My Cousin Rachel

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.