of been shy - it's 2017, for God-sake man - to actually make this a racier film. There's wonderful acting from Weisz, as one might expect, making us feel deeply for a woman who may turn out to be a golddigger, and Claflin does what he can with a character that has often-times the same pained, 'I-have-blue-b**s or whatever-Gothic-19th-century-equivalent-that-is' face through most of it, and it is certainly handsomely made.

But considering this has the makings of a trashy bodice-ripper book (I doubt Du Maurier's book was, but why carp?) I think there could have been more potential in this being an R-rated, down and dirty movie of sex and betrayal. There is a *little* sex, but it's too tasteful, and this story of passions being high and a man trying to get a woman who may simply be un-gettable, even during a time when a man could simply *buy* a woman with precious jewels, needs to embrace its passions and not be as... proper, if that's the word. Maybe the trailer was misleading up to a point, and made this out to look like it would be a terribly exciting film. There are many strong scenes and acting from supporting people like Holliday Grainger and Games of Thrones's Ian Glen, and I did like the climax quite a lot when it gets there. I think it's a perfectly fine film, but it stops right there as far as how its setting and place can take it - all the same, if you love Weisz as an actress, it's among her better turns in a decade.

The base idea of this movie is really one of trust. When Philip's cousin, Ambrose, writes letters that his new wife, Rachel, may be in fact trying to kill him, Philip believes the letters, though doctors say it was just a brain tumour that killed Ambrose, and caused delusions. The entire movie plays along this line of did she/didn't she. Is Rachel an innocent bystander, or a black widow.

My Cousin Rachel portrays throughout situations which can be read in both ways, but can swing from guilty to innocent too quickly. As a quick example Philip is ready to hang her when they first meet, yet by the next scene he is smitten and giving her the benefit of every doubt. Similarly towards the end, his turn towards doubting her is just as quick and sudden.

This may be a case of not having time to really flesh it out, but what is there was good. The performances are all solid. It would just have been better if the motives had felt more true.