Hitchcoc As a youngster, if we wanted to see a movie (about the only entertainment in town) we were forced to go to a local theater that showed movies that were long past their original runs. If it were 2016, a group of teenagers wouldn't have considered seeing this movie. It was dramatic and about people tearing each other apart. There were no guns or secret agents or comedic pratfalls. But it was Friday night and..... I have always been a fairly accepting person when it comes to the arts. As it turns out, this movie was a challenge to the adult population. It is an array of the most unlikable characters who have the most condescending attitudes toward the people they were living with. That is imperial India. It meanders and meanders and never gets to the point. Burton looks good as does Lana Turner. Unfortunately, Turner's character is utterly despicable. This is one that can fade into the past.

jarrodmcdonald-1 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.

edwagreen Lana Turner is at it again; this time as still another selfish woman, who while married to Michael Rennie in this 1955 film, throws men off by merely writing out a check to them.In a loveless marriage to Rennie, she goes with him to Ranchipur for him to buy a stallion. There she meets old flame Fred MacMurray, an alcoholic engineer, but the love of her life appears-an Indian doctor played by Richard Burton.Easily, the best part of the picture was the earthquake scenes. They rivaled, if not better than those of the film "San Francisco." (1936)The film becomes one of devotion and duty and hopefully this will set the Turner character straight. Nothing as an emergency to make you realize life's values and commitments.

route602er NOTE---POSSIBLE SPOILER FOR ONE OF THE FILM'S IMPORTANT SCENES---The whole movie was good, but the great earthquake scene was spectacular! Then the dam breaking! No music was used during the entire sequence to attempt to build drama or enhance what was happening on the screen, it wasn't necessary. The minimal use of sound effects in that scene also added to the sense of impending, ominous doom. Great directing! Great special effects, especially considering the era when it was made!---Bolt.