My Cousin Rachel

source: My Cousin Rachel

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.

Based 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!

( 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

In the early 1800's, Philip (Sam Claflin) reflects on his life. Orphaned at an early age, he was raised by a kind cousin, Ambrose. It was just us men, Philip says often, on a fine mansion and grounds in Cornwall, right on the coast. But, alas, when Philip returned home from boarding school, Ambrose got ill and journeyed to Italy for the finer climate. The two men, very close, correspond with frequent letters. Astonishingly, Ambrose meets a widow, Rachel (Rachel Weisz) and marries her abroad. Philip knows nothing of the lady but what Ambrose relates. At first, the older cousin declares his unbridled joy. But, soon, letters arrive for Philip that Rachel has changed and that she may be worsening Ambrose's health. As Philip hastens to journey to Florence, he arrives too late. Ambrose is dead and Rachel has vanished. A "friend" of the couple tells Philip that the post mortem showed a tumor was responsible and he knows not where Rachel has gone. In anger, grief, and perplexity, Philip goes home. He is much admired by his Godfather's daughter, Louise (Holliday Granger) who visits often but Philip only looks on her as a friend. Unbelievably, word comes that RACHEL is on her way to Cornwall for a visit! What an opportunity it will be for Philip to berate her, as he considers her responsible for his beloved cousin's death. On the rainy night of her arrival, however, Philip meets her in her quarters and is astonished with her beauty, grace, and seeming kindness. He soon believes it would have been impossible for this woman to murder anyone. Moreover, Philip falls deeply in love with his cousin's widow and the older woman appears to return his admiration. This leads to Philip making grave mistakes regarding his estate and his future. What does Rachel really care for, love, money or deception? This lovely, terrific adaptation of Du Maurier's classic work deserves high praise indeed. The cast is terrific, with Weisz beguiling as the mysterious Rachel and Claflin wonderful as the naive, handsome, tempestuous Philip. Granger and all of the supporting cast do great work, also. The setting could hardly be more beautiful, with the farmland, woods, and dangerously lovely coast. Care has been taken to recreate the time period and Gothic story, aided by deft direction. Movie fans of quality films, here's your latest gift from a Hollywood that doesn't bestow such works very often. Don't miss it!

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.

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

Rachel Weisz and Sam Claflin are doing a very good job! Like the other actors. You can see and feel behind there is the work from the director, Roger Michell. The film is as good as Henry Koster's 1952 version, with Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton. The film is good first of all because it is based on a fascinating story, signed by Daphne Du Maurier. When you got a good story and good actors and good director, you got great chances to make a good movie. And nowadays, all these are increasingly rare, especially great stories.

Like the 1952 Burton-de Havilland film and the 1983 TV mini-series, this adaptation preserves the feminist thrust of Daphne du Maurier's novel. Phillip's narration may suggest the film is about one man's love for a woman. But the plot instead dramatizes and exposes the male's fear of a powerful, effective, overwhelming woman — to the point that he must demonize and destroy her, even if — or because? — he loves her. That's Phillip's last conundrum. Rachel is dead, he is happily married to the safe Louise, but Rachel remains his continuing passion and torment."This question that I must ask myself, again and again, every day of my life, never to be answered now, until we meet at last in Purgatory. Were you innocent, or were you guilty? Rachel, my torment. My blessed, blessed torment." Was she trying to kill him as he thought she killed her first husband, his cousin Ambrose? Or did he have her all wrong, his suspicions based in his own paranoia rather than in her character? After her death all the evidence points to the latter conclusion. Her suspicious Italian mentor/lover turns out famously gay. She was not a gold-digger and she was not trying to poison him. He shared his cousin's feverish paranoia that would blame the wife for everything that went wrong. All her apparent guilt was a misrepresentation, shadowed by prejudice. The tension is in the title. Rachel is not his cousin but his cousin's widow. When Phillip leaves her that title after Ambrose's death he reveals his uncertainty about her. How kindred is she, whether in blood, spirit, character, humanity. How "cousin" is she? At first he's persuaded she's an outlaw usurper. When he falls in love he loses that suspicion. But in the boy's insecurity before such a powerful woman, he relapses into demonizing her. Phillip is the stunted boy emerging from the narrows of the man's world. "The only women allowed in the house were the dogs." When he comes across his dying cousin's plea for help Phillip resolves to make Rachel suffer for everything Ambrose did. That resolve holds up till he meets her. "Whatever it cost my cousin in pain and suffering before he died I will return with full measure upon the woman that caused it." But after succumbing to her charms, in his insecurity he returns her to her guilt, his fear. Instead of avenging his cousin he repeats his madness by blaming her for his weakness. The film contrasts two kinds of women. Louise is blonde, appealing, attractive, compliant, convenient, the daughter of his guardian lawyer. She is safety personified. She will live under Phillip's control as both submitted to her father's. Over his affection for her Phillip can keep control. But Rachel is as dark as she is mysterious, unsettling, overwhelming. Phillip can't control his feeling for her: "Because I love her and nothing else! It isn't a little loving. It isn't a fancy. It isn't something you'd turn on and off. It's everything I think and feel and want and know. And there's no room in me for anything else. And never will be again." Rachel will not be controlled. She angrily rejects Phillip's buying her with an allowance. In response, he buys her at a higher price, by imposing on her his bequest of everything he has on the sole condition the estate would revert to him should she marry. This is a boy trying to buy a woman he lacks the manhood to win or to hold. Ambrose's and Phillip's disease reads as their failure to stand hale and secure before her. The herbal wisdom she brings from the Orient only confirms their suspicion, that her special knowledge was witchery, that what she knew and they didn't would destroy them. As so often, it's the man who's destroyed by his misogyny, whatever the damage he inflicts upon the woman. If there is an actual murderer here, it's Phillip, who in his madness sends Rachel riding on the dangerous cliff that claims her. When he apostrophizes Rachel at the end he only bemoans his own failure as a man to respect the superior woman.

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.