Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

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

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

HotToastyRag Sorry, Paul Newman, I couldn't stand this movie. Newman directed his wife Joanne Woodward in the title role, and he repeatedly praised her acting, saying at times it was difficult to watch because it was so real. It was hard for me to watch as well, but not for that reason.Rachel, Rachel is about a spinster who lives with her demanding mother. Rachel has never been with a man, and she's terribly depressed at how her life has turned out. While she usually uses her mother as an excuse to stay stuck, when a man shows interest in her, she actually agrees. Is she feeling her ticking clock? Is her sanity about to snap, so she's not thinking clearly? Whatever the reason was for her unusual behavior, I didn't quite understand it.In any case, she's a very depressive and strange person. I didn't like her; I wasn't rooting for her. And I can only imagine how frustrated a modern feminist would be with this story. Why couldn't this woman find any other aspect of her life to improve? I tried hard to appreciate Woodward's performance, despite my intense dislike of her character. The more I tried, the more I couldn't stand her. Since I hardly think that was the intention of the film, I'm not going to recommend this one, unless you're looking for a new favorite worst movie.

krocheav Rachel Rachel is more likely to be one of those movies that managed to get made because the producer happened to be a hot property and was in a position to negotiate deals with film companies, who knew well, that by giving him a free hand to try something 'different', they would garner bigger money from other projects they cast him to 'star' in. And they did. As Paul Newman's first directorial effort, it's an homage to his extremely talented wife Joanne Woodward. It's Woodward's picture all the way - she is magnificent. Adapted from the pages of controversial Canadian writer Margaret Laurence's novel 'A Jest of God', it delves into the very private and personal life of a 35yr old virgin spinster's existence in a backwoods American town. Some details may border on the semi-sordid but are mostly handled with sensitivity. While the rest of the capable cast all give dedicated performances...take Woodward away from this work and there would be somewhat little left. This is also at the early stages of a 'new' era in movie-making, where themes of lesbianism and sexual awakenings, etc, were to dominate the screen from here on. Not being as sensationalized as other works would become, this one tends to be less vulgar. Sad is the word for Rachel's life as we drift through her journey of self discovery. The open ended end title scene leaves us with two possible thoughts...she walks with her own child or the child of her sister.....?. Under Newman's direction, versatile director of photography Gayne Rescher (Face in the Crowd '57) fills the screen with delicate, and personal images. Also a major asset, although scant, is Jerome Morosss' truly lovely music score as played by The Phaetons. The deliberate (or otherwise) pace of this film won't please action fans and might not be regarded as entertainment by others, but could reward those seeking a degree of human introspection.

SnoopyStyle This is Paul Newman's directorial debut starring his wife Joanne Woodward. Rachel is a spinster school teacher. She's shy, emotionally damaged, and stuck with her mother. Then an old acquaintance's visit sets off a chain of emotional breakdowns.It's a bit of experimental filmmaking from Paul Newman. I'm not a fan of his directing. It doesn't build drama and it's very disjointed. The story doesn't flow. Luckily, Joanne Woodward is such a compelling actress. She's able to hold the attention despite the lack of skills with the camera.There are a few powerful scenes where certain unexpected things happen. Those are great scenes and the movie works great at the end. I only wish that those scenes were linked together by a better movie. It's still a worthwhile watch.

mark.waltz What some people might call a TV like movie, "Rachel, Rachel" was made before TV movies were becoming the place for slice-of-life dramas and character studies of troubled people. But when you've got Paul Newman as director, and his real-life wife Joanne Woodward playing a small town New England school teacher who is facing her problems of loneliness, that's made for the big screen, and "Rachel, Rachel" was one of 1968's most anticipated dramas. From the beginning, Rachel is not a conventional movie heroine. She is attractive, if not beautiful, and has a prim, if not frumpy, look to her. She also fantasizes quite a bit. Walking down the street on her way to school, she fears her slip is showing and that everyone is staring at her. She tells a boy that the principal is waiting to speak to her, then fantasizes about asking him to come home with her. She fantasizes about her lover (James Olson), and has flashbacks to her childhood with her undertaker father (Donald Moffat). Her now aging mother (Kate Harrington, in a beautiful performance) dominates her without being nasty, but it is obvious that she would like to escape from her.It is obvious that Rachel is an insecure lady who doesn't feel right in her place on earth, and when she decides to have an affair with Olson without marriage, she feels insecure as a lover and hopes she'll do better the next time. It says a lot about her feelings of despair when she is confronted by her mother, or a schoolteacher friend (the always excellent Estelle Parsons) who has more than feelings of friendship for her. Fresh off her performance as Blanche in "Bonnie and Clyde", Parsons is less shrill and more down to earth, yet equally troubled. The scene in the Evangelist church with Geraldine Fitzgerald (looking beautiful in her brief time on screen) and Terry Kiser (as the preacher) is excellent. There are few moments of 60's sub-realism, mainly in Woodward's fantasies, which are downplayed compared to most late 60's films that almost seemed acid laced in their photography and editing.1968 was a tough year for the Best Actress category at the Oscars; Woodward was nominated against Barbra Streisand, Katharine Hepburn, Vanessa Redgrave, and Patricia Neal, who all gave exciting performances. It's one of those few years where each of the actresses was equal and one wishes that each of them could take home the award. This is a dignified drama of self-awakening that doesn't always happen when one is young; Sometimes it happens again and again as we shed old temptations or habits, toss aside friends who stifle us, or move to a new community to get a new grip on where life is taking us.