Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Christopher Van Not knowing anything about this movie, I happened to pick it up on TCM (Turner Classic Movies). What a pleasing, warm and emotional experience have I just had!The definition of a great movie is one that "talks" to you, and this one, with its universal themes of dreams and self belief, did just that.Folk who complain about the cheesy sets and so on have missed the point. This is a film about the human condition. Each character has a place, and is well crafted. Each character is properly formed. Loved that the Rainmaker developed as a character too.The ending was the best part.Full credit to the screen writer. In creating this piece, fittingly to the themes he created, did something worthwhile with his life.

SnoopyStyle Lizzie Curry (Katharine Hepburn) is a spinster taking care of her father HC and her two brothers (Lloyd Bridges, Earl Holliman). Deputy Sheriff File is a widower and holds a secret crush for Lizzie. The town is suffering from a drought, and everybody is desperate for water including the Currys. Then comes Bill Starbuck (Burt Lancaster) who claims to be a Rainmaker. Is he a huckster or is he real? More importantly, he could bring Lizzie out of her rut.Katharine is acting too big, but I guess it's the style of the era. Burt is masterful as the big showman. He has the big personality to pull it off. However his motivations are too unclear for the audience to root for fully. When you add Lloyd Bridges, there are truly big star power at work. And they can paper over any minor imperfections.

James Hitchcock "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

jotix100 Bill Starbuck is a cunning man that can enchant small town folks with the fake promises the products he peddles will do miracles. As we come to the story, he is trying to unload devices that will help folks with tornadoes, so prevalent in that part of the country. Unfortunately, he is found out and must flee before being arrested. The countryside in rural Texas is broiling under the strong summer sun. No rain has fallen in quite some time. The Currys, H.C., the father, Noah and Jim are at the train station to meet Lizzie, the daughter, and sibling that has gone on a trip and is coming home. The Currys are obsessed in finding her a husband. Lizzie, a woman of a 'certain age' seems resigned for her own old maid status.When Bill Starbuck arrives at the Curry ranch, he sees the three men in a field where a few dead animals lay on the ground because of the drought conditions in the area. Later, Starbuck arrives unannounced at the ranch. The Currys have invited the sheriff to come to dinner, something that was arranged to see if the lawman would click with Lizzie. The sheriff File never got over the way his wife left him for another man, so he is reluctant to begin any other relationship if he can help it.That night, Lizzie, realizing her prospects of ever getting any man interested in her, goes to the barn where Starbuck has been staying. Their meeting does not begin well, but Starbuck guesses what is causing this woman's troubles. Having a gift of gab, he convinces her she is her worst enemy and seduces her. Lizzie responds in kindness because for the first time in her life she has felt wanted for the first time in her life.Joseph Anthony directed the screen adaptation of Richard Nash Broadway play. The original cast included Geraldine Page and Darren McGavin as Lizzie and Starbuck. The film version was blessed with the unusual pairing of Katherine Hepburn and Burt Lancaster. In fact, Ms. Hepburn had starred in "Summertime", released the previous year. It was, in a way, a variation on the same theme, but in another setting and context. Lizzie was a variation of the character she had played successfully, although not in the least intentionally. The only thing the movie does not avoid is the feeling it is nothing but filmed stage play.Burt Lancaster as Starbuck deserves a lot of credit for giving his character a lot of the poetry that it required. Director Joseph Anthony got a great performance of this actor. Katherine Hepburn's contribution to the film is enormous. Her chemistry with her co-stars was one of the best things in the film. Wendell Corey, Lloyd Bridges, Earl Holliman, and Cameron Prud'Homme rounded up the cast.