Comments on: My Cousin Rachel Movie Ambiguity Explained

By: Stella

Stella — Wed, 13 Sep 2023 18:16:00 +0000

The letter at the end makes no sense when taking into account all of Rachel’s deceptions and lies. She is definitely guilty, but again, the letter makes no sense. Very sloppy ending.

By: Jersey

Jersey — Wed, 30 Nov 2022 19:49:16 +0000

My perspective is that Rachel WAS a poisoner –
She grabbed this husband in Italy because he had MONEY (she was overdrawn in her accounts), she was an OPPORTUNIST.
Successfully getting rid of him, Rachel now has no money and travels to Cornwall to claim her rights.
Philip is a young fool who has never had to want for anything, so he does not realize he is being had. Rachel herself said, “But last night you had given me the JEWELS”, when Philip tries to make her realize she was accepting his marriage proposal.
Then he walks in on her with a decorator, she couldn’t wait to install a person in HER home to redecorate everything to HER taste.
When Philip balks, Rachel says, “But you cannot make me evict a person from MY HOME”, because now the property was hers.
Rachel was an evil witch, the same as Agatha Christie’s “Rebecca” – there were clues all through the film, Rachel got what she deserved.
And Louise was the first one to see through her, she was right all along!

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 15:23:35 +0000

I read the book after watching the movie, and that wasn’t my takeaway at all. That said, it never occurred to me that Rachel might have poisoned the men. That’s an interesting take.

It’s been a couple of years, but I do recall both that Louise and Philip got together in the end and that the Italian friend was gay, although that would have been mentioned subtly.

My single biggest takeaway from the book is that you can see right from the start that Philip is mentally ill. He has extreme paranoia. He is not entirely in touch with reality. You see all of this directly from his vantage point. That was not clear at all from the movie, and it does explain a lot of his actions.

That, of course, does not exclude the possibility that Rachel may also have been a schemer.

By: lois

lois — Mon, 21 Feb 2022 04:03:39 +0000

People commenting on this film and believing Rachel innocent should be aware that the film changes a few things from the original book and the book is the only version you can base an opinion upon, because of the authors intent, which is lost if the film dicks about with the original material. Read the book and you will know that cousin Rachel was a poisoner……Louise and Philip never got together in the book, let alone had children and the Italian friend wasn’t gay.

By: gali

gali — Sat, 25 Dec 2021 17:29:25 +0000

the only one who can explain the ending will be the author De Maurier if she still alive.
I think that philip is completely innoncent , he had many evidence to suspect Rachel, and if we suppose he is paranoid or ill that relives him from responsability and fault.
As for Rachel i never inspired me confidence.
May be the message is that jealousy is a men caracter and mystery, obscurness is a women’s one.

By: CD

CD — Sun, 03 Oct 2021 12:56:42 +0000

Reading your reviews has given me a lot to think about which hadn’t even entered my mind.
I still think Rachel is hardly innocent though. Let alone all the reasons mentioned in the reviews earlier, should an older, mature woman take all the estate and family jewels of a clearly infatuated 25 year old immature youth without a guilty conscience or a second thought? That struck me from the very beginning- so first she doesn’t want any allowance, but then takes the whole estate without any remorse whatsoever! That alone, even not counting all the other reasons, points her as a thorough villain, in my opinion!

By: marc huff

marc huff — Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:30:55 +0000

I liked it better after reading all your comments. I believe the case can be made for all three characters. I’m a guy so the whole first love thing which reeks of manipulation, which is a man in love can either be true or imagined. The wonderful birthday present, to her, just laying there during sex the next afternoon in the field. It makes me think to question her motives. Then again women change their minds. We’ll put a man on the moon before we figure out women sexist laugh hahahah. kidding. I liked the physical symptoms but I thought he was lovesick. I mean she just pulled his heart out still beating. He felt betrayed so he may not have been the villain until provoked at the end. No intent. Lousie spurred by her livelong love. I mean how many people would selflessly help the love of their life get someone else, Rachael. I know there’s a lot of good people out there that may be like that I just have never meant them in the flesh. louise smile at the end in the carriage does it for me. She got her man even traumatized or still ill, the kids like someone said in comments dressed to the nines. I think money Rachael’s motive is secondary to love jealously motives of the other two characters. I believe Rachael is the innocent victim and the other two co accomplishes directly and indirectly with her death. He got revenge she got what she wanted, and Rachael got screwed both figuratively and literally.

By: Unnimaya

Unnimaya — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 22:37:48 +0000

Really do appreciate this review. My views on the confusion in the movie :
I actually think that Rachel is a manipulative woman. Manipulators aim at gaining the innocent victim’s trust and affection to gain what they please. While Philip is a young boy with absolutely no experience in women, he’s easily drawn to Rachel’s charm. I don’t think that Rachel is innocent. Even though the ending is confusing there are actually direct instances from the movie (I just saw the movie. Need to read the book.) which suggest that Rachel isn’t very innocent.
It is weird how she runs to the lawyer first thing in the morning to clear her ‘doubts’ on the will. It doesn’t quite fit with her previous outburst when Philip had increased her ‘allowance’. This could have been her manipulative trick to make Philip feel that she didn’t care about the money and had come only to remember ‘Ambrose’. I mean seriously? Not judging her or anything but it is weird that she should be okay with having an intimate relationship with Philip if she cared so much about Ambrose (at least why so suddenly?). After the first time they make love, the next morning she keeps Philip waiting (while she had gone to clear her doubts about the will) and she doesn’t seem to be interested in him anymore. She doesn’t seem to be passionate enough to make love to Philip again. After that Philip does embarrass himself by asking her to marry him to which she refuses. Later, Louise does make it clear that Rachel had enquired about the formalities of the will and how the estate would revert back to Philip if she married him. Of course, maybe that is also why she thought it to be her best option not to marry Philip and end up breaking the poor guy’s heart. This is the best option for Rachel to be independent too.
The next instance which makes everything clear is her weird herbal tea which actually makes Philip ill. When Louise and he finds out that he could be being poisoned, there’s a scene in which Rachel makes that tea for them. When Louise gets the tea, she tells her that that is for Philip. Also when Philip refuses and asks her to drink it she’s suddenly taken aback and changes the topic. The point is that she doesn’t drink it after all.
Rachel also invites a ‘companion’ for her to stay at home further breaking Philip’s heart.
From my own personal life experiences, Rachel reminds me of a narcissist + manipulator who knows how to play and get what she wants (all her emotional outbursts melt Philip’s heart). Philip is under her mercy, her control, wanting to make her happy, becoming upset at the things she does but going back to square one when she says a kind word. Their relationship at one point reminds me of a narcissist and victim.
Most reviews talk about not being sure about Rachel. What I feel is that even until death, this woman was wearing a convenient mask from which nobody completely understood her or had any real evidence about her motives. If she never had this mask on, anyone would have caught her before (in her previous marriages), i.e., even after she dies, Philip is left confused (“Did she? Didn’t she?”). I feel that all the signs which show that she could have been innocent were just a part of her mask because this is what manipulators do. They enchant you, hurt you, play the victim and they are even capable of making you apologize to them for hurting you. Even though she died, her mask stayed.
A very thought provoking movie I must say.
Thank you.

By: Cynthia Taylor

Cynthia Taylor — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 20:12:56 +0000

Also, in Louise’s defense in the movie, at the end when they realize Rachel may not have had ill will toward Philip at all, and Philip admits to sending Rachel to the dangerous cliff, Louise cries, “what have you done?” to Phiip. Does anyone remember if that was from the book as well?