Watch The Rainmaker For Free

It is a performances centric movie

Fresh and Exciting

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

There are films that age well, and there are films that age very well, so well in fact that they almost feel timeless somehow, because everything works so perfectly or near perfectly that the film feels flawless. This is not one of those films. Based on the stage play of the same name, which was loosely based on a real man, "The Rainmaker", directed by its own original stage handler Joseph Anthony, is the story of a, ahem, "plain" woman in danger of becoming an old maid, Lizzie Curry (Katharine Hepburn), her unrequited love for the town sheriff (Wendell Corey), her dysfunctional family (father H.C. played by Cameron Prud'Homme and "big brothers" the overbearing Noah played by Lloyd Bridges and Jim played by Earl Holliman, who somehow won an award for his obnoxious performance) and their encounter with a dashing, charismatic con man known as Bill Starbuck (Burt Lancaster, in what feels like a prototype for his Oscar winning role in "Elmer Gantry") who, ahem, helps Lizzie become "a real woman" unleashing her, um, true beauty or some such. He even manages to get it to rain during their drought. Overlong, slow pacing, and obvious inexperienced direction of a motion picture film (vs the live stage) result in an awkward, unpleasant soap opera that could've been better had it focused on either just the dysfunctional family or the social ramifications of the con man's effect on the town during the drought, also not helped by the very old fashioned, outdated ideology of its core characters, despite how hard it tries to be a sensitive examination of the hopes and dreams of regular people. One of the film's biggest sins is the miscasting of Katharine Hepburn as the "PLAIN PLAIN PLAIN!" Lizzie. The first obvious flaw is that Hepburn, who was pushing 50 at the time, is clearly too old for the character (everyone reacts to her as if she still has time to start a family of her own, which she very much wants), making it all the more awkward if not outrightly bizarre to watch a middle aged woman grapple with adolescent issues, as well as off setting a number of her scenes with other characters - she's supposed to be the daughter of Prud'Homme but looks and feels like she should be his wife (he was only 14 years older than Hepburn in real life - a case where an actor couldn't pull it off) and instead of a young woman full of sexual frustration in her scenes with Lancaster she feels like she should be the widow he takes advantage of. Then there's the idea that Hepburn was so ungodly unattractive that she could only ever be "PLAIN!" (which everyone, especially Bridges, keeps saying as if what they really mean is ugly), when even a middle aged Hepburn still had some beauty about her. I couldn't help being reminded of Kate's role in "Bringing Up Baby" where she also played a woman hung up on a man, and she felt just as miscast there as she does here. Perhaps some of it was her real life personality shining through, but the boy/man crazy types were never her strong suit. The other actors do what they can (Holliman is downright unbearable and will have the audience cheering every time he gets hit), but in the end the best thing about this film is Burt Lancaster. Some accuse him of being a large ham here, but at least his natural go for broke energy and charisma brings some much needed life to the dull proceedings, and he also manages to show his subtle side in his scenes with Hepburn. It's a shame these two iconic stars - both well known for their fiery, sometimes frightening personalities off camera - didn't have a better film, but in the end the film is worth a rental for their scenes together. But only for a rental.

"The Rainmaker" is, officially, a Western. It is set in a small town rural town in the West, (probably in the 1920s or 1930s, to judge from the cars and costumes we see), but it bears little resemblance to most Westerns from the fifties. This was the decade when the cinema first faced serious competition from television, and spectacular Westerns featuring exciting action sequences shot against the dramatic scenery of the American West were one of Hollywood's major weapons in its fight against the newcomer. ("Shane", "The Naked Spur", "The Searchers" and "The Big Country" are all good examples). This film, by contrast, is adapted from a stage play, and it shows.The plot is a simple one. It is a hot summer and the area is suffering from a severe drought. A man calling himself Bill Starbuck arrives in town, promising that he can make it rain. A spinster named Lizzie Curry falls in love with him. The film tells the story of the effect which Starbuck has on Lizzie and the other townspeople. The film's message is, effectively, "learn to love yourself and to believe in yourself". Starbuck, of course, is not a genuine rainmaker but a con-man; even his real surname is not Starbuck but Smith. The important thing is that he projects such assurance and self-belief that others accept him as genuine, and under his influence Lizzie, hitherto put upon and patronised by her father and two brothers for whom she acts as housekeeper on the family cattle ranch, learns to believe in herself too.I have never seen the play on which "The Rainmaker" is based, so I do not know how well this story might work on the stage. (I understand that it is a staple of the American theatre, but on this side of the Atlantic both the play and its author, one N. Richard Nash, are virtually unknown). Unfortunately, the film does not work for me, and when I recently saw it on television I was disappointed; I had been hoping for something far better, given that it stars two actors as talented as Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn.Part of the problem is miscasting. Hepburn is quite wrong for the part of Lizzie for three reasons, namely age, looks and personality. We never learn exactly how old Lizzie is, but I think we are supposed to assume that she is considerably younger than Hepburn's 49 years at the time the film was made, possibly in her thirties. Secondly, Lizzie is supposed to be plain, whereas Hepburn in her youth was considered one of Hollywood's most beautiful actresses, and even in her late forties was still strikingly handsome. Thirdly, and most importantly, Hepburn spent most of her career playing strong, independent and capable woman, and is not really credible as a downtrodden, put-upon spinster lacking in self-confidence. Her "Best Actress" Oscar nomination today seems incredible. (Mind you, there seems to have been something odd going on at the Academy Awards for 1956; that was the year which saw Don Murray's bizarre "Best Supporting Actor" nomination for his awful performance in "Bus Stop" and Kirk Douglas unaccountably losing "Best Actor" to Yul Brynner). Lancaster as Starbuck is better suited to his role, but this is not one of his great performances and he was to be far better as another charismatic con-man, Elmer Gantry, four years later.My other problem with the film is to do with the direction. I was not surprised to learn that Joseph Anthony was a theatrical director who directed Nash's play on stage but had never previously directed a movie, as he seems to have made this film on the basis that there was no essential difference between the two media. There is little attempt to open the story out and little in the way of action; most scenes take place indoors and consist mainly dialogue rather than physical action. The result is a static, talky film, dominated by interminable conversations. Another reviewer claims that the film could have been far better had it been made by a major cinema director such as Fred Zinnemann or George Stevens who would no doubt have escaped from the "filmed theatre" style of film-making and made maximum use of the greater freedom which the cinematic medium offers. That is doubtless true, but I suspect that Zinnemann or Stevens, or any of the other great directors of the period, would have demanded from the producers more artistic freedom and a much greater budget than Anthony appears to have had at his disposal. 4/10

To prove that he was not merely an athletic actor in the Errol Flynn mould, Burt Lancaster would occasionally dabble in film adaptations of serious stage plays from the likes of William Inge and Tennessee Williams; this is his third such attempt – albeit taken from a lesser-known author (N. Richard Nash) and with a more optimistic outcome (in fact, it was later musicalized on Broadway as "110 In The Shade")! That 1964 revamp shared with this straight film version its director Joseph Anthony, here making his first of just six efforts in that capacity. For a self-proclaimed atheist, Lancaster did his fair share of hammy, arm-waving 'preaching' on the screen and this is his first instance as such – portraying travelling con man Bill Starbuck whose "rainmaking" capabilities are just what this film's drought-ridden Southern town needs; on the other side of the coin is "plain" old- maid-in-the-making Lizzie Curry played by an overage Katharine Hepburn. I have to admit to a curious antipathy towards this most decorated of screen actresses and, indeed, her (by turns) moving and embarrassing performance here garnered nominations at the Oscars (her seventh), BAFTAs (third) and Golden Globe (second); the film itself earned a handful of other awards (Earl Holliman was named Best Supporting Actor at the Globes) and nominations (a second Oscar nod for Alex North's typically fine score; Golden Globe nods to Lancaster and the film; and another one for Nash at the Writers Guild Awards). Unsurprisingly embracing (as opposed to eschewing) its theatrical origins given the "performance" subtext that permeates the entire plot, the film has its fair share of good scenes which (apart from the opening sequence) revolve around the eight characters that seemingly inhabit this town: Wendell Corey (as the 'widowed' deputy), Lloyd Bridges (as Hepburn's equally cynical brother), Cameron Prud'Homme (as her well-meaning father), the aforementioned Holliman (as her spunky younger brother), Wallace Ford (as the elderly Sheriff) and Yvonne Fedderson (as Holliman's red-cap wearing girlfriend); the whole makes for a pleasant if not especially outstanding romantic drama about the interior beauty of lonely people. For the record, the play was later also brought to the small screen in 1982 by a past master of the medium (John Frankenheimer) with Tommy Lee Jones and Tuesday Weld in the leading roles.

"The Rainmaker" is all wet.Thanks to a badly miscast Katherine Hepburn (who is almost 50 here, and looks like she's trying to play 25-30, and a truly obnoxious performance by Earl Holliman, plus an awful directing job by Joseph Anthony turn what could have been an interesting story of how a woman discovers how to believe in herself, into a farce that is barely watchable.It seems as though Mr. Anthony did not trust the script (by N. Richard Nash, based on his play), and just told his actors that the bigger you play your roles, the better the film will be. I believe a director like Fred Zinnemann or George Stevens could have made this into a really glorious film.The story is a simple one. Bill Starbuck (played magnificently by Burt Lancaster, who looks as though he's warming up for "Elmer Gantry") is a huckster who convinces a family that for $100, he can make it rain, and thereby end a drought. What he actually does is end the drought in heart of Lizzie Curry, the daughter of the rancher who gave Starbuck the $100. He gets her to believe in herself, and in doing so he falls in love with her.The message of the film about believing in and loving yourself is very powerful. Hepburn does do a terrific job in these latter scenes. But her performance is so mannered and "over the top" in the first half of the picture, that you just don't buy the transformation.And Holliman seems as though he's about to go on auditions for "The Beverly Hillbillies" or "Hee-Haw".In the end, the film is worth seeing for Lancaster's performance only. But it is a magnificent performance.6 out of 10