Truly Dreadful Film

That was an excellent one.

Crappy film

Blistering performances.

Nowadays the most recognizable movie called "The Rainmaker" is Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of John Grisham's novel about a rookie lawyer taking on an insurance company. Another movie with that title was Joseph Anthony's adaptation of a play about a con artist who claims that he can cause liquid precipitation in a drought-stricken Kansas town during the Depression. I had never heard of the play before seeing the movie, but the movie is worth seeing. Not the greatest movie ever made, but I liked the complexity that it gave the characters. Burt Lancaster made one suave huckster, with Katharine Hepburn giving her usual smooth performance as a local woman looking for a relationship. As for Lloyd Bridges's character, I kept imagining him saying "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit (insert moral vice)".All in all, a worthwhile movie. I've recently been making an effort to see a lot of older movies that received Academy Award nominations (this one received nods for actress and score).

Such simple relationship advice you would not find anywhere else. Father and daughter, father and sons, strangers and lovers. Lizzy is magnificent as the woman before her time, the yokels around her have no idea she is such a catch, though independent yet true to her family, she only wants the right man in the end. But she has to teach deputy File, and the dreamer Starbuck what relationships is all about. While at the same time put up with the oldest brother(Noah) being a negative nay-bob(you are an old maid). Young Jim Curry also has to put up with being put in his place by his older brother "why do I always feel stupid when you talk to me Noah?". The play has been made into a musical (110 in the shade) with cowboys and yippees. But this movie script(1956) being more modern would make a blockbuster musical with it's romance genre. I only hope somebody does it in the future.

Reading the DVD sleeve description of "The Rainmaker" certainly opens the door to different interpretations. It says here, "Under the spell of a wandering charlatan named 'Starbuck', a lonely ranch girl blossoms into full womanhood. Katharine Hepburn garnered an 'Oscar' nomination as the 'believably plain yet magnificently beautiful' tomboy rancher, with Burt Lancaster brilliantly cast in the role of the smooth-talking con man who sells his rainmaking 'powers' to unsuspecting, drought-ridden Western towns." Ms. Hepburn is clearly neither a "ranch girl" nor a "tomboy rancher" in the film. My impression was that she was a spinster, with some advanced (for the time) degree of education in her background.Hepburn's "Lizzie" correctly amends her "plain" character as, "plain… as plain as old shoes." In progression, Lancaster addresses her as "Lady," then "sister," then "girl." Hepburn's characterization has different timbre than original play; obviously, the actress was taking her age and background into consideration. Hepburn and Lancaster effectively use bits and pieces of their own personalities in the lead roles. It helps that director Joseph Anthony keeps the film theatrical-looking. The camera moves well, and deliberately with the performers. So, you feel like you are watching a stage play. Sets and setting are also permitted to be less realistic. In these ways, the film shows itself to be aware of casting shadows.Another stand-out in the "older" cast is Earl Holliman, who certainly must be playing a teenager, or is endearingly dim-witted? Interestingly, the two performers most arguably too old for their parts received the greatest award recognition - Mr. Holliman with a "Golden Globe" win as the year's "Best Supporting Actor", and Hepburn with her "Academy Award" nomination. Mr. Lancaster was also deservedly praised, and would extend his "Starbuck" to his award-winning "Elmer Gantry" (1960). Wendell Corey, Lloyd Bridges, and Cameron Prud'homme also contribute intriguing performances. Much credit should go to N. Richard Nash, who wrote a story that strikes collective chords in the human consciousness.********* The Rainmaker (12/13/56) Joseph Anthony, N. Richard Nash ~ Katharine Hepburn, Burt Lancaster, Earl Holliman, Wendell Corey

I loved this movie when I first saw it 40 years ago. I remember being dazzled by Burt Lancaster's performance. Seeing it again, Burt Lancaster's performance is still wonderful, but I see a lot more flaws in the film as a whole.People have weighed in on the central issue of Katherine Hepburn's performance. Some think it is a great performance and some think that she is miscast. I think both are right. She does a wonderful acting job, filled with nice moments, but she is miscast in the role. She breaks what I will name now as the "Seven Year Rule". While an actor or actress can easily always play older, they should never play a character more than seven years younger than they are. You can get away with playing a high school student until you're about 24. After that, it looks fake. By the way, this rule works for male actors too. Gary Cooper ruined "Love in the Afternoon" when at 56 he tried to play a 40 year old having an affair with a 20 year old looking Audrey Hepburn.In this movie, Hepburn, who was 49 at the time, was playing a character who was supposed to be around 30. She could have passed for 42, but no-one could have mistaken her for a 30 year old. At 30 a woman desperate for a man to marry her is still a source of comedy, at 42, it is really a source for bathos. Still at times, she does make you look past her age and feel the depth of emotion of the character.The camera placement and editing of the movie really does make it look like a stage play, although the sets are quite nice and realistic.Also, the second and third acts are really slow. If redone today, at least 20 minutes and perhaps 30 would have to be cut to give it a more modern pace. For example, a scene where the deputy is invited for dinner drags on for almost 15 minutes. It could easily have been done in 5 minutes or less.Still, we're getting some beautiful technicolor here and we're getting Burt Lancaster in one of his most exuberant and charming performances. He is having so much fun with the part that it is impossible not to enjoy the movie when he's on-screen (which is only about 40 minutes, alas.Apparently, Elvis Presley was up for the Earl Holloman role. While Hollowman did win a Golden Globe, he now seems to be overacting. Probably Elvis would have done as well and made the movie a much bigger hit.