ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

adam-may-bower '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.

pmgeorgini-255-674247 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?

kraveheart This is my first review that has ever been negative. The story is good, the acting is great but the satisfaction at the end will leave you feeling cheated. A mystery is only fascinating and worthwhile when it is solved. The writers have chosen to waste the viewer's time by not resolving the mystery. Was she bad, or was it him? It never tells you. The writers remind me of the ones who did the TV series Lost. They too played with viewers, creating sub-plot after sub-plot but failing in the end to resolve the mysteries and bring satisfaction. Not your usual spoilers because I didn't really tell you much. Just avoid it or else you may be writing your own negative review about the time you wasted on this movie.

photojess1219 Finally got to watch on TV a couple weeks ago. My mom and I were excited, but we were disappointed in the end. We were hoping for a real thriller. While I love Rachel and Sam, they are great actors, but this wasn't 1 of my favorites from them. It was a bit boring.