People are voting emotionally.

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

The loathsome Reverend Davidson (Walter Huston) is evil incarnate, but presents himself as the only good person in the world, who must tell everyone else what to do and how to do it. The fact that many people ignore him just bolsters his belief that the world is Evil, and he alone is Good. (His wife (Beulah Bondi), a screeching harpy who obediently venerates him, doesn't count as another good person because she's a mere woman.) When Sadie Thompson (Joan Crawford) tells Davidson to his face what a hypocrite he is, he suffers what he considers an unbearable insult: a "party girl" dared to confront him with the truth about himself! He is then on an obsessive crusade to "save" her, by which he means humiliating her, demeaning her, and forcing her to complete obedience to his will. In one scene, as Sadie tries to stand up for herself, Davidson begins chanting the Lord's Prayer over and over, drowning her out, until she finally succumbs to his brainwashing and sinks to her knees in a chilling demonstration of how religion can be used as a club to bash "sinners" over the head.Davidson even convinces Sadie that she must "atone" for her sins by returning to the U.S. and turning herself in for a crime she was framed for. Ironically, what really saves Sadie is Davidson's inevitable surrender to his own evil.

Rain (1932) stars Joan Crawford and Walter Huston. Crawford, under contract with MGM at the time, was out on loan to United Artists to make Rain after the huge success of Grand Hotel (1932). The kind of role Crawford plays in Rain is unlike any of her usual roles she had played up to that point. She usually played heroic roles and shop girl roles. Now she was playing the role of a sinner, a loose woman, a hooker named Sadie Thompson. Audiences at the time couldn't accept Crawford playing such a role, so this movie flopped at the box office. Time has given this movie a huge boost, as modern day audiences accept this movie and Crawford's performance much more easily. Crawford herself didn't like this movie, probably because it bombed. She said that she overacted. I do agree that she did overact in some parts, but Crawford gives a great performance. A different role, yes. But her acting works so well for her character. Crawford looks the part as well, and her entrance in the movie is legendary. This movie is a good example of an actress showing her versatility, but unfortunately the subject matter of the movie and perhaps some tunnel vision by people at the time is what made this a flop in 1932. It's amazing how audiences can't accept an actor playing a different kind of role than what they're accustomed to.One of the things I like about this movie is the atmosphere. It's a rather dark movie and it seems to rain a lot throughout (of course). I also like the way a lot of the scenes were shot and some of the camera angles. The movie seems ahead of its time.In my opinion, Rain is one of Crawford's best movies from the 1930s. I think the movie holds up pretty well. I highly recommend it.

There's a time in the early 1930s when almost primitive movie-making suddenly became more modern. It isn't a date...depending on the studio and the director, it seems to fluctuate between 1932 (when this film was made) and about 1936. Regardless, the production values here border on being rather primitive. So that's one black mark (or perhaps -- considering the main character -- I should say red mark) on my score card to begin with.And then there's Joan Crawford's characterization of Sadie Thompson. If the old adage of less is more...well, let's just say that director Lewis Milestone overdid it in regard to making us aware that Thompson was a loose woman. It wasn't so much that Crawford overacted, as much as the makeup people and costumer overdid the stereotype. And lest you think I'm just having a wrong perception because I'm watching the film in 2013, at the time of its release, "Variety" said: "Joan Crawford's get-up as the light lady is extremely bizarre. Pavement pounders don't quite trick themselves up as fantastically as all that." It is said this was Crawford's least favorite film, although it's unclear whether that was due to her role or the fact that it bombed at the box office. After her temporary reformation, the acting -- and the look -- is more realistic.Another thing I have against this film is the acting of Beulah Bondi. Bondi is one of my all-time favorite character actresses, but here she is so wooden and stereotyped as the role of the minister's wife.I feel the same about the acting of Walter Huston here. Wooden in both movement and speech. And yet, just four years later I felt he was magnificent in "Dodsworth".Matt Moore was fine as the doctor, and Guy Kibbee did nicely as the hotel owner.My criticism is not to say there were no high points. Some of the dialog is actually quite well written...just not performed realistically. And, for 1932, Milestone used some interesting camera angles.But overall, my opinion of this film is rather negative, and I guess we must blame the director/producer Lewis Milestone. Ironically, Milestone was a 4-time Oscar nominee, and took 2 Oscars home. Clearly his output was inconsistent.Oh, and by the way, having lived in the tropics for 2 years...they overdid it with the deluge of rain.

MINOR SPOILERS AHEADAs a person who fell in with the overtly religious crowd and later (but very gradually) fell out of that crowd again, I found the premise of "Rain" very intriguing. I didn't push the DVD into the player with high expectations though, knowing that such contentious themes are often treated with soft gloves by the entertainment industry. Having seen it now, I am happy to say that it is a movie well worth seeing, if you're interested in issues like mankind and morality. The production team certainly didn't hold back on their message.Other viewers may be left with other impressions, but to me a central message of "Rain" was: if we choose to wear masks instead of presenting our own selves to the world, those masks are bound to crack at some stage.Other reviewers mentioned quite rightfully that the extremely sudden conversions portrayed, seem a tad suspect - not only in behaviour but also in appearance. For instance, Sadie Thompson's hairstyles change rather dramatically overnight. This is a movie adapted from a play though, and we have to accept the dramatic license that film-makers need in order to secure the viewer's attention for some 90 minutes. If we insist on everything being realistic, movies like these would exceed 6 hours. And due to the already dialogue-heavy narrative, there is no choice but to take a few short cuts.I certainly do not want to fault Mrs. Crawford's performance as the pivotal character here - she gives a suitably strong performance in my opinion. I can however understand some commentators' criticisms, even if I feel them a bit harsh. A Carole Lombard or a Bette Davis (not to fan the flames of the real-life Joan-vs-Bette animosity here) may have brought a bit more physical swagger to the role, and perhaps saved the film from some of the negative judgements it received back in 1932.Props to director Milestone and the crafty editors for the memorable "Crawford entrance" near the beginning and ends of the film. It is the kind of cinematic thrill that latter-day directors seem to struggle to match. The soft lighting used on Crawford in one segment of the film, and harsher lighting in other segments, were very effective too.I found "Rain" satisfying as a cinematic product, and even more satisfying as a film with philosophical substance. The latter is better discussed in the message boards.