BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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?

phoebe martin Ugh. I tried watching this while on a plane and just could not care about the movie. Some parts did not make sense to me at all.

beladornon2 MY COUSIN RACHEL, starring the beautiful Sam Claflin and the disturbingly well-preserved Rachel Weisz, is one of those period pieces which is so full of questions that I wouldn't recommend it to viewers with a sensitive intelligent nature, or a weak stomach. The script and story make about as much sense as carpeting in the kitchen. (And why did the director have the actors mumble all of their lines as fast as possible? What are they trying not to tell us? How long is this film, anyway?)Who is this hot young guy riding through the Cornish countryside on his stallion? (Has he been adopted by his never-again seen cousin, or merely fostered by him? What was the cousin's name again? Who are all those other people?) It seems to be set in the Victorian period, and Cousin has gone off to Florence and married a half-Italian woman. (Is she also somehow his cousin, and also somehow the cousin's young ward's cousin? Does this family tree even branch?) Mysterious letters arrive, detailing Cousin's imminent death from a mysterious Ailment (Could it be Poison, or maybe a malignant Tumor?) The ward trots off to Italy to meet an Italian guy who was acquainted with Cousin (What was his name again? Who's the Italian guy, and has Rachel really just vanished? Does anyone know a good restaurant in these parts?) Florence glistens sweatily in the background, packed with orange roofs and sweltering heat. Answers elude our young buck.Young ward becomes master of the estate (What do they do on the estate? Is it a sheep farm? Why do the dogs live in the house, but no people?) After much scrubbing of the dog house with the help of Louis, the neighbor girl, a black-clad Rachel arrives and goes straight to her room without the confrontation the young ward was anticipating. (Did she poison the Cousin? Is she adulterous? How many dresses did she pack for the visit?)Seasons come and go, and widow Rachel alternates between gaily charming and sullenly petulant. (Can you really get away with wearing just one huge black dress for a year? Why is she living alone in the house with the young ward? Is she smuggling cash out of the country? Has that enormous turkey on the dining room table really been cooked long enough?)And then, because, you know, time has passed, the young ward turns twenty-five and all of the estate becomes legally his at last!- but he goes to a stickler lawyer and creates a document giving it all to Rachel until she remarries. Ecstatic with love for the mysterious moody Rachel, idiot boy rushes to her room, has sex with her (well really) and gives Rachel the paper that turns everything over to her. (Was this really smart, considering that she may well have poisoned everyone's cousin? Has the dog made off with my good shoes?) Is this the last stupid thing he does? Can Rachel be trusted? Is the sky blue? (Actually, it's a weird cyan color because they fucked up all the colors in post-production.) Young-Hot-And-Stupid soon shows signs of *gasp* poisoning! (Should he continue to drink this bitter tea, even after he sees Rachel sprinkling some mysterious powder in it? What about the tomato soup?) (And why, in a house so packed with chairs and sofas and divans, does he always fall on the floor when he swoons? Couldn't he have developed better aim?) Things look desperate, and just then Rachel plummets off a cliff and the idiot boy married that other woman. NOT for the faint of heart. (Although I must say, if this were simply a series of high definition images with music and no muttered dialogue, it would have been spectacular. Could we recut the film, and just make it a Victorian music video?)

Andres-Camara It's a movie that you know in five minutes everything that's going to happen and happens. Except the end, which is completely over in the film but wanted to give it a commercial ending. What happens is that at least, to entertain you until the end because if it serves. I imagine the average viewer telling the screen that they are going to cheat him. Is there chemistry between the actors? For me there is not enough. Besides, she does not have that charisma that she should have as a bad person. It is not a role that she does well. It is not bad enough when it has to be, at least it does not show it in the face, in the gestures. He is very good. You know what he's going to do but you believe the whole movie.He has a beautiful photograph. The interiors are beautiful and you get into the movie. Although I should have had some cold sequence instead of all warm. But the exteriors are not so good.The director does enough work. It does not bore you, although it does not get the movie to have that tension that it should have. It does not get a very good job from the actors. He does not know how to position the camera. Simply put and roll, there are times when you do not know why he puts the camera where he puts it.To have a good time, but you will forget it soon