My Cousin Rachel (1952) User Reviews

Cousin, cousin

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 10 February 2005]

This film, based on the Daphne du Maurier's novel is practically unknown, as it appears to have been forgotten; it never turns on reruns, but it's worth a look nevertheless.

"My Cousin Rachel" was directed by Henry Koster, based on the adaptation by Nunnally Johnson, who did a good job in creating the right atmosphere for the film. The great cinematography of Joseph LaShelle enhances what the director set out to do in more ways than he probably imagined. Mr. LaShelle was one of the most elegant cinematographers of that era. Just look at his seascapes to appreciate his art.

This film marks the beginning of Richard Burton's career in the American Cinema. While it was not his first film, the actor brought such an intensity to his role that earned an acting nomination for best supporting actor. He should have been nominated as the best actor, since his role is the whole movie!

Olivia DeHavilland makes an excellent Rachel, at times loving, at others sly and calculating. She had a special beauty. Her eyes express a lot in her close ups. Ms. DeHavilland was totally convincing in her take of this woman who comes back to claim her inheritance when everything is taken away from her.

The rest of the cast is good as they play in ensemble fashion. Audrey Dalton makes a lovely Louise, the loyal friend. Also John Sutton, who unfortunately doesn't stay around too long to make justice of his role of Ambrose.

As a Gothic mystery, this film will not disappoint.

Effective adaptation of DuMaurier novel

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 29 April 2006]

Richard Burton falls for his uncle's widow in "My Cousin Rachel," a beautifully produced 1952 movie starring Olivia de Havilland in the title role. Burton is Philip Ashley, whose beloved uncle Ambrose moves to Italy for his health, marries a widow, and dies of a brain tumor...or did he? Philip is very suspicious of his uncle's wife and the doctor she brought in to care for her husband, Rainaldi. de Havilland plays the widow Ashley who comes to visit Philip and quickly makes him regret his doubts, as he falls madly in love with her.

This is a highly atmospheric, well acted film with a very intriguing story that keeps the viewer guessing as to the true character of Mrs. Ashley. Is she a greedy, conniving seductress/killer, or a warm, loving woman? Several movie stars have demonstrated the ability of doing period pieces realistically, and Richard Burton was definitely one of them. Handsome, romantic, and boyish in appearance, with a wonderful voice and fine acting ability, he brings Philip to life with a passionate performance. Olivia de Havilland is magnificent as Rachel - hers is a subdued, gentle performance that gives nothing away as to Rachel's true character or motivations. The attraction between the two is entirely believable.

The final moments of the film are its best. Highly recommended.

Ambiguous Gothic Romance

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 12 September 2012]

"My Cousin Rachel", like Hitchcock's "Rebecca" from twelve years earlier, is based on a novel by Daphne du Maurier. Both films are Gothic melodramas set in Cornwall, and both have a wealthy landowner as the main male character. Another link is that the female lead is played in "Rebecca" by Joan Fontaine and here by her sister Olivia de Havilland. One difference between the two, however, is that "Rebecca" has a contemporary setting, whereas "My Cousin Rachel" is a period piece set in the early nineteenth century.

This is not, however, the sort of "heritage cinema" costume drama with which we are familiar today. Ever since the sixties, it has been customary for films set in the 1800s to be made in colour, often sumptuous colour, with an emphasis on a detailed recreation of the costumes and furnishings of the era. In the fifties, however, it was quite common for such films to be treated as a sort of period version of film noir, in black and white with dramatic, expressionist photography. "Blanche Fury" is a British example of this phenomenon, and "Carrie" another American one.

The film has a particularly dramatic opening scene. Ambrose Ashley, a Cornish gentleman, is out walking along the coast with his young cousin Philip, an orphan whom Ambrose has adopted as his son. As they walk they see a body swinging on a gibbet and Ambrose turns to Philip and says: "Always remember, Philip, death is the price for murder."

Fast forward about twenty years. Ambrose, who has been advised to move to warmer climes for the sake of his health, goes to live in Florence where he marries the Countess Rachel Sangalletti, the English-born widow of an Italian aristocrat. Shortly afterwards, Ambrose dies in mysterious circumstances, leaving his estate to Philip rather than his new wife. Philip is convinced, on the basis of a few mysterious letters from his cousin, that Ambrose was in fact murdered by Rachel, but when she travels to England and he meets her, he falls desperately in love with the beautiful older woman. (Philip is 25, Rachel probably in her mid- thirties). As their relationship progresses, however, Philip's suspicions about Rachel return, and he begins to suspect that she might be planning to murder him to secure ownership of the estate.

The film's main problem is that it is never made clear whether or not Rachel murdered Ambrose or whether she is plotting to kill Philip. We spend about half the film thinking that she is the victim of unjustified suspicion and the other half believing that she may well be guilty of the crimes of which she is suspected. I don't intend to examine all the conflicting evidence with which we are presented, as fedor8 has already done this in his helpful review which sets out both the case for Rachel's innocence and the case for her guilt. The truth is never really established, and the film's ambiguous ending does not assist in this regard. In some artistic contexts ambiguity can be beneficial, but I feel that a Gothic suspense drama like this one needs to draw a clearer line between virtue and villainy.

The film does, however, also have its strong points. As mentioned above, its stark photography is very effective, and it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Cinematography. There are also two excellent acting performances from De Havilland as Rachel and a young Richard Burton as Philip. I would not agree with those who see Philip as a Heathcliff figure- Emily Bronte's hero was always something of a threatening outsider, whereas Philip the wealthy country gentleman is really an insider, part of the system. Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be with a younger version of Mr Rochester from "Jane Eyre"- proud, impulsive, wilful, capable of both great generosity and great folly. Burton, one of several possible contenders for "greatest actor never to win an Oscar", deservedly received the first of his seven nominations for this film. (His second nomination came the following year for "The Robe", a film directed by the same director, Henry Koster). Oddly, his nomination here was in the "Best Supporting Actor" category, even though his is very much a leading role.

One might have thought that the ambiguity surrounding Rachel would have given De Havilland a problem as to how the character should be played. She is able, however, to give a very nuanced performance, suggesting both Rachel's lovability and her possibly sinister side. Another good contribution comes from the lovely young Audrey Dalton, in her debut film, as Louise, the young girl who loves Philip but fears losing him to Rachel. Audrey was a highly promising young actress who never really went on to become a major star, although she was to give another memorable performance in "Titanic" the following year.

Some have speculated that the film might have been improved had it been directed by Hitchcock rather than Koster, but the Master was never really comfortable with period drama. His attempt to film Du Maurier's "Jamaica Inn" resulted in one of his least memorable movies. He might have brought a greater sense of suspense to certain scenes, but I suspect that even he would have had difficulty in overcoming the problem of the ambivalence surrounding Rachel's guilt or innocence. 6/10

Part of its charm is you never really know for sure who Rachel is

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 24 July 2016]

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.

Another great duMaurier novel transported to the screen

[psthad · 1 October 2000]

Like its predecessor, "Rebecca", this Daphne duMaurier story made it to the screen relatively untinkered with. The screenplay is quite faithful to the novel, and although Richard Burton seems to be chewing the scenery rather fiercely at times, it was after all an early performance of his. deHavilland displays a serene face that may (or may not!) have something dreadful to hide, much as her character in "Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte". Try it, you'll like it!

Wow is Philip fickle!

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 13 March 2017]

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.

Both compelling and unsatisfying

[fmdead · 7/10 · 1 June 2022]

Although the concept of this film is the ambiguity over a woman's guilt or innocence -- am I the only viewer who felt the evidence of her guilt was overwhelming? And therefore the "inconclusive" ending was unconvincing and undermined the whole film. The Rachel character possesses toxic seeds and she refuses to drink a presumably poisoned tea she's made for Phillip; she seduces young Phillip before turning on him once he hands his estate over to her; it's proven that she lies constantly; and most of all (not emphasized in the movie) neither she nor her lawyer inform her dead husband's family of his death -- that's just completely unbelievable that a presumably loving (and innocent) wife not inform the family! And yet -- somehow the excellent acting, changing scenarios and atmospheric settings draw you in. You may be left feeling that its illogic really didn't add up to a "did she or didn't she" plot, but it's an enjoyable watch getting there.

DeHavilland & DuMaurier - a perfect match

[DAHLRUSSELL · 10/10 · 12 July 2006]

This masterful, complex mystery story between a younger man and older woman deals with the very modern issues of trust in relationships, and how well you can know someone. This film was made long before I was born, but for any DuMaurier fan, it is a gift. It is no wonder that Daphne DuMaurier's books were so often made as films, with her combination of romance, mystery and mistrust that marked all of her work... it remains potent.

It is a shame that this Oscar nominated film has become all but lost. While this is a dark story, shot appropriately in noir/Gothic shadows, most video versions available (and bootleg DVDS) seem to be from time-darkened versions. How I long for this to be digitally remastered and made available in a really good DVD.

Obviously this film was recognized at the time it was made. Time has unfortunately underrated it, as I believe DeHavilland has also become underrated. The qualities that are valued in today's leading GIRL roles, flashy, young, trash talking, have no value for the pleasant, understated nuanced womanliness DeHavilland brought to this role. Her performance here is an acting lesson for film, especially as this role required the difficult job of balancing the audiences doubts about whether she is good or bad.

Burton's acting is a lesson too, in film intensity. He is much better here than in many of his later performances where he seems to have studied his pout a bit too much. This, and his role as George in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" are among his best work.

This is a must-see for anyone interested in acting, and complex, nuanced film story telling.

Spoiler Review of the Ending

[brentchastain · 7/10 · 13 January 2014]

The ending. That's what is commented on most and with good reason. Because the resolution is purposely ambiguous, it disappoints or frustrates many.

I think the ending, which does not stamp the seal of innocence or guilt upon Rachel, is appropriate to the story. The plot carefully builds two sides to Rachel's character. She is either the sweetest warmest person ever, or a fortune seeker where marriage and murderer are not out of the question. The story builds a strong case for both perspectives. This is the larger point of the story - it's about perceptions, communication and judgments humans make, that we sometimes have to make without the ability to determine the truth and the inherent danger in doing so. This is how life sometimes is - nowadays we call them gray areas. My Cousin Rachel it's not necessarily a mystery story that needs to be resolved, but more truly a comment on the folly of human interactions, especially where money and greed are involved.

Yet even if you demand a solid resolution, the ending should not be seen as a let-down. If you believe the story shows her guilt more prominently, then in the end you can argue that fate stepped in, (seconds too late) and justice was done - she paid with her life for murder, as the opening death scene foretold. On the other hand If you believe her innocent, then her murder can be explained in her extremely poor manner of showing and communicating her intentions, leaving highly bad impressions to those it mattered most.

I think my reading of the outcome is backed up by the fact then when the author of the novel was asked about the innocence of Rachael, she herself did not know. Solving the mystery was not the author's intention. Brent Chastain top3films.com

Winner of four Oscar nominations including Richard Burton, Best Supporting Actor...

[Doylenf · 8/10 · 9 July 2001]

If Gothic romance is your thing, you won't find a more absorbing and intriguing tale than this adaptation of Daphne DuMaurier's best-selling novel, MY COUSIN RACHEL. Not only is the atmosphere completely realized, but the elegant performances make the story even more compelling to watch as it unfolds a tale of possible murder and cunning deceit. The film was nominated for four Academy Awards for best costumes, B&W cinematography, art decoration and Burton's supporting role performance (which is actually a leading role).

RICHARD BURTON cuts a fine figure as the romantic hero of the piece--brooding, intense and passionate, reminding one of Heathcliff in the Bronte novel, "Wuthering Heights." He's an angry and impressionable youth who intends to accuse his cousin of murder based on his suspicious nature, but instead falls wildly in love with her the instant they meet.

OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND matches Burton scene by scene, her charming manners and poise as a woman of the world understandably provoking his interest. At first, he assumes she wants to claim her inheritance when she visits Cornwall. But soon he is able to see her in a different light and when he falls in love with her, he decides to leave his entire inheritance to her on his 25th birthday. It is then that the story becomes even more compelling when the ambiguous nature of Rachel comes at long last to the surface.

Franz Waxman has written a very dramatic and powerful background score that adds dimension to the Gothic tale that begins when a boy and his guardian walk across the moors and come to a gibbet where a man is hanging. "Always remember, Philip, death is the price for murder." And that's how the film's brief prologue begins.

It's richly scored, well directed by Henry Koster and features two outstanding performances from Olivia de Havilland and Richard Burton. Equally fine are John Sutton as Rachel's ill-fated husband, Audrey Dalton, Ronald Squire and George Dolenz.

Despite the ambiguous ending, it's an absorbing tale that is satisfying in its execution

My Cousin Rachel

[JoeytheBrit · 6/10 · 21 July 2011]

Headstrong Philip Ashley, an orphan raised by his uncle following the death of his parents, suspects foul play when his guardian dies abroad after smuggling out letters accusing his new wife (Olivia De Havilland) of trying to kill him. However, when she visits England he finds himself drawn to her despite himself and convinces himself that his uncle died as the result of a brain tumour that made him irrationally suspicious of those he loved. Despite this, evidence to suggest she might indeed be guilty leaves him with fresh doubts.

Nunnally Johnson's adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's murder mystery does a fine job of continuously wrong-footing the viewer so that we, like Philip, can never quite decide whether the outwardly elegant and refined widow Ashley is actually a cold-blooded killer. This uncertainty compels us to keep watching as the plot's twists manipulates us into believing first one thing then the other, making for a compelling and enjoyable mystery. Unfortunately, the deliberately ambiguous ending means we are still none the wiser as to whether 'shedunnit' or not when the final credits roll.

27-year-old Richard Burton cuts an imposing, Heathcliff-like figure as Philip, the brash, impulsive heir to his uncle's fortune. He was always more effective as stern, authoritarian figures, and although he gives an impressive performance that largely carries the film, at times he struggles to inject the required touch of sensitivity in its more tender moments. It has to be said that events on screen are depicted with as much ambiguity as the mystery itself, with the viewer left to surmise that Philip and the widow have indeed engaged in a sexual liaison when the film coyly moves on to the next scene. Such subtlety, to varying degrees, is also evident in the clues regarding Rachel's possible guilt (or innocence) that are provided.

It's a shame that Du Maurier failed to come up with a definitive conclusion to what, until its finale, is a truly absorbing drama, but in retrospect it's apparent that to have done so would have probably required too many additional twists and revelations to make anything she came up with plausible.

Fatal combination of impetuous youth and mature womanhood

[lora64 · 10/10 · 17 August 2001]

Although I greatly admire Olivia de Havilland in this role, I must confess that as Rachel, it's my opinion she's guilty. It is hardly honorable for any woman to play twosome, leading on a young man by responding to his advances, accepting the offer of his jewelry and later his estate, THEN conveniently discarding him or any serious thought of a bond between them -- well, that's a calculated play if ever there was one! She does it with such finesse however that one can only guess what is really in her heart. Anyways, it backs up the theory that if anyone is too nice or too good to be true, they probably are not true.

Richard Burton in this highly dramatic role of the young, impetuous heir, Philip, can only stand to gain our sympathy as he impulsively casts his worldly goods upon the altar of Love where Rachel resides. Such a one-sided gesture can only prove fatal in the long run, but burning Youth will have its way and learn a most difficult lesson by it.

I find it a riveting, wonderful drama well acted, well casted too. I regret John Sutton, as Ambrose, has such a brief part to play and wished he'd been included throughout, but that's not the course of the storyline unfortunately. This is a movie I appreciate seeing whenever I can. Wish there were more like it today.

Superior acting talent wasted on poor script that appears to borrow from REBECCA

[adrianovasconcelos · 6/10 · 22 October 2022]

Director Henry Koster was a mainstream director and it baffles me why he was picked to take the helm of this production. MY COUSIN RACHEL, the eponymous novel penned by Daphne du Maurier, who also wrote REBECCA, which also had a mansion (Manderley) at the center of all interests and action, seems much too serious material for a director who tended to indulge comedies like the remake of MY MAN GODFREY, THE STORY OF RUTH, or the elephantine and infantile HARVEY.

Cinematography rates very good, including some splendid breaking waves off the English coast, and some equally impressive night shooting, plus an atmosphere surrounding the house reminiscent of the film REBECCA, directed by Hitchcock 12 years earlier.

The leads are good but misused. Olivia de Havilland, one of the greatest actresses ever, only appears about 20 minutes into the film, and then only after being filmed from the back, possibly to create suspense and let her widow's clothing suggest something dark and evil about her character. After that enigmatic start, the viewer is just given a fence to sit on: is Rachel good or bad? Did she kill her husband? Is she trying to poison besotted cousin Phillip?

The part of Phillip is played by Burton, who picked up an Oscar nomination for it, deservedly so, too. Yet, he too baffles me with his initial dislike of cousin Rachel, and then his head over heels love for her, to the point of giving away all his property to Rachel. I must admit that I found his character annoyingly stupid for the most part.

Other big minuses about this film include Guido - is he bad or just Italian and therefore viewed with suspicion by locals? What are those poisonous seeds for? Why poison Phillip if he is giving everything up for her? Does she have a lover? What actual proof is Phillip seeking in Rachel's quarters? Why does she not just boot him out after getting all his property on a platter?

And how and why does she die like that? Suicide? Sudden burst of guilt? What a copout!

A word of praise for the supporting players, Audrey Dalton and Ronald Squire, who make the best of small and not particularly necessary parts.

6/10.

Very frustrating film. Professionally done (acting, cinematography, decent story, editing, etc..) But unrealistic and dumb.

[Bababooe · 5/10 · 10 December 2018]

I caught this on tv yesterday, after missing the first 10 minutes, when Burton is speaking with Dolenz. I was captivated by the acting, very precise and intense. Dolenz played the part of lawyer for Burton's dead cousin. All the actors did a fine job. I missed a few minutes of the movie when Burton got sick. This has tons of red herrings, and deceptions.

The frustration comes from Burton being as dumb as a rock. Someone who at first suspects then basically accuses his cousin's wife Havilland of murdering his cousin, then he falls in love with her, and transfers his inheritance to her. She plays coy, but accepts Burton's gifts and never turns back. So we are left with a dumb Burton and a manipulative Havilland. The ultimate frustration is it is left up to the viewer to decide if Havilland killed Burton's cousin. I read most of the reviews here and some believe the author didn't even know if Havilland was the killer. What we are certain is Burton plays a spoiled dumb man, and Havilland plays a manipulative widow. The actors did a fine job. But who the hell wants to sit with these unlikable characters for 98 minutes.

Interesting mystery but with a cop-out ending.

[fedor8 · 21 January 2007]

I had to laugh at the conclusion of this mystery drama! I couldn't keep a straight face at the kind of cop-out conclusion du Maurier slapped on this novel's end. Throughout the ENTIRE story she throws bundles of evidence at us, both that de Havilland (Rachel) IS guilty and that she ISN'T guilty. The reader/viewer is manipulated and lead on like an obedient little dog to sniff out every little clue which du "Agatha Christie" Maurier points to, and like a good little doggy we, the viewers, follow the clues, thinking - as it turns out - very naively that the clues will lead us to a bone, i.e. to a reasonable, logical conclusion to the complex mystery of Rachel's past, her intentions, and whether she killed Burton's relative or not.

But what happens at the end? Burton, being convinced of her guilt, arranges an "accident" which kills her, but moments before she dies he suddenly gets (yet another) clue - one that seems to suggest her innocence. The last scene is Burton looking at the sea-shore, telling himself how he will never find out whether she was guilty or not. What a cop-out. Sure, one can argue that it's the kind of mysterious ending that is suitable to a story full of mystery and heavy contradictions, and I have nothing against endings that are ambiguous. However, the major problem with this is that du Maurier gives us very strong arguments to support Rachel's innocence, as well as bombarding us with enough evidence and clues that point to her guilt to make a black L.A. jury convict ten O.J. Simpsons. In other words, Rachel can be neither innocent nor guilty - as absurd as that sounds; whichever conclusion one prefers - there is too much info pointing in the other direction. And that is exactly why the ending is without an answer; my belief is that the writer herself didn't so much strive for a mysterious, romantic, ambiguous ending so much as strive for a way to conclude the book which enables her to escape the trappings of her own illogicalities and inconsistencies. She had realized what a mess she had written - as far as common sense and logic were concerned - and knew that a clear-cut ending wouldn't make any sense. She cons the viewer into attentively following the story, as the latter waits for a reasonable explanation. In that way she succeeds; after all, the story keeps your attention, and the interest actually grows.

The evidence pointing to de Havilland's innocence is not as abundant as that pointing towards her guilt, but it can be considered sufficient: 1) she does not sue for her late husband's assets (though this can be explained away as a refined tactic of hers - but I think it's too far-fetched to explain it away like that), 2) de Havilland shows genuine care for Burton's mental instability - during his illness - when she makes a rather worried and sad facial expression at a time when no one was watching her (so there was no point in faking it), 3) the letter which Burton finds at the end.

The case for her guilt is more voluminous, though: 1) she looks extremely worried about Burton having received her late husband's secret letters: worried in a rather guilty-looking way, 2) the highly suspicious poisonous(?) seed which grew both in the garden at Burton's villa, and Rachel's home in Italy, and which Burton even finds in a hidden(?) envelope (this last scene makes her look extremely suspicious - it isn't common to send seeds through mail), 3) the way she suddenly changes her tone toward Burton once she inherits everything - and this sudden change CANNOT be explained away by the fact that she was perhaps annoyed by his sudden and public marriage proposal (which may or may not have taken place the night before - even this du Maurier can't or won't tell us), 4) the way she offers Burton a cup of her own tea, but won't drink it herself - and throws it in the grass - after he asks her to drink it herself, 5) she then comes to him with another highly suspicious liquid concoction, and even tells him that he must drink it when she leaves (though this can perhaps be explained away by her worry about his condition - but that's a rather shaky argument), 6) her suspicious past - rumours or not, she seems to have at least some skeletons - which includes: a) the one about her having lost her first husband in a duel between him and her lover, b) having large debts, and living beyond her means, c) any two-time widow in her mid-30s is suspicious unless your name is Anna Nicole Smith, d) her immediate over-drawing of money from her bank-account, the moment she received Burton's first generous payment, e) her sending of big amounts of money to Italy.

A lot of the clues which point in one way or another depended less on the story than on de Havilland's acting; the facial expressions she makes in some key situations alternately show both guilt and innocence. The fact that she reacts in ways that both make her look extremely suspicious and innocent, alternately, is not her fault: de Havilland, like the author herself, didn't herself know whether she was playing a killer or not, so she had little choice in trying to act logically. Burton plays a rather naive guy in his 20s, who actually signs off all his possessions to Rachel - against the advice of his lawyer - and even tears apart Rachel's late husband's letters which are rather incriminating. He plays a guy so dumb that I figured that if she is ripping him off then he probably deserves it.

The film ends with a giant scam - the cop-out - but it is nevertheless very involving, increasingly interesting, and fairly atmospheric.

Guilty or Innocent?

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 7 September 2016]

On the Cornish coast, the wealthy Ambrose Ashley (John Sutton) raises his cousin Philip like a son since he was a baby. They frequently have lunch or go to the church with Philip's godfather Nicholas Kendall (Ronald Squire) and his daughter Louise Kendall (Audrey Dalton). When Philip (Richard Burton) is twenty-four years old, Ambrose is advised by his doctor to spend winter in warmer places and he decides to go to Florence, Italy. Ambrose does not return in spring and tells that he met the widow Rachel Ashley (Olivia deHavilland) and they will get married. The next letter he receives from Ambrose accuses Rachel of mistreating him and the next one asks to Philip to go to Florence. When Philip arrives in Florence, he learns that Rachel has traveled and he visits Rachel's friend and lawyer Guido Rainaldi (George Dolenz). He tells to Philip that Ambrose died delusional because of a brain tumor, but Philip believes Rachel murdered his cousin. He returns to Cornwall and soon Rachel comes to the town and Philip invites her to stay in his property. When he meets her, Philip realizes that she is a beautiful woman and he falls in love with her. Then he believes that his suspicious are unfounded. He also decides to give all the wealth to her expecting to get married with Rachel. But she does not accept to get married and Philip soon gets sick. Is Rachel poisoning Philip or not? Is she guilty or not?

"My Cousin Rachel" is an intriguing film where unfortunately there is no answer to the main question: is Rachel guilty or innocent? The direction, screenplay, cinematography and performances are top-notch. Inclusive Burt Lancaster was nominated to the Oscar in the category Best Actor in a Supporting Role and won the Golden Globes Most Promising Newcomer – Male. Olivia deHavilland is also amazing performing an ambiguous character. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Eu Te Matarei, Querida!" ("I Will Kill You, Darling!)

What Should Be a Hot Toddy Is Instead a Lukewarm Cup of Tea

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 26 March 2017]

Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland scheme, doubt, and swoon in this Gothic thriller based on a Daphne du Maurier novel. It's a handsome looking production and adequately captures its 19th century setting. But despite the good actors, the whole thing never works up much steam, and what should be a juicy costume drama in the same vein as "The Little Foxes" instead remains fairly tepid.

I think the problem is with the casting. Olivia de Havilland is a wonderful actress, but she doesn't have the kind of sex appeal that would make a horny twenty-something go bonkers over her. Without that, Burton's obsession with her doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Burton is good, and if his performance is a bit intensely one note, I attribute that more to the character than any flaw in his performance. He was absurdly nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this film, one of the most flagrant examples of category fraud in Oscar history. He is literally in nearly every scene.

"My Cousin Rachel"s attention to period production values paid off, as it was also nominated in the black and white categories for Art Direction, Cinematography, and Costume Design, though it went home empty handed.

Grade: B

Rachel, my torment. My blessed, blessed torment.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 1 February 2019]

My Cousin Rachel is directed by Henry Koster and adapted to screenplay by Nunnally Johnson from the novel of the same name written by Daphne du Maurier. It stars Richard Burton, Olivia de Havilland and Audrey Dalton. Music is by Franz Waxman and cinematography by Joseph LaShelle.

In short order the plot finds Burton as Philip Ashley, a sombre English gentleman who is disturbed by news that his much admired foster father has been poisoned to death by Rachel Sangalletti (Havilland). When some time later Rachael turns up at the ancestral Ashley cliff top mansion, Philip finds himself torn between proving his hatred is warranted towards her, or from falling deeply in love with her.

A splendid slice of brooding Gothicana, Koster's (skilled hands as usual) picture is firmly dealing out the cards of sinister mystery and simmering passions. A constant is the big question of if Rachael actually is a murderess, the screenplay deliberately vague as it dangles clues from either side of the fence. The setting is ripe for some psychological discord and matters of the heart, the cliff top mansion bathed in shadows, the sea below bearing witness to events with a mixture of tidal menace and serene waters. Across proceedings to further pump up the atmospherics is Waxman's sweeping musical score, and with quality acting to match the literary smarts, this is a high end technical production.

The ambiguity is a little tiresome come the finale - itself weak and a disappointing resolution, but it's a film to get swept away with. For to dive right into the Ashley Mansion and be in the company of fine purveyors of their respective crafts, ensures the rewards are plenty. 7.5/10

An excellent, atmospheric adaptation of the novel

[Oriel · 9/10 · 10 March 1999]

Thanks to an excellent cast, lavish production and a screenplay that remains remarkably faithful to the novel, Daphne du Maurier's romantic suspense novel _My Cousin Rachel_ becomes a very effective film. Ever-elegant Olivia de Havilland displays just enough cool reserve and mystery as the ambiguous title character, while the young Richard Burton is appropriately brooding as he falls under her spell even though he half believes her to be a murderess. Fans of gothic romance will enjoy the period setting and the Cornwall location as well as the suspenseful, surprising plot, which resolves in an ending you will want to talk about with everyone you know.

Mannered, Controlled, Manipulating, and Shrewd

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 3 August 2011]

Daphne DuMaurier returns to her beloved Cornwall coast to write My Cousin Rachel where she set many of her stories like Rebecca and Frenchman's Creek. Although this film has the breakout performance of Richard Burton in it, I would have to say that it's not as good as Rebecca.

Burton's Philip Ashley and Maxim DeWinter of Rebecca are a pair of similar brooding characters each mourning the loss of someone close. In Burton's case it's his cousin John Sutton who took him in as an orphan and raised him like a son. Sutton with whom the foggy and damp climate of Cornwall doesn't agree has moved to Italy and leaves young Burton in charge of the Cornwall estate. Sutton also marries an Italian-English woman in Italy and he dies there.

His will left everything to Burton, but as the widow she might have a case to contest. She's got herself an Italian lawyer in the person of George Dolenz who might just be more than her attorney.

The title role of that new cousin by marriage is played by Olivia DeHavilland, her first screen appearance since winning her second Oscar for The Heiress. As My Cousin Rachel is set roughly the same time as The Heiress it's like Olivia stepped from film set right to the other despite the three year gap. Her performance also is like what Catherine Sloper evolved into in The Heiress, mannered, controlled, manipulating and shrewd.

But one of the four bits of recognition the Academy gave My Cousin Rachel was a first Oscar nomination for Richard Burton. Inexplicably Burton is put in the Supporting Actor category and he's got more screen time than DeHavilland. As for Burton imagine Maxim DeWinter from Rebecca as a young man, Burton is 25 in this part and you've got his character. He's brooding and passionate and madlessly in love with his new cousin by marriage, but also incredibly suspicious that maybe DeHavilland might have helped Sutton along to his demise and that Dolenz helped her.

You can't spoil this story because DuMaurier and the film leave it quite up in the air as to whether DeHavilland was a murderer or not. My Cousin Rachel also got Oscar nominations for Costume Design, Black and White Art&Set Direction and Black and White Cinematography. That estate is beautifully photographed, the set will remind of Manderley in Rebecca.

My Cousin Rachel is not as good as Rebecca, but certainly has its place in cinema history as the big break performance for Richard Burton.

Well Appointed Drama

[leslieadams · 9/10 · 8 March 2005]

It was probably wise that Garbo elected not come out retirement at age 47 to play Rachel opposite 27-year old Burton. While it would have been an interesting film, the 20-year age difference might have stretched credibility a bit.

As it happened, 36-year old De Havilland worked much better. After a three year hiatus following her triumphant Oscar winning turn in "The Heiress," Olivia looked fresh, radiant, and completely on top of her character. In fact, her peerless performance here signaled the end of her "great period," thereafter her interest in films seemed to have gradually declined.

In only his sixth film, Burton burst onto the American screen with pent up fire and emotion. This supremely gifted Welsch actor seemed almost too gifted in too many areas, resulting in a personality which demanded constant challenge and involvement. Without such consistencies a self destructiveness could and apparently did occur. It was no surprise that strong spirits entered the scenario as lifelong companion.

The film itself is beautifully photographed by Joseph LaShelle, richly scored by Franz Waxman, and romantically directed by Henry Koster from a Nunnally Johnson script-- which was in turn true to Daphne Du Maurier's Gothic novel.

The "formless fears" mentioned at the outset paved the way for an intriguing ambiguity running throughout a strange tale of mystery and suspicion. The cast is uniformly fine, and the production is a jewel in Twentieth Century Fox's cinematic crown.

Only occasionally comes alive with full force

[fredrikgunerius · 6/10 · 18 March 2023]

As others have pointed out over the years, Richard Burton does indeed seem too mature and experienced for his character's naïve infatuation with his cousin Rachel, played by Olivia de Havilland. But his performance, his first starring role in an American film, still is accomplished and has the power and gradual evolution to make the film mildly effective, despite a few other shortcomings. Like Hitchcock's Rebecca, the other 'Cornwall estate mystery' adapted from a Daphne de Maurier novel, My Cousin Rachel doesn't quite flow. It's almost as if the many psychological aspects of the story and the characters were too complex for the filmmakers to convey, and so they simplified and rushed many of them. This gives the picture an academic, somewhat distanced feel, and only occasionally does the mystery and the love story really come alive with full force. Another problem is that Olivia de Havilland, for all her beauty and technical skill, lacks the sexual magnetism and seductiveness which would help explain why a young, inexperienced man would become so mesmerized by her. There's a miscalculation in the casting here, and director Henry Koster is never quite able to disguise and make up for it. Peculiarly, Burton was nominated for an Academy Award in the 'Best Supporting Actor' category despite being in virtually every scene in the movie. Remade in 2017 with Rachel Weisz as the title character.

Fantastic romantic thriller!

[HotToastyRag · 8/10 · 21 July 2017]

If you like mysterious classics, like Jane Eyre, Laura, and Rebecca, this one will be right up your alley. It's dark and spooky, well-acted, tension-filled, and it has Richard Burton in it! Richard's cousin has married Olivia de Havilland (Rachel) and in the 1800s, cousins through marriage become cousins as well, hence the title. He receives letters from his cousin and starts to suspect that Olivia is poisoning him, but before he can travel to their home to rescue him (remember, this is the 1800s; he couldn't just take a plane) his cousin has died. Oh no! Richard is determined to prove Olivia's guilt, so he stays on at the house to try and uncover clues. But the longer he stays there, the more he finds himself drawn to his mysterious widowed cousin. . . I don't want to say any more about the plot, but if your interest has been piqued, rent My Cousin Rachel during the next dark and stormy weekend. It's thrilling!

A much contrived drama about the mystic side of woman's psyche.

[lasttimeisaw · 6/10 · 3 October 2015]

A vintage film adaption of Daphne du Maurier's novel by director Henry Koster, as a much anticipated follow up for it star Olivia de Havilland after her second Oscar win in THE HEIRESS (1949). However, MY COUSIN RACHEL now is mostly remembered as a stepping stone introducing British thespian Richard Burton to the Hollywood. At the age of 27, he upstages an almost one- decade senior Olivia de Havilland in this mysterious romance.

Philip Ashley (Burton), is an orphan raised by his elder cousin Ambrose (Sutton) living in Cornwall, he is devastated by the sudden death of Ambrose from brain tumour in Florence, who has just married to a widow Rachel (de Havilland) whom Ambrose meets there during the winter season. Which makes thing worse is Philip receives two letters from an ailing Ambrose before his ultimate death, implicates Rachel for his illness. So apparently it could be Rachel's sinisterly hatched plan to inherit Ambrose' well-heeled property. However, in his will, Ambrose leaves the estate to Philip, thus, one hanging question remains, will Philip becomes Rachel's next prey?

Both the source novel and the film play well the trumping card, aka, the true colour of Rachel, is she a cold-hearted schemer or just an unfortunate woman shrouded by tragedies, or perhaps she lurks in between. Casting Ms. de Havilland, who is so distinguished in her meek, genial persona, as Rachel, is to maximally establish the contrasting nature of the character, her demure, understanding front is poles apart from what Philip conceives, he hopelessly falls for her almost instantly, his indignation melt away completely to a degree he even grants her the entire estate and family jewellery. She takes them all but inexplicably refuses his marriage proposal. Then Philip falls sick, all the ominous trappings - poisonous seeds, a second will, Rachel's secret connection with her Italian lawyer Guido Rainaldi (Dolenz) - start to push the story into a conventional climax, a young man's doomed infatuation with an elder femme fatale, only this time, a blunt twist quickly alters the finale, leaves a pungent gusto of ambivalence in the mouth.

Burton harvests his very first Oscar nomination here, but nonsensically as a supporting actor, sometimes these flagrant category frauds keep reminding us we shouldn't take Oscar too seriously (mostly for the nomination process), it is a game of campaign and inside-dealing, whoever has watched this film, knows that Burton has the most screen-time and the story entirely revolves around his character, such an ignoble stigma is just too glaring to ignore, sadly, the fashion of delegating leading performance to the supporting group is still rampant now, just name a few, Jamie Foxx in COLLATERAL (2004, 7/10), Hailee Steingeld in TRUE GRIT (2010) and Helen Hunt in THE SESSIONS (2012). Nevertheless, Burton is radiant with passion and eloquent line-delivery, despite the romantic chemistry hasn't been convincingly justified, it is hard for audience to concur with Philip's obsession with Rachel, while there is an attractive and sensible ingénue Louise Kendall (Dalton) around, whom he can merely treat as a young sister. After all, there is little to be found naturalistic in this much contrived drama about the mystic side of human psyche.

A Gothic Romance That Leaves You Pondering

[kirbylee70-599-526179 · 5/10 · 5 March 2018]

I've often heard of this film referred to as a classic of the genre, the gothic romance. Along with WUTHERING HEIGHTS it is often considered worth watching. Was it?

Based on the novel by author Daphne Du Maurier who wrote REBECCA among other novels, it centers around Philip Ashley (Richard Burton), a man taken in by his cousin Ambrose when his parents died. The two form a quick bond, more like an uncle and nephew than cousins, with Ambrose determined to raise Philip as a gentleman. The years pass and Ambrose health becomes an issue so he travels to the warmer climate of Florence. There he meets their cousin Rachel (Olive de Havilland), falls in love with her and then marries her.

All of this is learned via letters he sends back to Philip. But then the letters change. Ambrose becomes suspicious of Rachel and thinks she is poisoning him. He request Philp to come to him and he obliges only to arrive too late. Ambrose has passed while he was on his way and Rachel has gone into mourning among friends elsewhere.

Returning home he swears vengeance against Rachel. He is also surprised to learn that Ambrose has left his entire estate to him rather than his wife. And while she could contest the will she instead obliges it. A planned visit is requested and Philip agrees. While he assumes the worst his mentor and god father Nick Kendall (Ronald Squire) comes to her defense, informing Philip that Ambrose could have fallen to the same malady that his father suffered, a brain tumor.

Unwilling to listen, Philip invites Rachel to stay at the estate. When she arrives she is nothing that he thought she would be. It isn't long before he finds himself enchanted by the woman and soon his thoughts of her murdering Ambrose fade away. Providing her with an allowance to live on he ignores warning signs when Kendall informs him that her spending has over reached the amount she's been provided which was considerable.

When Philip falls ill he never questions Rachel or consider her behind his ailment, even though she insists on bringing him her home made recipe of herbs. But is she poisoning him? And did she poison Ambrose? Is she truly a woman of loose morals as some have claimed or a victim of circumstance? Even when the film ends you will find yourself unsure of the answers.

As I said, the film has been praised for years but I found it difficult to take. It seems that in the two I've most recently viewed (this and the remake of WUTHERING HEIGHTS) they both depended on the stupidity of the men involved and the uncaring attitudes of the women. In both we find a men desperately in love with the women they cannot have and women who claim affection for them yet do everything possible to harm them emotionally.

This film is the more disturbing of the two with Burton in his first major American film providing one of his worst performances ever. He's completely over the top from start to finish. Every sequence in which he speaks comes out more like a stage actor unaware of the nuance of film that doesn't require him to speak to the back of the theater of to gesture to do the same. Couple that with the fact that the character seems to be the dumbest person you've ever come across, flipping from massive anger to unbridled love for the same woman, willing to give her all that he has with no guarantee that she will oblige him anything and you find yourself with little sympathy for him.

De Havilland as Rachel does a solid job here but again, this is not a character you find yourself sympathizing with. The thin line between guilt and innocence is shifted back and forth so often that you worry if you like her she's really a killer and if you hate her then you're displaying contempt for an innocent woman. The end result is not knowing how to feel and being left in limbo.

Twilight Time is releasing the film and providing movie lovers with the best possible version released to far. Fans of the film will be delighted to find this in hi definition 1080p format. Extras are limited to an isolated music track, a radio play of the story and the original theatrical trailer. As always the release is limited to just 3,000 copies so if you are one of the many fans of the film then by all means pick it up before it's gone.