Please don't spend money on this.

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The story of manipulation, headaches and hormones - it's hard to tell who or what will win, perhaps destiny? Richard Burton as the smitten young heir and Olivia de Havilland as the conniving widow give excellent performances. Cousin Rachel is such a bitch, you want her dead. But, is she really that bad?

Although not as strong and powerful as Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940), this Daphne du Maurier adaptation hits on many of the same notes. A Gothic costume drama incorporating elements of mystery and romance, My Cousin Rachel hits on all the needed ingredients, using the key words- "will", "murder", "death certificate", "accuse". It has the required coastal old house and a shot of gallows. It also fashions them to tell a compelling story. Rachel is a force to be reckoned with. A true lady on first impression, she handles a crisis- namely being found out as a "loose" woman- with grace, smoothly. She looks, from the sensibility of a 21st century viewer, a little funny in her Princess Leia hairdo, but when we see her in bed with her hair down, we see how her beauty can have a hold on a younger man.The performances are generally good. Richard Burton conveys a passionate young man; Olivia de Havilland is best as the articulate, calm lady, almost musical in the way she calmly and confidently socializes and wins people over. Perhaps in the upcoming 2017 remake, they will recapture that and build on her as a passionate lover. I definitely look forward to seeing it.

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)

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.