i must have seen a different film!!

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

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Copyright 1955 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy: 15 December 1955. U.S. release: December 1955. U.K. release: February 1956. Australian release: 16 February 1956. Sydney opening at the Regent. 9,360 feet. 104 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Lord Alan Esketh (Michael Rennie) and his American wife (Lana Turner) come to Ranchipur to buy an Arabian horse from the Maharani.NOTES: Although Fox released publicity headed "India Bows in CinemaScope", 2nd unit locations were filmed in Lahore, Pakistan. The palace gardens were photographed in the remote Kingdom of Swat. Using doubles to impersonate the film's principals, photographer Charles G. Clarke shot over 10,000 feet of background footage. This movie is actually a re-make of Bromfield's 1937 novel "The Rains Came" which was filmed under that title in 1939. This 1955 version was nominated for an Academy Award for Special Effects, losing to "The Bridges at Toko- Ri". Reported negative cost: $4.8 million. Initial domestic rental gross: approx. $4.3 million. This shortfall was more than made up by overseas rentals. Disregarding some exaggerated and purely book-keeping items, I think it fair to estimate the studio made at least a $2 million dollar profit on this film.COMMENT: Although it suffers in all departments by comparison with the previous movie version, including the much-vaunted climactic special effects (some of which have obviously been boldly lifted from 1939), this steamy melodrama still offers a fair amount of entertainment, thanks both to lavish production values and its stellar cast. Negulesco has even directed some sequences with a fair amount of style.Merle Miller has obviously tried to avoid duplicating any of "The Rains Came" script. It is almost a different film. Unfortunately his script is wordy and dialogue-bound and he has obviously fallen in love with his own words. Every scene is over-written and constructed like a TV play. Negulesco's bland direction does not help, but the players oddly enough often overcome the unbelievable nature of the characters and the often tedious wordiness of the dialogue. Burton makes a late entrance but is more convincing than Power WAS, while Joan Caulfield does rather charmingly by this version's smaller role for Fern. Fred MacMurray also does yeoman service (despite a ridiculous off-camera plot turnaround at the climax). Miss Turner's obvious dramatic inadequacies are something of a liability, though her (doubtless unintentional) overblown, faded blonde presence is admirably suited to the revamped role. Eugenie Leontovich in a rare film appearance does a Maria Ouspenskaya impersonation, while as Mrs Smiley, Madge Kennedy attempts somewhat less successfully Jane Darwell. The climax is not as impressive as "The Rains Came" with some material obviously printed up from that film inter-cut with new but rather obvious effects. Technically, this film does not over- impress. There's a bit of 2nd unit location material, but even this is dull. The sets don't hold a patch on the old film and Turner's fans will be upset by their idol's frowzy look and somewhat unflattering costumes. Michael Rennie is surprisingly wet, the film editing lacks sharpness and pace, and the photography is inhibited by the demands of early CinemaScope. Negulesco has not taken advantage of the wide screen to any great extent. All told, though, the film is not as tedious or time and talent wasting as MY memory led ME to believe.

Last night I came across a disc I had called 'Natural Disasters.' One film was THE RAINS CAME, and another one was THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR.As I watched these films, I read user reviews on the IMDb and various message board comments about both the original, starring Tyrone Power, Myrna Loy and George Brent, plus the remake with Richard Burton, Lana Turner and Fred MacMurray. The Power version currently has an overall user rating of 7.0, whereas the Burton version has a 5.9. I disagree with those scores. I personally rated the Power showcase a 6, and the Burton effort a 9. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons.First, it is more than the casting, though the casting and quality of acting does matter quite a bit. I have never been a fan of Tyrone Power's acting, and while I don't entirely dislike his work, it certainly pales by comparison with the level of excellence Richard Burton brings to the screen in any role. Probably a real Indian actor should have been cast, and in my view, this property is ripe for another remake so they can get that part right. In the 1955 offering, which is in Technicolor, we see that Burton is more like a Welshman with a tan-- almost implying the character is a half-breed, not a full-blooded Indian. If Fox was going to 'go there' with the interracial storyline more than in the first production, they couldn't make him too dark, I suppose. Continuing with the acting, I think Lana Turner is much better (though slightly miscast) as Lady Edwina. Why do I say this? Well, Myrna Loy definitely comes across as a lady, and Lana does seem by comparison to have the morals of gutter trash in this story-- but Lana oozes a lot more passion. We get the feeling she is rather desperate for real and lasting love, believing Dr. Safti can give it to her. Myrna just seems too put together emotionally and a little too brittle to be affected this way. Also, when the conflicts come to the surface between Edwina and the Maharani, we can see the Indian woman's points more clearly in the remake that maybe Edwina is poison for Dr. Softi. Also, I tend to like the secondary love story performers better in the remake. Fred MacMurray does a convincing job as a self-loathing drunk, and when he reaches redemption later in the story, his tenderness towards Joan Caulfield seems a lot more realistic. Like they are equals despite the age difference. I felt like MacMurray was probably tapping into his own redeeming relationship with his younger wife June Haver when he played those scenes. In the other picture, George Brent just comes across smarmy and he still treats Brenda Joyce like a kid at the end, who can't get over her schoolgirl crush on him-- not at all signifying any type of equality or character growth.As for the Maharani, I love Madame Ouspenskaya in the original despite her obvious Russian ethnicity. She seems very authoritative during the flood sequence. But Eugenie Leontovich is better I think in the remake. Leontovich is not afraid to tap into the more shrewish aspects of the character and fight Edwina no matter how ruthlessly. Ironically, I think Leontovich seems to be channeling Ouspenskaya's shrew in DODSWORTH.Now that I've addressed casting and performances, I want to talk about dialogue and special effects. The dialogue in the original is a little too stiff. A lot of it seems interchangeable, like it doesn't matter who is speaking it, because it is all coming from a third-person screen writing point of view. But in the remake the dialogue is much more personalized. The lines the characters utter seem more idiosyncratic and less archetypical. Meanwhile, the use of Cinemascope helps aid the special effects extravaganza in the remake in ways that make the action in the first one seem cropped or chopped off. I do agree that the splitting of the earth and the bursting of the dam in the first film were done very well and deserved at least an Oscar nomination (not a win over GONE WITH THE WIND's burning of Atlanta sequence). But the collapse of the bridge is better in the remake, because even though they may be using models in some shots, we see people losing their lives and the danger is much more apparent. There are many other things I could cite as examples regarding why I feel the second film is better than the original. But I will end for now with a comment about the overall sweeping nature of the film. The remake seems more epic to me, and much more ambiguous. When Lana rides off with Michael Rennie at the end, we know that this is not a real happy ending. She will wind up like Vivien Leigh in THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE. There will be other men behind her husband's back, young gigolos and hangers on that she will spoil to keep her company. She will always love Dr. Softi but continue to be punished for her immoral ways by being stuck in a loveless marriage with Rennie and forever denied her true Indian soul mate. As they drive off, and the words 'The End' flash over the screen, you know that it truly is the end of her happiness. MacMurray and Caulfield have the happy ending here, but not any of the other main characters. And back inside the palace, the Maharani, who is a twisted psychological mess of feminine success, takes comfort in having driven the so-called lady back to the gutter. It's a drama, a tragedy of epic proportions-- a wholly unnatural disaster.

The second retelling of Louis Bromfield's novel was clearly a vehicle for its star, Lana Turner in a Twentieth Century Fox production after she had left her glory days at MGM. Directed by Jean Negulesco with a screen treatment by Merle Miller, the 1955 film showed recently on a classic channel.The story combines equal parts of romance and tragedy. In those days the special effects were not exactly the same as what can be achieved with computers and new techniques. The best thing in the film is the sequence of the earthquake after weeks of unending torrential rains. The rest of the story deals with Edwina, a rich woman, who can pick and discard men as she sees fit, which is the case with the man one first sees her with, Lord Esketh.It does not take long after she arrives in Ranchipur to spot the handsome Indian Dr. Safti, with whom she falls in love, creating a scandal in the local society, ruled with an iron fist by the Maharani, a no nonsense woman who knows Edwina is no good for the hunky doctor. Then there is the drunk expatriate Tom Ransome, who is drinking himself to oblivion among the higher classes and gets the eye of Fern Simon, an impressionable young woman. Everything is shattered by the arrival of the earthquake and the breaking of the dam over the river that wreaks havoc among the poor native population.The result was a glossy picture that looks sadly dated, The performances are what one expect of this cast. Mr. Negulesco's direction does not bring anything new to the story. Watch it as a curiosity of that era.

This wide-screen romance yarn showcases the lovely Lana Turner as a wealthy and restless socialite who becomes smitten with a handsome native doctor during a trip to India. This is the main thread of the film although there are other sub-plots at work here. Richard Burton is good as the object of Turner's affections and Eugenie Leontovich is regal as the Maharani who raised Burton from childhood. This sage queen watches the blossoming romance with cold displeasure, deeply jealous of Turner's hold on him. Fred MacMurray is involved in another clincher with Joan Caulfield that doesn't ring true and adds very little to the main story. Michael Rennie has a thankless role as Turner's husband, whom she keeps at arms's length throughout the movie. The ensuing monsoons, flooding and earthquake in the region are awesome and terrible in their destruction, the special effects of which are very good. Turner is clothed in a first-class wardrobe and the film's sets reflect the lavish production. Milton Krasner's camera and Hugo Friedhofer's exotic music score are first-rate.