Ma cousine Rachel

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.

(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

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.

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.

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.