Diagonaldi Very well executed

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

MartinHafer Philip Ashley (Richard Burton) is a brash young man in this Gothic tale. When Cousin Ambrose writes to him that his wife is slowly killing him, he accepts it without question...even though it's very possible Ambrose was not in his right mind. After all, his father died of a brain tumor...perhaps this is causing Ambrose to compose these weird letters. Regardless, Philip is pre-disposed to hate Ambrose's wife, Rachel (Olivia de Havilland). Philip rushes to Italy to see his cousin but the man was dead and buried by the time he arrived. His widow was not there and Philip immediately leaves to return to his estate.Out of the blue, Rachel arrives at Philip's estate soon after this. Inexplicably, he almost immediately likes her and just assumes the letters were the ramblings of a madman. While this could be true, Philip's change of heart betray him as a very immature sort of young man. And, when he falls for Rachel and wishes to marry her, you wonder....is this a marriage made in Heaven or a prelude to his soon descent into Hell? Regardless, it soon becomes apparent that Philip has some serious issues!When Ben Mankiewiecz introduced this film, he indicated that many thought Richard Burton was miscast as Philip because he was too old...though he was only 26. He just happened to look older and the part called for a young many about to turn 25. Burton's performance earned him an Oscar nomination--oddly, for Best Supporting Actor even though he was in every scene and clearly was the star. His performance is full of power and intensity...perhaps too much at times for my taste. This movie is in many ways very reminiscent of the earlier film "Suspicion" which, interestingly, starred de Havilland's sister (Joan Fontaine). It keeps you guessing as to Rachel and her innocence...as well as Philip's sanity. Well made and interesting.

calvinnme Richard Burton plays Phillip Ashley, an orphan in 19th century Cornwall who grows up in the care of his wealthy cousin Ambrose who is part a father and part an older brother to him. As Phillip grows to manhood, Ambrose says he must go abroad for his health's sake, and although Phillip asks to go with him, Ambrose asks him to stay in Cornwall and take care of the estate.While abroad, Ambrose marries somebody named Rachel. Shortly thereafter, in Florence, he takes ill and writes letters saying that he believes Rachel is trying to kill him and asks for help. His last letter is practically incoherent. Phillip sails for Florence, but it is too late. Ambrose has died and the widow has moved out the day before Phillip's arrival.Phillip goes home with hatred in his heart for the person he presumes killed his beloved cousin who has been so good to him. But he doesn't have to worry about finding Rachel to accuse her, because she shows up at the estate in Cornwall, almost unannounced. She immediately goes about charming Phillip by being quite different from what he imagined. She seems genuinely mournful over Ambrose and completely alright with the fact that the entire estate went to Phillip rather than to her, the widow. She does not intend to challenge the will, which in those times she easily could have done. This completely disarms the loyal yet naïve Phillip.What is so great about this is that even though this is Burton's film, De Havilland's Rachel steals the show just from the Hitchcockian mystery with which she fills the part. You spend your entire time wondering what is going on with this woman. I felt that despite the warmth blended with disciplined composure she seems to radiate that there was something evil and calculating just under the surface, but I just can't tell you why.Then there are all of the facts that blur matters more. Ambrose's father died of a brain tumor. The way Ambrose was behaving at the end seemed to indicate the same thing, although in the 19th century there would be no way to know for sure except maybe an autopsy. If Rachel just wanted the estate, why didn't she make sure Ambrose wrote a new will with her inheriting BEFORE she started poisoning him, IF she was poisoning him in the first place? There are other pieces of "evidence" that seem to indicate Rachel has a homicidal streak and a greedy streak as well, but I'll let you watch and find out.There are plenty of touches with noirish connections, like voice-over narration and moody black and white cinematography. I'd give this an eight if it just didn't seem like, that for all that is great about it, there is just "a certain something" missing. I can't tell you what that is, but on Turner Classic Movies the other night, when they screened this, it was said during the introduction to the film by the host that George Cukor was originally set to direct, but then Henry Koster ended up getting the job. Koster was a more than adequate director over at Fox, but just did not have the same level of craft of Cukor.One rather minor detail that I found fascinating is how Rachel seems to go in and out of mourning at her convenience. When she first appears in Cornwall she is always wearing black, but as time passes and she gets chummy with Phillip the mourning clothes go away. When Phillip tries to press her for a marriage she says she never wanted and he feels led on, the mourning clothes come back out, as if to emphasize the impropriety of the relationship that she is at least saying she feels. I don't know if it was a mistake or a nice touch, but either way, I liked it.

dglink Philip Ashley is orphaned at a young age, and his cousin Ambrose raises him at his English seaside estate. When Philip is in his early 20's, Ambrose goes to Italy, where he meets and marries a woman named Rachel. Shortly thereafter, Ambrose becomes seriously ill, and Philip receives letters from Italy in which Ambrose says he is in danger and his wife is his tormentor. The mysterious Rachel does not arrive on the scene until well into the film, when she comes to England to visit Philip; director Henry Koster shrouds her arrival in mystery and keeps her back to the audience for several minutes longer, until she is revealed to both Philip and the audience. "My Cousin Rachel," adapted by Nunnally Johnson from the Daphne de Maurier novel, is an excellent, engrossing Gothic mystery that will keep viewers guessing, perhaps even after the film is over.Olivia de Havilland is the perfect choice to play Rachel; de Havilland has excelled in roles such as Melanie in "Gone with the Wind" and as Bette Davis's cousin in "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte," where her seemingly sweet and vulnerable demeanor masks inner strength and resources that can be utilized for either good or evil. In this film, her facial expressions are often ambiguous and deepen viewers' conflict as to her motives. Although Richard Burton is billed below the title and received a supporting actor Oscar nomination for this role, his is actually the lead. As the initially suspicious and bereaved cousin and subsequently the smitten suitor, Burton is outstanding in a breakout role. His mellifluous voice and delivery elevate the role of the tormented Philip above that of a callow youth in love with an older woman. Burton won a Golden Globe as the most promising newcomer of the year, a richly deserved award that his subsequent films more than validated. Both de Havilland and Burton display layer upon layer of character that enhance the mystery and shifting motivations of Philip and Rachel.Joseph LaShelle's masterful black-and-white cinematography was among the film's four Academy Award nominations and wraps the moody estate and the turbulent sea crashing against rocky cliffs in deep shadows and striking images that deepen the proceedings. Franz Waxman's score further enhances the engrossing story. Boasting two stars who imbue their roles with depth that few others could provide, outstanding photography and music, a capable supporting cast, and fine direction from an excellent screenplay, "My Cousin Rachel" is a classic that is immensely entertaining and as fresh and riveting as it likely was 60 years ago.

misctidsandbits This movie reminds me of "Rebecca" as well. Both are dark sided, with women that are formidable to the men in question. Interesting that in both cases, these are thoroughly English men. While both women are compelling personalities and complicated to the men involved, I think they are very different, both in type and motivation.I think Rebecca simply had a very skewed moral compass with underlying perversity. I think she knew when she did wrong and reveled in it – rather depraved actually.However, Rachel is another story. I don't think she is actually sinister, but of a culture with ethics quite foreign -and skewed- to the rather straight laced English mindset. Remember, she is a certain European with very different ways of looking at things. What seems not quite cricket to Philip and the older Ambrose, needs no justification in Rachel's mind.And I think she had the type of "tribal" loyalty that bound her to her own kinsmen in preference to these newly acquired English connections (husband, in Ambrose's case). That's why she could be so genuinely outraged by Philip's confrontations and so strong in her own representations of matters. She truly saw no reason not to take the mile when she was offered an inch. Any implication of an implied betrothal or personal commitment in the gift of very valuable family jewelry was dismissible with her. This ambivalence also included being somewhat free with her kisses. As for it seeming implausible that Philip could be so rearranged by her, well, that is an old story. Strong women have been turning men inside out for centuries. Recall that Philip is a relatively unsophisticated young man. Ambrose, while advanced from him, was about as inexperienced with persons so unlike his countrymen. What seems clear and forthright to a rather sheltered young man, can melt away when confronted with the formidable presence and charm of a more sophisticated and attractive woman.Again, I do not think Rachel set about with cunning and craftiness. I think she was of a mindset that saw no problem with acquiring as she did and with sharing with her fellow countryman with whom she had a much longer and deeper tie than this simple, probably seemingly rather cold Englishman – either in the case of Ambrose originally and later with Philip. Whether or not she actually did away with Ambrose is up for conjecture. But her total confounded disbelief when she fell into Philip's literal trap at the end was genuine. I think her sense of ethics and moral justification were so diverse from Philip's that he could not but think of her as deliberate in cunning. The combination of expressed affection and seeming duplicity were maddeningly incomprehensible to him. Rachel violated Philip's expectations and moral code on several counts. His obsession with her and perception of that drove him to violate it himself. (not revealing the end)