JohnHowardReid 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.

James Hitchcock Lord Esketh, a British aristocrat, and his glamorous American wife, Edwina, are touring India and staying in the city of Ranchipur, where they are guests of the local Maharani. (The action is supposed to be set in India, even though we see a prominently displayed Pakistani flag in an early scene). Their marriage is an unhappy one and each despises the other. Edwina despises her husband because she sees him as weak and cowardly and because he only married her for her money. (She is an independently wealthy heiress). He despises her because he sees her as cold and heartless; we learn that she has been unfaithful to him with a number of different men. While in Ranchipur Edwina meets and has an affair with a young suntanned Welshman in a turban. Well, actually Richard Burton's character is supposed to be an Indian, Dr Safti, a physician and the adopted son of the Maharani. Today, the idea of a white actor in "brownface" playing an Indian would strike most people as politically incorrect, but was an accepted practice in the fifties, and at least Burton's performance is a lot less insensitive than that given by Peter Sellers in "The Millionairess" from a few years later. (Sellers was also playing an Indian doctor). Watching the film, I wondered if the use of the Christian name "Edwina" was a veiled reference to Edwina Mountbatten, another independently wealthy heiress, married to a British aristocrat, who visited India and was rumoured to have had an affair with an Indian man, in her case the politician Jawaharlal Nehru. I understand, however, that "The Rains of Ranchipur" is a remake of "The Rains Came" from 1939 (which I have never seen), and that the character had the same name both in this film and in the 1937 novel on which it was based. As the Mountbattens did not come to India until 1947, the coincidence was presumably unintentional. The Edwina-Safti romance is the mainspring of the plot, but for all Edwina's good looks she is so obviously spoilt, selfish and promiscuous that it is difficult to imagine any man, let alone one as intelligent and idealistic as Dr Safti, falling hopelessly in love with her. There is a subplot involving another romance between Tom Ransome, an alcoholic former lover of Edwina and close friend of Safti, and Fern, the daughter of a local missionary, but this arouses little interest. The acting is generally undistinguished. Burton, as though embarrassed by having been cast in a role to which he was ill-suited, is horribly stilted and wooden, giving by far his worst performance in any film of his which I have seen. The Russian-born Eugenie Leontovich as the Maharani is no more convincing as an Indian than is Burton. Lana Turner as Edwina and Fred MacMurray as Tom were both capable of much better things than this. Probably the best is Joan Caulfield as Fern. The intention seems to have been to contrast Fern's youth and innocence with the cynicism and corruption of the experienced older woman Edwina, so it is perhaps surprising that Caulfield, who at 33 was only a year younger than Turner, was cast in the role, but she is fresh and youthful-looking enough to succeed in making the contrast an effective one. The best thing about the film is its special effects. Although "The Rains of Ranchipur" is not a "disaster movie" in the sense that the film-makers of the seventies would have understood the term, an earthquake and the subsequent flood after the earthquake destroys a dam play important roles in the story. These scenes are very well done, are still convincingly impressive even in the era of CGI and the main reason why I have given the film an average mark. Unfortunately, there is little else to make the film worth watching today. Special effects apart, it is the sort of dull, turgid and implausible melodrama which typified Hollywood at its worst during the fifties. 5/10

bkoganbing The original film on which The Rains Of Ranchipur is a remake, The Rains Came share one thing in common. The Rains Came won the second Oscar given in the category of Best Special Effects and The Rains Of Ranchipur was nominated in the same category. But other than that while the first was a tidal flood of emotions this one barely registers a drizzle.Unhappily married Michael Rennie and Lana Turner come on holiday to the Indian province of Ranchipur. He married her money, she married his title and she's had a long string of affairs in both hemispheres that always make the gossip columns. She takes one look at Hindu doctor Richard Burton and decides he will be her latest conquest. She also meets another of her former conquests Fred MacMurray who is living out here on his inheritance and who missionary kid Joan Caulfield decides he's got the makings of a reformation project.That's about how the original film is laid out. But the changes and softenings of the story and the characters make The Rains Of Ranchipur lose all its punch. The biggest changes are to the characters that Lana Turner and Michael Rennie play who were essayed by Myrna Loy and Nigel Bruce in the original. See the two side by side and you'll know what I mean. In addition Joan Caulfield is way too old to be playing college age girls. Her part in the original is done by Brenda Joyce.Color has been added and some nice location cinematography of India during its first decade of independence is nice to see as well as the earthquake and flooding sequences. It makes up for a watered down story.

sabby This glamorous remake of the '30s film "And The Rains Came", casts Lana Turner, Richard Burton, and Fred McMurray. Turner is a woman who travels with her husband to India to purchase some horses. While there, the unsatisfied Lana embarks on an affair with Hindu doctor Burton, breaking taboos and causing a ruckus among the elite set. All the drama is compounded by a series of earthquakes and one big flood that threatens the lives of everyone. It's hard to tell what's more beautiful to look at - the Indian scenery(really filmed in Pakistan) or the always elegant Lana. Storyline-wise there's not a lot of substance, but it's truly a visual feast regardless.