My Cousin Rachel (2017)

'My Cousin Rachel's' mesmerising cinematography and superb acting excuse the rather slow pacing of the film. On a visual perspective, this film is a masterpiece. The cinematography by Mike Eley is nothing short of excellent and makes the film a visual delight, from start to finish. On top of that, the acting is superb, particularly by Rachael Weisz who plays the mysterious and overly complex character of Rachael brilliantly. However, it's in the plot that ultimately lets the film down. While it is certainly an engaging mystery, it's poorly structured and lacks clarity. The anticipated lead up to meeting the character of Rachael is ultimately a let down with an underwhelming scene that shows how overly complicated Rachael is, or rather how complicated the film makes her out to be. While it's certainly captivating and keeps you waiting until the end, the plot is quite muddled and never really makes it's intended statement properly. It leaves far too much up to contemplation that leaves the audience feeling dissatisfied. Alas, this movie is still a thoroughly entertaining film with fantastic acting and beautiful cinematography that deserves its critical acclaim.

I'm not sure if I have rated this correctly because I have only watched half of this and I already needed a break. I'll watch the rest later.Rachel Weisz is pretty good, but I still prefer Olivia de Havilland. Olivia didn't seem to have as much emotion and she came across, to me anyway, more of an enigma that Rachel. Comparing the two Phillip's. What can I say? Richard Burton, in my opinion, was pretty much of a overacting scenery chewer. I don't think that is was all that, but many people. Sam Claflin is very non descript. And, really, when is the stubble look going to finally end for men? Either grow it out or shave it. This movie is set in about the 1850's. Stubble was not a fashion then. It was huge sideburns, a moustache or a beard. Usually, it as all three. Whoever directed this, did not get that detail right. The women rock, the men don't.

The saddest part of the film was when those expensive strand of pearls were ripped from Rachel's neck by Philip, it sickened me to see them trickling down the stairs, one by one. Horror of horrors! What a disturbing scene! LOL! Sad, sad day. The value of those gorgeous pearls will never be the same, you know, even if they found every pearl. You must know I'm letting my imagination get the best of me. LOL! That aside, I loved this film. I'm giving it a 7 because I felt something was lacking and I can't pinpoint what that is, I'm sorry to say. Even so, the two leads were great. I'm notorious for making comparisons of actors and I'm sure actors hate that but such is the nature of the beast. Rachel Weisz was stunning and convincing; she was perfect as Rachel; Claflin was perfect as the torturous puppy dog, loved starved little boy turned man eventually. We're asked to wonder throughout the movie, did she or didn't she. Here we have Rachel a woman with big appetites; a seductress, a modern day woman with needs; a woman trying to make a way for herself; an independent woman; an opportunist; big spender. But she was a kind, caring woman. She tended the sick, the needy. She believed that herbal teas could heal, so do I. She experimented; most people do. Philip did refer to her as a witch and come to think of it, she could have had a special potion/brew for every kind of situation. One never knows! Nevertheless, care needs to be taken where herbs are concerned because though they can heal they can also be deadly. Rachel whipped a brew for Philip and he asked her to take a sip and she did not. I grew suspicious.Rachel was passionate and felt she owed no one an apology for her way of life. She was who she was. Take it or leave it! Enter young, naive Philip. Such a little boy. When he bit into the buttered biscuit and the butter was dripping from his fingers, she told him to lick them. That was one intense scene between the two and the camera shot on that was pretty neat. I never read the book and maybe that's a good thing but the performance by Claflin and Weisz and the entire cast was outstanding. Bravo to all! I watched this movie twice and came to the decision that this was a better version than the 1950's adaptation, as great as DeHavilland and Burton were. Both Weisz and Claflin nailed their roles to perfection.Seecombe was like a comedy central now and then and to see Philip chuckle from his outbursts was humorous. Claflin, like Timothy Dalton, has perfect diction and I appreciate actors who are blessed with this because you can understand what they are saying without turning up the volume or turn on the close caption. A big, big plus was seeing Iain Glen as Kendall. I loved the actress who played Louise--Holliday Grainger. Lovely, lovely woman!I think Rachel was innocent regardless if I believed in her practices or not. I mean she did lead the young guy on! He never saw a woman cry. Philip never had a woman around other than two female dogs growing up. He didn't read books. He lived off the fat of the land thanks to Ambrose. So, he had a lot to learn and I think Rachel was as patient as she could be with this gullible, inexperienced, young man. And the words, "Rachel, my torment," was used twice in the movie, once by Ambrose's words in a letter and at the conclusion of Philip's narration. Yes, indeed, Rachel was their torment! But no one was more tormented than "I". Oh, what has become of those pearls?

This dour period-piece relies on such a non-narrative that I honestly struggled to see the point of the entire endeavour. 'My Cousin Rachel (2017)' essentially boils down to a romance which isn't romantic, a drama which isn't dramatic and a thriller which isn't thrilling. It culminates in a dreary sequence of successive scenes where our protagonist acts like an ignorant ass and the audience becomes more and more comatose. Once it finally reaches its conclusion, the flick revels in certain barely-there revelations and tries to convince us that it has actually been layered all along, which still couldn't cover up the almost depressing levels of boredom I felt throughout the piece. All the 'twist' essentially boils down to, though, is whether or not the feature just wasted nearly two-hours of your time and, whatever conclusions you may draw about the weak double-bluffing plot, this will invariably and inevitably be the case. 3/10