Meine Cousine Rachel

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

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.

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.

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.

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.