ristowge It's evident this is a dated movie, but I think it is eminently watchable. Not Capra's best by any means, but a decent insight to the workings of circuses in the late 20's. A score of wonderful character actors, slapstick and physical comedy nicely blended with vaudeville routines. Yes, the dialog is fast-paced, but there are great one-liners and wholesome comedy. It's a shame the musical numbers are dealt with in the opening and closing credits rather than scored in the movie. Joe Cook is amazing as he juggles, tightrope walks, and balances his way through the movie. His dialogue is quick, tight, and funny. Most of the actors were unknown to me as an amateur film buff, but now I will look for more of their movies. The viewer can see the similarity to Wheeler and Woolsey, The Marx Brothers, Al Jolson, and other stars of early talkies. The visual reproduction is very good, with little background noise, as is the audio recording. This movie is part of a new Early Capra release with four other titles.

MartinHafer In the early days of sound films, studios really didn't know how to use the new medium. Instead of normal speaking voices and normal actors, Hollywood felt a need to overwhelm the audience with sound. A lot of vaudeville comics who spoke a mile a minute were shoved in front of the cameras to take advantage of the fact that audiences could now hear the actors speak. Some of these early talkies are downright dreadful while some others are just odd curios. RAIN OR SHINE falls into the category of just plain dreadful.Most of the blame for this film being so terrible and tough to watch falls on the shoulders of its director, Frank Capra. While Capra did great things for Harry Langdon during the silent era and from the mid-1930s on he made some of the most iconic American films of the era (IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, MEET JOHN DOE and many others), but even great directors have their duds--and this film was definitely a dud.The film is nominally about a circus that is chronically on the verge of bankruptcy. However, the entire show was the vaudevillian, Joe Cook. While one of the reviewers thought that Cook was hilarious, he was simply too much--like a giant migraine. He talked and talked and talked and talked. If you liked this sort of in your face routine again and again, then you'd probably like the film. However, I didn't think he was funny and felt the director should have placed more emphasis on the talented members of the cast. That, or simply punched Cook in the mouth and told him to shut the heck up!! Terrible pacing, annoying dialog and nothing to like--this is truly one of the most painful films I have seen. I only kept watching because I assumed it would get better---it didn't.

kcfl-1 I think previous commentators have missed the boat on this. The film is a matter of the director overcoming the star. Joe Cook's shtick wears thin. His first encounter with the store owner is droll, but a series of non-sequiters do not make a comedy. Capra's direction is brilliant. (Spolier:) Obviously, the elephant pushing the fat lady is a tour de force, and the riot and fire at the climax are spectacular, but notice his great tracking shots. The camera follows characters as they saunter through the circus. What was worth seeing and preserving here is not Cook's quaint act, but the way of life of the circus, a "Water for Elephants" scene.

theowinthrop I regret that I have only seen about two fifths of this nice early talky comedy. You can see the scenes I saw on You Tube.But I have seen enough to see that under the jointly able hands of Joe Cook and director Frank Capra we have a first rate comedy. It's also another example of saving those chunks of the past that we thoughtlessly throw aside. In this case the wonderful but brief Broadway career of Joe Cook, comedian extroadinaire.Who he? That's the tragedy of Broadway fame. Unless a filmed account or a kine-scope or video is made of a classic Broadway turn or performance we have little idea of what audiences of (say 1925) enjoyed. That's one more reason to savor films of W.C.Fields or the Marx Brothers or even the few with Bea Lillie. Cook made a handful of films before illness (Parkinson's disease) cut into his abilities. Savor them - he's well worth it.With the Brothers, Fields, Lillie, Bert Lahr, Jimmy Durante, Victor Moore and William Gaxton, Bobby Clark and Paul McCullough, and a handful more, Cook captured Broadway. He was a great acrobatic comic and juggler. Whether a better juggler than Fields I can't say, but Fields never ventured on tight ropes to do the kinds of things that Cook did (and which is in this film, as it is a circus film: look at him on a wire and twirling four metal hoops around his neck, arms, and loose leg. W.C. did not do that, nor Groucho). Like Groucho, Clark, and W.C., Cook could double-talk with the best of them. His spectacular thing was the totally meaningless explanation or anecdote. It works this way - he comes to somebody doing something, and starts going into a long discussion which seems to be heading to some point regarding the activity going on. Then, all of a sudden, the anecdote is finished. Only it has not gotten to anything of use to the hearer. In this film there is a scene where Tom Howard (A.K. Shrewsberry - feed merchant, unsuccessful debt collector, and unwilling partner of Cook's Smiley Johnson) is cleaning his vest from a mustard stain. Cook stumbles on him and sees what he's doing. Suddenly he remembers from his youth how he had cereal (corn flakes) for breakfast, and how he did not use the regular milk but evaporated (canned) milk and sugar. One day...but watch You Tube to see the result of the story and Howard's total incredulity at the end about what he hears and what's it supposed to illustrate.The other two sections of the film on You Tube deal with how Cook (who owes Howard a huge feed bill) double-talks the other one out of his lawful position as creditor. From the start Howard is in trouble, as Cook has him passing out circus fliers, and as he makes a solid, sensible comment on a passing statement. Howard says, "I want to have a conversation with you in private." Cook replies, "That's impossible - we'll be together." Howard is doomed from the start.There is also the best portion of the segments on YOU TUBE of what happens when the unpaid circus performers go on strike after the audience fills the big top. There Cook shows his skills as an acrobat and juggler. You will be deeply impressed. You'll also see a mop top assistant - Cook's partner/stooge Dave Chasen, adding his bits to the sequence. Chasen eventually became famous for his restaurant to the stars (like Romanov's) in Hollywood - also called Chasen.By the way, my mention in the summary line is truly based on what I have read on Cook. I don't know if he ever put it on film before he stopped making movies, but his best remembered stage stunt was to walk out on stage strumming a ukulele, and telling the audience he was going to imitate a four man Hawaiian band performing at once. Two are dancing (he swivels his hips and taps a foot), one is playing the uke, and one is whistling. Then he says, "You may wonder why I am doing this." He launches into a pointless discussion on how he gradually invested his money well, made it into a larger and larger pile, and got about $50,000.00 (in 1925 money). Then he stops and looks at the audience, and says "And if I have $50,000.00 why should I imitate four Hawaiians performing at once!" So he'd stop and walk off the stage, as the audience roared with laughter.I wish more of that work could have been preserved.