The Rainmaker Reviews

Francis Ford Coppola completely ruled the 70's. He made 4 movies, 'Apocalypse Now', 'The Godfather: Part II', 'The Conversation', 'The Godfather, they were all critically acclaimed and at least 3 of them are arguably some of the finest movies ever made. So, he ruled the 70's but it was as much a blessing as it was a curse. I mean, basically, for each movie he made afterwards, the audience was expecting another 'Godfather' or another 'Apocalypse now'. Well, it never happened and with each new release directed by him, his reputation continued to diminish and, nowadays, he is pretty much considered a has-been. Personally, I think it's a shame because he has actually made some decent flicks which are terribly overlooked and this movie is a perfect example. I mean, sure, it is definitely not a masterpiece but I thought it was still quite entertaining and probably my favorite John Grisham’s adaptation. Back in those days, Matt Damon just had his breakthrough with ‘Good Will Hunting’ which was released the same year. Coppola, after this new flop, wouldn’t release another directing effort for a decade and since then he has been making only really small indie features. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I thought it was still a decent flick and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Francis Ford Coppola’s work.

On the one hand, if you’ve seen one John Grisham film adaptation, you’ve pretty much seen them all. On the other hand, this one was done by Francis Ford Coppola and features a tony cast. Granted, this is director-for-hire Coppola. This is Coppola on the verge of bankruptcy and trying to scrounge up funds to save American Zoetrope. So don’t go into The Rainmaker expecting Coppola to transform this middling material into grand art like he did with The Godfather series. But it is well crafted, acted, directed; the only area that really lets it down is the familiar path that all Grisham stories tell.

The Rainmaker strains credibility frequently when we focus in on the major story line: small-time lawyer takes down big fatcat legal team representing a crooked insurance company. The film shines when its plot structure becomes less rigid and instead focuses in one the rich ensemble of supporting players. An oily judge kept in the pocket of rich attorneys (Dean Stockwell), an elderly woman who is a bit of the town matriarch (Teresa Wright), a chain-smoking former employee who’s ready to blow the whistle (Virginia Madsen), an abused woman and her tentative new romance with our hero (Claire Danes), her frightening husband (Andrew Shue, much like his sister more talented than people realized and also all but disappeared), and the main family members at the heart of the story (Mary Kay Place, Red West, Johnny Whitworth).

Spending time with these various characters is entertaining; watching the machinations of the plot force them into actions or plot turns is not. Matt Damon is solidly earnest, and just reminded of how good of an actor he is. I watched this for the first time shortly after watching Behind the Candelabra, and his range is apparent. Damon seems to excel in these kind of plucky, wide-eyed characters from hard-scrabble backgrounds who are thrust into sink-or-swim situations, and he can do much with that archetype.

Even as the film brushes with story twists and turns, all of which are glaringly obvious, it is smart enough to sit back and let Damon, Danny DeVito as his lawyer variation of unbridled id and stage-mother, Jon Voight practically leaving a slime trail as the head of the corporate attorney hydra, and Danny Glover as the newly appointed judge rip up the scenery in the big legal battle. No matter the material, Coppola always manages to get the best out of his actors. And this pulpy stuff is elevated to a higher material by their acting might alone.

I don’t know if this is the greatest of the Grisham adaptations, but with the pedigree of those involved of the making of it, I’d venture that it probably is. It’s never a great film, but it’s entertaining, briskly paced, and on a technical level very strong. It’s just a shame that Grisham’s story is obviously crafted to turn here, and there, and back again down the road instead of investing in a more artful narrative.