Very disappointing...

Really Surprised!

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The rain falls incessantly in this movie, bringing to mind Matthew 5:45, "he sendeth rain on the just and the unjust alike". In this case, it seems clear that the 'unjust' are actually the devout Christians (Walter Huston and Beulah Bondi), as they sanctimoniously judge Joan Crawford's character and cruelly use their influence to get orders for her immediate deportation from Pago Pago, where this film is set. She is likely a prostitute, but the reason for his action stems from her (gasp) moral crime of listening to music and dancing with some soldiers on the Sabbath. As a more tolerant man observes, "we've all crossed thresholds we don't brag about", but Huston is relentless in cross-examining her about her past, and demanding that she get on the right side of the Lord, even though they've just met.It's interesting to see Crawford stand up to him in what are the best scenes of the film. "You keep yellin' at me to go back and be punished, to suffer – how do you know what I've suffered? You don't know, you don't care, and you don't even ask – and you call yourself a Christian!", she yells, and "Your God and me will never be shipmates, and the next time you talk to him you can tell him this for me – that Sadie Thompson is on her way to hell!" However, she is eventually cowed and resigned to be repentant, which is the first unbelievable part of an unbelievable ending, which I won't spoil.The movie is a little hard to watch because the main characters are so unlikeable. Huston and Bondi are righteous prigs. Crawford is heavily made up and often over-acts her part. There are a few good scenes, however, and it may be of interest to see this adaptation of the short story by W. Somerset Maugham, which spurred several other movies and plays.

I determined this film to be theee most nail biter, edge of your seat morality play that I have yet to witness all my years... The pre-code days allowed a slice of reality much more so than the banal predictable moral codes of today... Even considering today's headlines and "Elmer Gantry" like replicas, there is no triumph of hiprocisy featured so prominently as one encounters in this enticing film... Joan never looked sexier, and that is given her performance in Grand Hotel... The reformed makeup-less look was much less flattering but we girls all know how humidity never tames the locks to our desire... I ended up rooting for Sailor O'Hara to sock it to the acerbic and disdainful reverend, but the ending proved even more rewarding! I can imagine why this must have resonated so well with audiences in the Theatre who were repressed from the 18th Amendment and saw this as sweet revenge with the impressive ratings... High recommend for those who have been mistreated by nuns, holy rollers, bible thumping holier than thou types, and for Joan's extravagant emotional performance in her early film career.

RAIN is the second film version of a play that made a superstar of Jeanne Eagels on the Broadway stage; the first was a silent titled SADIE THOMPSON and starring Gloria Swanson, which was a success both critically and commercially. This second version, the first sound film based on the play, used the original title and starred Joan Crawford, who was already a major star but desired to stretch herself as an actress. Unfortunately for Crawford, neither the critics nor the public liked her as the unglamorous prostitute Sadie Thompson; that plus the fact that the play had begun to date rather badly made this film a resounding flop and Crawford took most of the heat for its failure.A second look, keeping the play's historical context in mind, leads me to the opposite conclusion. Crawford, who came to Hollywood knowing nothing about acting and who learned "on the job," as it were, never reached the heights of Davis, Hepburn, and Stanwyck, perhaps, but she was an apt pupil and she learned her craft well. A look at this extremely dated film today reveals that Crawford's performance is really the best thing about it.The plot is a moldy bit of melodrama involving a fanatical missionary (played here by Walter Huston) who, stranded in Samoa during a cholera outbreak, encounters prostitute Sadie Thompson and sets out to convert her, which for her involves returning to the States to serve a prison sentence even though she was framed. Mesmerized by the missionary's personality, Sadie is at first converted, then later disillusioned.The film is not terribly well made (interestingly there is no director credit, though IMDb lists Lewis Milestone); even for 1932 it is grainy and the camera-work jerky in spots. The decision to make the constant soaking rain a character in the drama is a plus: it adds to the atmosphere and makes for a perfect background for Sadie's emotional and spiritual journey.The acting is a mixed bag. Crawford is much, much better than one would expect since this film nearly wrecked her career at the time it was released. In fact it she might not have recovered had she not made GRAND HOTEL, one of her major triumphs, that same year. But whatever the film's weaknesses may be, Crawford is not among them. In fact her Sadie is a completely believable character; Crawford is utterly convincing as the unrepentant whore, then the "born again" woman redeemed, as she thinks, by the missionary, and in her "fall from grace;" in fact she's quite good, particularly considering that this is perhaps the most complex role she had attempted up to that time.The rest of the cast is mostly solid, familiar (at the time anyway) character actors, and they pretty much all acquit themselves well. Oddly, the weak link in the cast happens to be the one great actor in the whole thing: Walter Huston as the missionary Davidson. A legendary actor both on stage and screen, Huston plays the missionary like a hero out of an old stage melodrama, declaiming his lines in a way that was out of style even back in the 1920s when the play opened on Broadway. I don't know whether Milestone directed him to read his part this way or whether he simply did his own thing and ignored the director (so far as I know that was not his reputation), but either way it is a terrible choice; his performance is so hammy that it renders every scene in which he appears laughable, and when he and Crawford are on screen together, it is her realistic approach to her character that one finds believable; he is incredible to the point of being ridiculous.All in all, however, I found myself rather surprised that this film was such a failure in 1932. Huston's acting would have seemed less garish at the time, and I think the critics were terribly unfair to Crawford; even if they found her attempt to stretch her abilities less than successful (a view with which I do not agree), surely she deserved the credit for trying. Simply taking on the role was an act of courage on Crawford's part; Jeanne Eagels was inextricably linked to the role in the minds of many, and when you add to that the successful silent version starring Swanson, who was one of the biggest stars of her day, it took a LOT of nerve on Crawford's part to attempt what was at the time the biggest challenge she had ever faced. And I think she did a creditable job.

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.