Watch My Cousin Rachel online free – 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.
My Cousin Rachel 123movies – Watch My Cousin Rachel online free
My Cousin Rachel review by Tina Willis – Quality Film For A Particular Audience
I admit that this movie may not be enjoyed by the average person. And what I would call the “average” person would be one that tends to bore easily. One that needs attention grabbers often thru out a movie experience (addicted to high special affects and fast paced plot /action) and perhaps doesn’t appreciate the finer details or subtleties of character driven movies. If you are an average movie viewer than I can understand why this type of film may not interest you much.
But I enjoyed this film. It is more of a character driven story and a thriller in a different sort of way set historically in another era. All the points of a movie that I tend to be drawn to. But the three MAIN reasons why I liked this film are as follows….
The acting was very well done. Thru out, I kept wondering exactly what Rachel’s intentions were and found myself liking her, but almost afraid to in case she turned out to be a “bad guy” That struggle within me, was essentially what kept me focused on the story. I also REALLY like that at the end, that question is not given to us wrapped in a pretty paper with a bow on it which most American made films like to do.
It isn’t something I would watch again, nor recommend to everybody. But it was a quality made film on every level and a certain type of audience will be able to appreciate this film, as I did.
My Cousin Rachel review by Paul Guest – I really wanted to enjoy it but…
I admire Daphne du Maurier’s ‘Rebecca’ and Hitchcock’s film, as well as her short stories; also, I love Roger Michell’s ‘Notting Hill’. So I really wanted to enjoy this film.
It has its strong points: it’s a pervasive mystery combined with a complicated love story, it’s beautifully shot in a period setting and the action in a sense turns full circle quite satisfyingly. The acting by Rachel Weisz as Rachel and Sam Claflin as Philip is generally quite engaging, too. There are even a couple of jokes: Rachel makes one about a smoking room for women and, when called a ‘stickler’ by Philip, his lawyer Mr Crouch (Simon Russell Beale) retorts that he will ‘stickle’.
Unfortunately the film’s pace was too slow for me. It held my attention, paradoxically, because I was waiting for a decisive moment. There are numerous pregnant pauses in the dialogue but I would say there’s very little emotional intensity or mounting suspense.
Of course I wasn’t expecting an action movie (not a favourite genre of mine), but I believe the film could have done du Maurier more justice. It might have been more interesting if one character had been developed: Rachel’s friend Rainaldi (Pierfrancesco Favino). He is enigmatic and she hints at his sexuality, but that is all. I still want to read the novel.
My Cousin Rachel review by good-decision – As a book lover I was disappointed
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.
My Cousin Rachel review by Rogerdarlington – Wonderful performance by Rachel Weisz
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 review by Owanitall – Fascinating character dynamics, great acting
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.
My Cousin Rachel review by Guylyonsntlworldcom – Hoped for so much more.
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 review by Nnmbrookes – Art imitating life?
My wonderful friend died this year.I really miss her.She had a passionate affair and left her husband. I could never find a good enough excuse for her doing that She was planning her wedding to her new love when he was diagnosed with a brain tumour. His last weeks were really violent. But she loved him and stayed with him even at the end when she was really in danger. I’m so glad she never saw this film
To me it lends credence to what might otherwise seem like a convenient though implausible plot device. Rachel Weiss played the character on such an even keel after what must have been a gut wrenching time……….she reminded me SO MUCH of how my friend coped.
This lack of melodrama I find particularly useful in representing real life. Maybe because I’m British.
My next perspective will see many male eyes turned toward the ceiling. I can live with the acronym ‘feminatzi’. In the Victorian era and eons before haven’t women always been shoe horned into the roles men wanted,nay demanded, that they play ? Phillips obsession with Rachel is whose fault exactly?
Think carefully about what choices did she really have. I wanted to enjoy the dilemma of trying to decide who was telling the truth. But the climax at the end left me in no doubt as to who was victim and who The Guilty.
Womens’lot……..was it ever thus.