Daphne du Maurier's novels fit well with cinematic adaptations. In the book “My Cousin Rachel”, the plot develops linearly, it clearly defines the origin, climax and denouement. Portraits of characters are revealed from different sides - character traits, appearance and degree of participation in the main storyline. Make sure you enjoy it.
Roger Mitchell decided to go his own way and played the story the way he liked it more - shortened the plot, removed a few details, increased the age of the characters by 10 years. There was an ugly contradiction.
As much as I love Rachel Weiss, she doesn’t look like a seductress in this movie for which men lose their heads. Instead of the mysterious, fragile, skillfully manipulative and full of vital energy of Rachel, a victim of circumstances of indefinite age appeared on the screen, who fell into the hands of an abuser. Philip was shown as an impulsive spoiled 30-year-old infant. Then he explodes, then falls into hysteria, inflating his lips and stomping his leg. Not a word about his mental anguish, his rush from rational to spontaneous. No mention is made of wastefulness, expensive repairs and poisonous seeds. And, meanwhile, in the book, these details give a key direction to the denouement.
What I liked was the landscapes: although they were filmed in Italy, but the entourage of the countryside of Victorian England is perfectly conveyed, The estate itself, the suburbs, the costumes, all this makes it easy to immerse yourself in the beginning of the last century. But from the British and do not expect another, a high standard is held from film to film, the eye rests.
Otherwise, no, not again. Do not freely interpret old novels in a new way. Nothing but indignation will come of it.
A beautiful film about the total inability to love.
For those, perhaps, who like as close to the letter of the text of the film adaptation, the film is not suitable. Here, circumstances are, rather, an excuse to convey the emotional side of the relationship between the characters.
The absolute lack of understanding, the emotional isolation of the protagonist, his “Englishness”, even if there is no such word, strict, religious adherence to the rules of good manners, the lack of any emotional development in the end literally kill his fragile, almost ghostly feeling for the main character, as well as her herself.
We are shown, forgive me, a calculating, suspicious idiot who can not even turn his head into a novel, but with almost ecstatic delight mocks himself and his beloved, presumably, woman. And the last judgment (about a woman) came to my mind strictly after the last phrase of the main character (and the film) "My torment..."
Hallelujah! He felt something! Before that, with all the scholasticity of a well-trained Englishwoman, he got rid of all sorts of shoots of possible feelings, judged, sentenced, cowardly not daring to move forward seriously in any of the options for the development of relations, poisoning the life of everyone with whom he communicated.
A clear feeling that ‘marriage is primarily about convenience and decency’, a woman... sorry, lady, ‘should conform’, etc., ‘do not conform – not a person’ did not leave me, it was felt that the guy was just carefully trying to warm up the fillet part of the body in life, and the cousin with her emotions (that’s a dumb thing!) interferes with the correctness of the moment.
Poor Rachel, with her emotionality and infatuation, had to (and in the director’s opinion, in my opinion) escape from a psychopath, saving her nerves and life. The poor woman decided differently.
Yes, in the end, the director sins scholasticism, showing and proving the absolute innocence of the poor woman, but the film is not about “fighting a mysterious con artist”. It's about what I put in the headline. The murderous inability and unwillingness to love, shown in all his unsightly squalor.
In the end, I wanted to throw something into the screen, looking at the pastoral-perfect picture of the “right” marriage of the main character. Rachel died, and the idiot who was satisfied with the correctness of his actions (I repeat!) arranged his life correctly, slightly, perhaps spoiling his appetite. And only the final phrase says that the feeling (Karl, at least one!), that he did something wrong, does not let him go.
At least wine, citizens! He was certainly capable of it!! Let him live and not interfere with his digestion, he, in principle, not so long!
'Who can tell why this particular man loves this particular woman, what bizarre chemical compounds in the blood drive us to each other?'
English writer Daphne du Maurier gave the world two chic novels 'Rebecca' and 'My cousin Rachel'. Both of these two of her most famous books have found several adaptations in world cinema.
The book ' My Cousin Rachel' was published in 1951, and immediately a year later the American film of the same name with Olivia De Havilland and Richard Burton was released. The movie turned out to be a successful adaptation, but the play of the actors was on top. Now it is a pleasure to review this old, white and exquisite film.
In 1983, a television adaptation of this book for new generations was released. The roles of the main characters are already played by Geraldine Chaplin and Christopher Gard. I am very neutral about this film.
And more recently, a couple of years ago, the third film adaptation of My Cousin Rachel & #39, which is directed by Roger Michell (he is remembered for the film ' Notting Hill & #39;). The main roles go to such famous actors as Rachel Weiss and Sam Claflin.
To be honest, the new film adaptation was very intrigued, and began to watch it with great pleasure. I was in a hurry because the film was a disappointment. On the one hand, the costumed drama was filmed pedanticly, and the era of that time was transmitted to the screen truthfully. Dresses, furnishings, all the surroundings in the background - everything is realistic, as if we are at that time.
On the other hand, the movie looks like it’s dead. The actors seem to play clean, try, but because of the gray direction, everything dies in this depressing film.
We see the story of an orphan raised on a Cornish estate by cousin Embrose. Philip is young and hot and has a huge legacy. Embrose goes to Italy, where he meets his cousin Rachel. Soon they get married and the man dies. Grief-stricken Philip wants to tell his cousin Rachel that he hates her and blames her for Abbrose's death, but when Rachel comes to Philippe, she takes his mind and heart forever. . .
'Meeting me brought him a brief moment of ecstasy ... and disaster.' (c) Rachel Ashley.
The history of this book is very interesting, mysterious and confusing. A sharp novel is really good, so I wanted from this adaptation of greater dynamics, emotions, depth. I didn't like the director, and it ruined everything. The most difficult thing is to write reviews for films that are neutral somewhere between 'da' and 'no' Something here liked (entourage and actors, nostalgia for the story from the book), and something absolutely not (direction, and how the director presented everything in this film).
Something was missing from this film, which is a shame, because the third adaptation could become a real hit. But to-sorry, the film is stingy and gray. Well, the new film adaptation of this book we will not see soon.
There is no point in criticizing the acting, because the English actors and Rachel Weiss and Sam Claflin came to their roles and played well. Cousin Rachel is an extremely complex and mysterious character. Not even the most respected actress will fit her image. Once Olivia De Havilland brilliantly performed this role, and now we always compare other actresses with her.
Weiss played mysteriously and sinisterly, she brought Rachel's whole essence to the screen, which was great. That's what I like about this picture. If only the film was in the hands of the director. The film was an attempt at a new look at the mysterious book, but only an attempt.
'My Cousin Rachel' - costume, detective, dramatic melodrama of 2017. If you like Daphne Du Maurier’s book, you can start to appreciate it, but don’t expect anything supernatural from it. He was as deceptive (in a bad way) as his mysterious story.
Rachel, my flour. . A worthy adaptation of a beautiful novel
This film was watched solely because of the desire to appreciate another role of Sam Claflin, having no idea about the novel and its adaptation. After reading the reviews, I did not expect anything special, but in the end the film made a strong impression on me. And I am glad that unlike many who wrote reviews, I did not read the book before watching the film, so there were no expectations, comparisons and therefore disappointment.
I do not consider myself a sophisticated film lover and especially a cool film critic, but at the philistine level I believe that the film is very worthy, therefore I do not agree with his undeservedly low assessment and decided to write about my impression.
Of course, the film is not for the mass audience who wants to see the action, special effects and chewed up plot with lush details. But connoisseurs of quality filmed English drama, which requires attention to detail and understanding them, it should be to taste.
After the first time, there was a desire to review the film once again thoughtfully, paying attention to the nuances that I missed at first. I got even more pleasure and made sure that the film itself deserves respect and also encourages to read the book. Which I did to compare my perception with the plot of the novel and make my own opinion about its adaptation.
I can say with confidence that I did not have any feeling of “deception”, understatement and dissonance – I thank the entire crew for the excellent work!
It is impossible to film this interesting novel “logically and clearly”, since its essence lies in the subjectivity of perception of reality only by the main character, on behalf of whom the narrative is conducted. His rather introverted way of life, the absence of a loved one whom he trusted, inexperience in communicating with women, his desire and inability to understand their essence, the motives of their behavior, his rush from extreme to extreme: hatred, confusion, inexplicable passion, love, distrust, painful passion ... all this makes the plot “torn” both in the novel and in the film, which absolutely does not beg for their dignity, in my opinion. There can be no logical, definite and understandable ending here, since there is no opinion, sensations and explanations of events by other participants in what is happening. Therefore, both the reader and the viewer are involved in the process - each conclusion and sentence will be his own.
The movie. I really liked the cast. Sam Claflin did not disappoint - he conveyed the whole range of emotions of the protagonist and is generally very organic in the role of Philip: young, handsome, on the one hand sufficiently educated, educated and mature to independently manage a large estate and farm, on the other - not experienced, angular in communicating with women, confused and confused by the manner of behavior and Rachel's incomprehensible attitude to him.
Rachel Weiss perfectly conveyed the mystery, incomprehensibility, at the same time softness and coldness, the unpredictability of her cousin (precisely from the point of view of Philip).
Supporting actors are also selected, in my opinion, perfectly – no one and nothing interferes with perception, organically complementing the picture.
I liked the delicacy and tact, understatement and even some caution in the development of the plot. I liked the camera work. The beauty of the interiors and landscapes does not need comment at all. Every detail, every gesture, every look, beautiful music, changes in lighting and color convey the atmosphere, emotions, feelings more than words. I didn’t need further explanations to understand the essence and drama of the main characters’ relationship. And even if there are some deviations from the literary work in the film, they do not affect the essence of what is happening, and perhaps they are allowed by the director specifically to enhance emotional perception.
In general, I definitely recommend the film to watch and wish the audience pleasure from it.
“My Cousin Rachel” is a re-release of the novel of the same name by Daphne Du Maurier.
The main disadvantage of the film is its haste. It was possible to start smoothly, carefully to whip up the atmosphere for a future insoluble mystery, layer the thinnest layers of impending doubts, but the film decides otherwise.
We instantly find ourselves in the thick of events, and the voiceover quickly (even to the credits) lists everything that did not fit into the almost two-hour timeline. Down with childhood memories, we are not interested in either the characters or their relationships; instead, crumpled: "This is Ambrose, he is sick, he is not going to marry; this is the godfather, this is his daughter, we are reading a letter" - woe to you if you did not familiarize yourself with the novel in advance.
Visually, the film is not surprising either. The voiceover duplicates everything that appears in the frame, and nothing appears in the frame, whatever was announced by the narrator a second earlier. If it snows in the frame, the voice will say: “Winter has come”, if you hear: “We read the letter”, then the three characters will sit side by side on chairs and just read out loud. The visual series and the narrator do not complement each other, do not contrast and do not interact at all (however, closer to the end becomes a little better).
This is extremely insulting, because it is in this story, where there can be no only true interpretation of events, where the slightest detail, timely submitted, can make us hesitate and change the point of view, where it would be possible to force different versions to coexist in parallel, without first announcing them all with that voiceover, the filmmakers absolutely do not use this.
Formally, the plot of the film is close to the text of the novel, with the exception of the most important - the atmosphere. And, much worse, the picture has no atmosphere of its own, as well as no detective line, simply because no one is interested in what happened, and we are not interested.
In general, it reminded the series on “Cold House”: the same haste, formality and literality when losing involvement.
P.S. Louise (Holliday Granger) is good, the rest just have nothing to work with.
The main character, on behalf of which the story goes, Philip Ashley, an orphan raised by his cousin Embrose. With whom the main character had a great relationship, and none of these two, busy taking care of the estate and joint pastime was needed. So always thought and was brought up Philip, he is not familiar with caress, early deceased mother, did not represent the need of a woman, in their cozy world with Embrose. And even the godfather's daughter Louise perceives more as a friend than a girl who sees in him little more than just her father's godson.
Returning to his native home after studying, was saddened by the ailment of his cousin and the need for his departure to warmer lands, from windy and drenched England.
All this we learn not from the beginning of the film, but more from the content of the book. And if you do not know at least about the original source, then it is absolutely impossible to understand what we are talking about and where the narrative is moving, because such important nuances as the view of the world and the upbringing of Ambrose and Philip are not reflected in the film at all.
The narration of the film takes us to the moment when Ambrose informed his nephew that he met his cousin Rachel, married her and just as soon reported his illness. This does not reflect the process in which Philip, eaten by jealousy, begins to hate a woman he has never seen and blame her for the fact that it is because of her that his beloved guardian is now far away and in no hurry home.
Next, the main character, also soon comes to Italy, where everything in the same crumpled manner learns about the death of Ambrose. The film does not show his anger, hatred, such that even Italy seems disgusting to him. Philip only says that he will take revenge on what he thinks is guilty of the death of his cousin.
And now the hated widow of Ambrose comes to England to bring the things of the deceased to his house, and from this moment the master Ashley (as the owner of the estate is now called) and forgot to think about his uncle, about the notorious hatred and in general about the causes of death of the guardian, which hitherto occupied his head.
The process of gradual falling in love, which occurs with a young and inexperienced guy who has not yet seen the need for a woman in the house, is not shown. A process in which he tries to juxtapose a young and pretty woman in reality with one he hated in his mind. The film immediately takes us to a more intimate relationship between Rachel and young Ashley. In any case, the unambiguous kisses on the lips, in the film, are shown as a matter of course, between a recently widowed woman and her husband's nephew.
The spontaneous, unfounded actions of Philip cause bewilderment, and the lack of reaction, or rather the adequate reaction of Rachel, presents the film as a set of separate fragments from which they could not assemble a single picture, along the way losing the elements of the thriller, suspense and mystery that were the main component of the book.
Absolutely vulgar scenes of an intimate nature, almost on a haywalk, lower Rachel almost to a tavern girl who can pick up a dress in any convenient place. And, of course, the director could not help but demonstrate his tolerant attitude towards non-traditional relationships, making one of the main antagonists a lover of boys, explaining that he is not Italian at all, but actually Greek. That had nothing to do with the original source, first, and second, did not get involved with the storyline.
And it seems that the cast is good and try even, but there is no connection with the character, the love of the main character is not shown, the strange, but still the care of cousin Rachel, does not torment the question of whether she is guilty and what her interest is. Philip's pain over lost hopes and betrayed expectations.
The film is bland, boring, does not keep in suspense, does not give answers to questions and does not present the audience with characters of interesting personalities.
It is not uncommon of course, the phenomenon when a good material for film adaptation is so mediocrely spoiled, but nevertheless offensive!
2 out of 10
The young orphan Phillip Ashley was raised by his cousin Ambrose, his favorite and closest person. But Ambrose, for health reasons, goes to Italy and begins to send letters in which their distant relative Rachel appears. At first, Ambrose admires her, then marries her, and then begins to suspect her of her bad condition. Phillip is on his way to Italy, but he doesn’t have time. And soon Rachel herself appears on the threshold of his estate and an angry Phillip has every chance to take revenge on her.
Learning about the adaptation of the novel of the same name by Daphne Du Maurier, I was very happy, with such ambiguous characters here it was great to play in an alarming suspense, with half hints and unsaid situations. No wonder Hitchcock loved her books and even filmed a few things himself. But alas, Roger Michell is far from Hitchcock, just shot everything one at a time, stumbling not only in the atmosphere, but also, suddenly, on the main actors.
Although it would seem that Rachel Wise and Sam Claflin are the most suitable candidates. Wise has repeatedly played femme fatal and certainly can, and Sam even in appearance has some shadow of viciousness and he knows how to give out heroes with a wormhole. Moreover, it is even clear that the actors clearly did a great job and give out the whole range of relying emotions. The chemistry between them is zero. There is no atmosphere of passionate obsession and a painfully paranoid state of Phillip that keeps you in the book to the end. The age difference, which should also work on psychological contrast, is visually much smoothed. While there's no mystery about Rachel, it's just a pretty widow with a strange tea. But it was on the contrast and intricacies of their relationship that the whole plot basis was built.
However, everything else in the film at the level and even shot in the forehead, the story looks quite interesting. The atmosphere of rural Victorian England with its costumes, views and suffocating isolation of provincial society is perfectly conveyed. Plus in the background there are absolutely gorgeous Ian Glen and Holliday Granger, who, against the background of the suffering main couple, look very real, alive and in their place.
I also liked that the ending was slightly changed. One tiny detail I just couldn't forgive Daphne.
7 out of 10
This is not the case when you read a book and then watch a movie to understand the deep and impeccable meaning. This is not the case when the film is as beautiful as the book itself. This is the rare case where a film is so bad that sometimes it is worth picking up a book and limiting yourself to it.
Let's see why this is such a negative shot.
This film adaptation is a modernized remake of the 1952 film, which itself is unusual due to the fact that the actors play like in the theater. This is all the beauty and reasonable assessment. Good storytelling, logical production, interesting acting. But we are talking about today’s cinematography, where there is no theatricality and the most natural emotions.
So the remake of 2017, shot not bad but not the best director Roger Michell and his crew tried to do everything to make the film boring. It is necessary to be able to put dialogues and play so that the initially confusing story becomes even more spider web!
Characters
Without exaggeration, good actors play: hot Rachel Weiss and romantic Sam Claflin, only here, in the film this is not visible.
To disgust, Claflin’s flat play, his warm love for his brother is not visible, his regret and inner suffering are not visible, and there is no hatred for the main character. There are only incomprehensible emotions as if he is always afraid of something and runs from an imaginary friend abruptly changing his feelings from love to hate.
Rachel Weiss is a baby, but can you play truthfully and emotionally, because you can penetrate into the hero and become one with him, what happened to you now?! Probably not a genuine interest, specifically a complete absence. There is no female charm in the character that captured the main character, there is no mystery, sincerity.
Most importantly, there are no lovers in these two “allegedly” lovers. With missteps, passion and a radiant look. You will see two people, a man and a woman, and you will not see the inner world in them, which leads to the conclusion: there is no character card.
Narrative of the film
If everything is clear in the 1952 film, it is not clear from the first minute. Time goes by too fast, you don't know how much Philip loves his brother Ambrose since he left. So Philip comes to his brother's house, and Rachel arrives, and he immediately falls in love with her. Come on, if it was visible in sight or in action, which promises his rapid love, it is not, and there is no hatred for Rachel, and in fact, according to him, he hated her. And you sit in disbelief, as if you missed 15 minutes of the movie.
The structure of dialogues is built tightly and sometimes protracted, with unnatural pauses. If there is no acting, then sometimes dialogue can convey a thought, but you will not find them here either.
What to say about the landscapes of England, then of course everything is beautiful. The colorful flora, shiny water, yellow shores, green fields and flat areas, in a word, the look will flutter, as for all the general aesthetic.
Concluding this discontent
After all, you could shoot a masterpiece, the work really deserves attention. But not that director, not that acting game. The actors are very good with the given roles, and it is difficult to imagine others, but they were not interested. No romanticism, no drama, no love affair between the characters. Eh... Follow the genre there, at least a drop of detective and drama, may have led to more enthusiastic responses, but alas.
Together, there was a low-quality film adaptation that ruined the story. Negative reviews and low rating are justified.
Philip is very attached to his adoptive father Ambrose. However, during a trip to Italy, Ambrose meets Rachel, his distant relative, marries her and soon dies. Philip believes that Rachel killed his guardian to get his husband's fortune. While sharpening his revenge plan, he does not notice how he himself falls in love with Rachel.
The merits of the painting.
1. The Victorian style of Old England is fully represented. Old castles and estates, luxurious dresses and costumes, all the scenery is thought out and done very painstakingly and clearly, I liked everything.
2. The cast is represented by the famous actress Rachel Weiss who played a widow. A gentle and mysterious woman who has power over men, but at the same time she seems the most innocent, which pushes the viewer and the main character to the question whether she is so innocent as it seems at first glance. Sam Claflin, with the role of Philip coped well, at first full of determination to take revenge, he at one moment changes his mood, finding himself in captivity of a beautiful woman. But most of all, he managed to convey his passion and at the same time insecurity in his beloved.
3. The atmosphere of the film is addictive, at first under the sun, everything seems a joke, but as soon as Rachel appears, it becomes clear that the games are over and a real mad passion begins that makes even a sane person blind.
Disadvantages of the film.
1. I understand that this film is an adaptation of the novel, but the director could do his part and make the film a little more dynamic. The picture turned out to be atmospheric, but at the same time a little drawn out and tedious. Dialogues are jaded and inconclusive. The plot is crumpled and loses meaning, as soon as a cousin appears. The plan of revenge that Philip developed remains unfulfilled.
2. As the two main characters play, the other characters are lost. Although there were many different characters in the film.
The plot of the picture, despite the slow narrative, rather painstakingly describes the relationship between Rachel and Philip. Their acquaintance, passion, passion are so exciting and all-consuming that everything else fades into the background. And in this whirlwind, the story of the life of Rachel, who remained a beautiful stranger, remains untold.
English writer and biographer Daphne Du Maurier is one of the most famous British literary authors of the XX century. Most of her novels were filmed, and Alfred Hitchcock alone made such iconic films as Rebecca, Jamaica Tract, and Birds from her books. Which is not surprising, because many of Daphne's novels have very intriguing, mysterious and even sometimes frankly scary plots, past which the king of horrors was difficult to pass. However, it is no less difficult to remain indifferent to her works and ordinary readers. She wrote dramatic novels with a detective bias. Often and openly loving, such as, for example, turned out “French Bay”. And her books could calmly dust on the shelves of tabloid readings with sugary covers, if not the original style coupled with stunning drawing of characters, as well as the ability to subtly convey the spirit of the era and the atmosphere of certain events. Moreover, her characters always had internal conflict and did not suffer from superficiality.
Du Maurier's books have long been classics and each of them deserves only the best transfers to film. But alas, and ah - with transfers, rarely when everything is smooth. Even the magnificent Hitchcock, stunningly filmed the story “Birds”, with “Rebekah”, unfortunately coped not perfectly. The book (one of the best in my opinion) was much more frightening and confusing than Alfred’s tape. What about less talented directors? And in general, one of the most thankless things in cinema is film adaptation. Rarely, very rarely, are readers satisfied. It is difficult to abstract from the book novel you like, when reading which fantasy draws its own perfect film, and switch to the version of someone who has a completely different vision. The fresh film adaptation of My Cousin Rachel, in my opinion, was devoid of the deep drama that literally exuded the original book source. Roger Mitchell, the director of the famous romantic comedy Notting Hill, was more interested in the detective component and the entourage of the picture. He gladly “intrigued”, giving the opportunity to the main character in the person of Rachel Weiss to completely and irrevocably confuse the audience, which she coped with very well, but at the same time could not “mock” her with her screen partner.
The image of her namesake, Rachel embodied albeit not quite subtly, but very attractive. As soon as she appears in the frame, she blows something otherworldly and cold. Her character evokes a bunch of conflicting emotions, and there is no scene involving the main character that is boring or uninteresting. And in the episode, in which she returns from the city on an old wagon in her mourning robe, it seems that death itself returns from hell as soon as you notice a ghostly silhouette in the background of the screen. A death that looks quietly at you from under the veil, enchanting with its bottomless eyes. You think maybe you're dreaming? Or maybe it was just an imagination? Throughout the viewing with interest savor every action of Rachel, conducting an analysis inside yourself. But her screen partner left him indifferent. All his experiences were more externally indicated by fainting and tearful tantrums than came from within. Sam Claflin can not be called wooden, but he still could not capture the entire inner conflict of his character and only betrayed his instincts. And in the scenes with Rachel, he passed. In some episodes, by the way, it was very fitting, but the film cannot stand still, just as the actor cannot slow down the film without endowing his hero with various facets, as well as without developing him.
The saddest thing is that there was no chemistry between the main duet - the relationship between the two characters was not enough in both drama and psychology, and the climax is completely devoid of proper tragedy. That is not surprising, because in the same volcano, before the explosion, there are various processes, and in order to imbue with sympathy for the hero, carrying through himself all the despair of his situation, the feelings of this hero must boil, and not only from the outside, showing the audience certain external manifestations, but also from the inside. So it remains to rely on a win-win plot, the image of the main character, well, and the entourage. But believe me, the movie suffers from this, but still does not cease to fascinate. By the way, the authors managed to create a mystical atmosphere on the screen. However, other important aspects work on the atmosphere here: costumes, makeup, interiors, picturesque field shootings and, of course, the music of Rael Jones - the composer of the film. The painting is beautiful. Some shots I want to put in memory, so that in the moment of irresistible longing, through fantasy, pull out your inner gaze, and places from the film you want to visit.
P.S. A fresh adaptation of the novel by Daphne Du Maurier by and large leaves due to an interesting original story, the image of the main character and a mysterious atmosphere. And most of all, Rachel Weiss tried, who may not have played at the Oscars, but interestingly presented the character of her literary namesake. Everything else is based on a strong book source. The story is so intriguing that even if you are not good at drama, you can make a proper frame from only one detective story, so that the fun does not go cracks, falling apart.
7 out of 10
The film has remained for us a secret that everyone must reveal in their own way.
The story follows a 24-year-old boy who tells his story from childhood to his marriage and his children.
In this story, a big role is played by cousin Rachel, whom the main character hates at the beginning, because he considers her guilty of the death of his adoptive father, who was also his cousin, that is, a cousin.
Rachel comes to Philip's estate to visit, initially as a hopeless, loving widow. It touches the guy and he imbues her with feelings to the village unknown to him. Perhaps it was a habit, perhaps a decoction of herbs, which she called medicinal tea, but he literally became obsessed with her and even wanted to marry, while writing off her property on the condition that she could not marry if she did not want to lose this property, strangely he decided to check her. Naturally, she refused, at the same time his health began to deteriorate. And Philip began to suspect his cousin that she poisoned him with a decoction of her miraculous herbs.
In this story, there are two other characters who add to this film the fullness of all scenes – the godfather Nick and his daughter Louise, they play an important role here, like many other minor characters.
But still something was missing, as if everything was not done in full force.
The main character Philip is a naive guy who until his almost 25 years did not know why a man needs a woman at all and if it were not for the seduction of Rachel, he probably would never have married. Apparently influenced by the fact that he was raised by a cousin who also did not have a marriage behind his shoulders. On the other hand, he studied and was away from home. He is like a child, it looks strange and ridiculous.
Cousin Rachel was never revealed to us at all, as she came to the mysterious beautiful lady, and left, or rather fell, the mysterious lady. What she wanted remained a mystery.
Louise is perhaps the only character who is somehow revealed as a person and in his desires. She loves Philip and wants to be his wife.
It is worth noting the camera work, shot perfectly, everything is shown as it should be shown.
But the script is unfinished - that's a problem! In general, the film is not even bad, but the characters are not thought out, they are like an appendix to the film, and not the film itself. The picture of landscapes, houses is more memorable than the play of actors, although they played well.
I had a strange aftertaste at the end of the movie. Maybe I was just waiting for more, so I got a little disappointed.
6.5 out of 10
Young Philip (Sam Claflin) prepares to inherit the estate after his cousin and guardian Ambrose has died under mysterious circumstances. A young man is waiting at the estate for his cousin Rachel, who was engaged to Ambrose. Rumor has it that Rachel poisoned her husband. Add to that questions of inheritance, Philip's forbidden attraction to his relative's widow, and you have all the ingredients for an epic post-Gothic melodrama.
In theory. The fact is that these ingredients are useless on their own. There's still something to make sense of, and Roger Michell is clearly not a world-class chef. Taking as a basis the original material of Daphne Du Maurier, Michell reinterpreted it. The main plot setting is conveyed correctly, namely the image of Rachel, fluctuating between a capricious intriguer, a femme fatale and an unhappy woman. The film deftly plays on this ambiguity, as does the novel – the point is that the viewer/reader sees and understands more than the protagonist Philip, but never enough to draw a definitive conclusion. Thus, Philip’s actions become more reckless and are noticed by other inhabitants of the socially limited world of the Victorian wilderness.
But unfortunately, despite the diligent approach to filmmaking, the script doesn't address it as it should. There is no transmission of Philip's paranoid state or immersion in his moody mania. Never in the whole movie did I feel what the main character felt. The problem, again, may be that the creators relied too much on the ambiguity of the events taking place in the film. But because we don’t always see the film from Philip’s point of view, we don’t fully understand how he feels about it.
Especially unpleasant in “My Cousin Rachel” the feeling that this material could be made almost a masterpiece. The main themes of the narrative are taken from classical elements of Gothic and Victorian literature: an uncomfortable feeling of loneliness in large mansions, xenophobia, distrust of female sexuality and the subject of manipulation itself. These ideas appear in Rachel, but somehow weakly and, rather, on the cue of the original source.
At the same time, you do not want to scold the acting game, there is rather a problem in the presentation of material and characters. Claflin is a real revelation. The actor has certainly done a great job. Rachel Weiss is without a doubt a strong actress, and she embodies exactly the kind of character discussed throughout the first act. However, for all the talent of the actors in the roles of the main characters, there is no chemistry between Weiss and Claflin at all. Weiss, for example, lacks the aura of mystery that is vital for her character to complete the image, and Claflin, although showing a wide range of realistic emotions, does not possess enough charisma of a romantic hero. Also in the cast penetrated Holliday Granger, able to impress or at least cause the desire to take this actress on the note, and Ian Glen in a secondary role.
From a technical point of view, My Cousin Rachel is well shot, especially in the day and night scenes in the majestic estate. However, the rain in some scenes was just incredibly fake.
The final act is predictable and constantly postponed, as Philip looks for more and more reasons to doubt Rachel and, in the end, the whole gamut of emotions from watching turns into annoyance from protractedness. This is not what the filmmakers seem to want to say. In other words, “My Cousin Rachel” is the kind of melodrama in which everything works except the most important thing – the chemistry between the characters and the love story itself.
5 out of 10
Daphne DuMorier's elegant novel My Cousin Rachel (1951) was already carried to the big screen by Hollywood in 1952 - it was a classic production starring Olivia DeHavilleland and a young Richard Barton. The film was not a masterpiece, but it turned out to be a very beautiful and superbly performed drama, awarded four Oscar nominations. And now, more than half a century later, director Roger Michell (Notting Hill) decided to demonstrate his view of the book.
The plot remained unchanged - a young orphan Philip Ashley, raised by his cousin Embrose, learns that his guardian, who left for Italy for treatment, suddenly died of a serious illness. In his letters, Ambrose said that he married Rachel, a charming widow, left without any means of subsistence. But before Ambrose's death, his letters became more disturbing and ambiguously alluding to Rachel's involvement in his poor condition. When a woman arrives at the estate, Philip decides to bring the alleged villain to clean water, but soon realizes that he falls in love with her.
To create film adaptations of novels after the release of classic productions is quite risky. Especially if the author is unable to say something new on an old topic, as happened with director Roger Michell, who wrote the script himself. Since the directing of the 1952 film was a bit simple, in this case there was an excellent chance to take a chance and play Hitchcock, filling the film with a subtle suspense, hints, psychological duels and mesmerizing understatement. Unfortunately, Michelle safely misses such a chance and turns a story of fatal trust and the throes of constant doubt into a tedious and overly hysterical melodrama about a failed love affair. Visually, the movie looks very picturesque - but admiring the natural landscapes of the director takes more time than drawing characters and building a plot. The relationship of Philip with his brother, very important for the formation of the image of the main character, is dotted at the beginning and remain somewhere behind the scenes, the friend Louise generally looks like some extra character. The subtlety of the relationship between the main characters is replaced by scandals and inappropriate (even clumsy) bed scenes, which are unable to bring chemistry to the actor’s duet. After the perfect Barton and DeHavilleland, Claflin and Weiss look pale copies of them: if the former is unconvincing and presumptuous, and also often overplays, then the Oscar winner generally missed the image. In her heroine there is absolutely no mystery and that hypnotic duality, combining soft charm and some kind of devil, which made Rachel a woman before whom men easily lost their heads. Instead, the actress, under unsuccessful directorial guidance, constantly chooses the wrong emotional means, and also does not look much older than her lover, which should also work to create the necessary psychological contrast. The two of them do not manage to pull the story played out to the desired level, since it is on the intricacies of the relationship that the entire plot basis was built. Michelle stubbornly does not feel how it is necessary to hold and excite the audience, because of what the audience’s attention in the middle begins to jump, and the events that are happening cease to fascinate. In short, this movie is an additional point in the treasury of the thesis “the book is better”, but for those who do not like to read – there are always classic productions that rarely turned out to be frankly unsuccessful.
Another adaptation of the novel of the same name by writer Daphne Du Maurier. The director of the picture, who gave us the unforgettable “Notting Hill”, seriously took up a new job. The task, of course, was not an easy one, since the novel had already been filmed several times, so it was impossible to avoid a tough comparison with the book and other films. Daphne Du Maurier, if you don’t know, is a fairly well-known English writer who specialized in action dramas and thrillers. Even Hitchcock himself could not resist the sharpness of her stories and made two films: Rebecca and Birds. This time a great chance to resurrect the legendary story of cousin Rachel fell to Roger Michelle. The plot of the film, of course, is known to many fans of this work, but if anyone is not familiar with the plot, then I definitely recommend reading it. The main character Philip learns that his uncle, who replaced his father, mysteriously dies during a trip to Italy, but before that he managed to marry his distant relative named Rachel. Heartbroken young man is sure that the girl is involved in the death of his uncle and intends to extort her confession, when suddenly, without expecting it, he himself without memory falls in love with a mysterious stranger in black.
After watching the film, I honestly had some dissatisfaction with what I saw, so I was not particularly impressed with the new film adaptation. There was some understatement in the film, as if the director in each scene was very cautious and tried hard not to trample in someone else’s garden, although personally I, on the contrary, would welcome the bold and rebellious manifestation of directorial creativity. But in the end I saw a rather superficial and completely not immersed in the deepest thriller. The actors, of course, as befits the English manner, are very restrained and conservative, but the characters still did not reveal the necessary audience empathy. This primarily concerns the actress Rachel Weiss, who performed the same cousin Rachel. Unfortunately, as for me, the actress could not carry with her and plunge into the abyss of passion, which can not be said about the actor Sam Claflin, the role of Philip. It was thanks to him that I watched this film with inherent interest, because the actor perfectly conveyed all the necessary emotions: initial carelessness, then tender love and frightening obsession, and in the end sober rage and unprecedented determination. Before our eyes, a young boy gradually turned into a real man. He knew the real feelings that can seriously burn even the strongest male hearts.
As for the production itself, it is performed qualitatively and standardly. Despite some delay at the beginning of the story, in general, the film is quite watchable with a good emotional ending. Developments of events occur slowly and painstakingly, but throughout history the intrigue gradually increases, increasing and increasing the degree of viewership.
In general, all fans of the legendary novel are dedicated.
I waited a long time for the release of this film, because this is Du Maurier, besides the cast is simply brilliant - Rachel Weiss, Sam Claflin, Ian Glen, Holliday Granger ... Expectations were the most rosy, but unfortunately the film turned out to be boring and somehow lifeless, there is neither suspense nor detective component, nor mystery, which were present in the film adaptation of this work in 1952. Yes, the new film added color and chic views of England, but unfortunately, this does not replace the absence of live characters. Rachel Weiss in the role of Rachel, in this film is completely lost, she does not have that special highlight that men go crazy from her, she is just a liberated woman, not subject to complexes. Sam Claflin's a really bad guy, and when he's trying to do drama, it's more like a nervous tic. The fact that there is no chemistry between the characters is visible even with an unarmed eye, just the actors wagering their fee. By the way, Rachel and Sam's sixteen-year age difference doesn't look fatal. The most insulting thing is that the actors are good and could make this film not a masterpiece, but something outstanding.
It turned out to be an ordinary story of failed love, but not a detective with a touch of a thriller, which should be. What is it, bad directing, raw script or a combination of different circumstances? By the way, the film adaptation of 1952, at the end it turned out to be somewhat unsaid, which rather referred the unsatisfied viewer to the book, the same film is straightforward to the very end.
As a result, we have a seemingly whole film on the theme of a classic novel, but far from the style of Du Maurier, simple and empty as twice two four.
6 out of 10
As a lover of classics, English spirit, and actress Rachel Weiss, I wanted to see this new film with her participation, shot on a rather interesting novel. To be honest, I was disappointed until the end. To turn a good and interesting story into something boring and lifeless, we still have to try, but the creators succeeded.
Philip's attachment to his father is not felt at all, too little time is allocated to this, everything is said in words, and not played live, and nothing concrete is said about the fate of little Philip. At the beginning there is a monotonous behind-the-scenes story, and then everything develops so quickly and superficially that you do not have time to penetrate the characters, understand their actions and deeds.
The main disappointment was in the performance of the actors, especially the heroine Rechal Weiss did not come out convincingly, her movement, dialogue, facial expressions, did not give a feeling of plausibility of what was happening, such a game would suit the theater rather than the film. The male character, Philip, played by Sam Claflin, also turned dry and lifeless, his transition from hate to love looks sharp, based on nothing. But the heroine of Holliday Granger turned out to be very alive, real, she became the one who cares about the fate of Philip, but she could not pull the whole story on herself.
Watching the film was very difficult, boring, dull, painful, in some places had to wind back to understand what was happening on the screen. The dialogue also turned out to be boring and monotonous, whether the translation is such, or whether the writers overdid it.
If there is no pity for time and there is an opportunity to get bored and fall asleep, then “My cousin Rachel” is quite suitable, but it is better to read a book.
3 out of 10
The film began promisingly. As a lover of old England, mysticism and Rebecca by Daphne DeMurrier, I sincerely hoped that this film would be loved by my heart.
But from the very minute that the long-awaited meeting between the main character and the heroine took place, I kept repeating to myself: “I don’t believe!”
The changes in the feelings and beliefs of the hero occurred so quickly, illogically and unconvincingly. It felt like I was watching a movie on an old TV set that switched off periodically, and by turning it on, I was missing important storylines. When did he fall in love? Maybe I missed a moment where Rachel skillfully seduced him with beautiful speeches or a languid look? What in the main character fascinated him? Beauty? Undoubtedly, she is beautiful, but to trick a young, beautiful and very rich man around the finger with one appearance is unconvincing. An aging, boring, hysterical woman could not turn the head of a 25-year-old handsome man. I didn’t see Catherine Tramel (Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct) or Anne Barton (Juliet Binoche in Damage). Forgive me, dear director of this absurdity, but I have never seen a more gray film about love and passion. And yes, Daphne had nothing to do with it. She did her job perfectly.
Nimb is a beautiful thing, if it can sometimes be removed.
The impression of the film is twofold in a good sense: on the one hand, a pleasant aftertaste, on the other, an acute desire to dramatically exclaim: “Rachel! What did you do to her, what did you do to yourself?
The emotionality and beauty of the film are definitely its strengths. What landscapes, what light and soothing music, what beautiful actors, what ingenious, but only in its own charming scenery! The picture is bright, airy, barely tangible and permeated with some tenderness; it really feels that what is happening is transmitted through the prism of youthful perception of life. The film may not like from a plot or scenario point of view, but it is unlikely that the viewer will not enjoy watching, because of which an hour and a half of the film will not seem a waste of time.
As for the tape as a whole, this is a good adaptation, but in isolation from the book it is better not to consider. Moreover, without reading the original, you can easily get confused and do not understand what is happening. Not to understand what Rachel is so good at, that she is crazy about, or not to be fully imbued with Philip's affection for the deceased Ambrose, which is the foundation of the whole story. Perhaps this is the only significant disadvantage of the film - it appears more like an illustration to the book, its trailer, which only inflames interest for the unknowing, but is not able to convey the story in all colors. For the reader, this will be an extremely pleasant addition, which will surely please and cheer up.
Rachel as Rachel is beautiful. As in the book, she almost to the very end seems wise and inaccessible, a mystery; and at the end... well, in the end, this is Rachel as she is. Sam Claflin is also in his place: he looks on the years of Philip, behaves on the years of Philip in love. He's young, he's fascinated, but deep down, he's angry and vindictive, and you can see that. Again, the metamorphosis was perfectly conveyed: at the beginning of the film, as in the book, he seems like a boy, albeit with a character - and again at the end we see Philip, who is Philip, as he was in the book. Masks break down, circumstances change, roles interfere between the characters, but one thing remains unchanged: the actors in their places, believe them, sympathize with them, fear for them.
Separately, I want to note the secondary roles of Holliday Granger and Ian Glen (Louise and Nick Kendall). They are not shadows of what is happening, they are full-fledged characters, live people who also cause different emotions at different stages of viewing. Undoubtedly plus.
Aside from all merit, the film has a strong ending. Very in the spirit of the book, even makes you grab your head and lament, and think over and over again, what really happened... And guess who is the charming Rachel? A perfectly decent, good woman who through no fault of her own brings trouble, or does the torment bring her own and those who are in love with her?
8.5 out of 10
Only because of the close dependence on the book and some haste in the narrative.