My Cousin Rachel


Drama / Mystery / Romance

Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 76%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 57%
IMDb Rating 6 10 6084


Uploaded By: FREEMAN
Downloaded 228,361 times
August 19, 2017 at 05:18 AM



Sam Claflin as Philip
Rachel Weisz as Rachel Ashley
Holliday Grainger as Louise Kendall
Iain Glen as Nick Kendall
720p 1080p
774.69 MB
23.976 fps
1hr 46 min
P/S 73 / 593
1.61 GB
23.976 fps
1hr 46 min
P/S 50 / 438

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by good-decision 5 / 10

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.

Reviewed by Paul Guest 5 / 10

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.

Reviewed by James Hitchcock 7 / 10

We say "sexually liberated", they said "whore".

"My Cousin Rachel" is the second film to have been based upon the novel by Daphne du Maurier. The first was made in 1952, only a year after the novel was first published. The action takes place in early Victorian Cornwall, with a few scenes set in Italy. The central character is Philip Ashley, a young man from a Cornish landowning family. Philip is an orphan, and has been raised by older cousin Ambrose, who has been like an adoptive father to him. On a trip to Italy Ambrose meets and marries Rachel, a half-Italian cousin to both himself and Philip, but later dies in mysterious circumstances.

We learn that Ambrose attempted to leave his fortune to Rachel but never signed the will, leaving Philip as his sole heir. When Philip and Rachel meet for the first time, he is smitten with love for the beautiful older woman. He is, however, never sure whether he can trust her. He discovers letters from Ambrose, suggesting that his wife may have been trying to poison him for his money. We are left with two possibilities. On the one hand, Rachel may indeed be a sinister poisoner. On the other hand, Ambrose may have fallen prey to delusions produced by the same illness which was eventually to kill him and Rachel may therefore be the innocent victim of unjustified suspicion.

The film is unusually sexually explicit for one made in the traditional British "heritage cinema" style; there are several instances of bad language and a love scene between Philip and Rachel. (Rachel Weisz described her character as "sexually liberated"). There is, of course, a reason why the makers of period dramas tend to avoid such matters. In the 19th century swearing was regarded as socially unacceptable, at least in polite circles; even "bloody", today a relatively mild oath, was considered shocking. As for "sexual liberation", that is generally an anachronistic concept in period dramas set at any time prior to the mid-twentieth century. Victorian women, even independent-minded and free-thinking ones, did not normally claim the right to sleep with any man who took their fancy. Those who did would have been designated by the most opprobrious terms. We say "sexually liberated", they said "whore".

I think, however, that there is a reason why writer-director Roger Michell introduced a sexual element into the storyline, and this reason has nothing to do with a mere desire to titillate or the need to court controversy for controversy's sake. In the 1952 version, the question of whether Rachel, played in that film by Olivia de Havilland, is a villainess or a virtuous heroine is quite deliberately left ambiguous. I felt, moreover, that although ambiguity can in some circumstances be artistically beneficial, it does not work in the context of that particular film, which might have been improved had it come down on one side or the other argument.

Here, however, although Michell never definitely says whether Rachel is a murderess or not, the one thing she cannot be called is a virtuous heroine. By the moral standards of Victorian England she is an immoral woman. Even by 21st century moral standards, her treatment of Philip, whom she rejects after sleeping with him, and after he has signed his property over to her, seems rather heartless. Whatever else she may or may not have done, we cannot help feeling that she has taken unfair advantage of a naïve, virginal young man's infatuation with her, and suspecting that even if she did not kill Ambrose she may have taken advantage of him too. There are two good performances from Weisz and from Sam Claflin, an actor I had not come across before, as Philip.

The film is attractively shot with a good deal of attention to period detail, although its look is less visually sumptuous than some period dramas, doubtless because the Ashleys are minor provincial gentry rather than grand aristocracy. (It is Rachel, with her elaborate dresses, who seems more sophisticated). Following on from the Jane Austen-inspired "Love and Friendship" and a new version of Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd", it shows that the heritage cinema movement is still strong in Britain. 7/10

Read more IMDb reviews


Be the first to leave a comment