User reviews

A story about an aspiring young lawyer who tries to break down an insurance company, Matt Damon plays Rudy Baylor, a Memphis St. Law School graduate who can't seem to find a job anywhere, until he meets "Bruiser" Stone (Mickey Rourke). Stone is an ambulance chaser, who does whatever it takes, legal or not, to win a case. Rudy, as most law students are when they graduate, wants to take the high road, do everything by the book, and win. What he finds is that sometimes you need to get down and dirty to help your client. In this case, his client is a young boy, dying of leukemia.

Seems the insurance company won't pay for a bone marrow transplant that would save his life. Rudy sets out to help the young man and his family, in what turns out to be one of the biggest cases Tennessee has ever seen. Along with his partner Deck Shifflet (Danny DeVito), Rudy sets out to try and prove to the world that the insurance company is nothing more than a big time scam artist. Along the way Rudy meets (and falls in love with) a young woman (Clare Danes) who gets beat up regularly by her husband. This part of the story seemed somewhat strange to me. I couldn't figure out what it was there to do. Was it to give Rudy a love interest? Was it just to give the movie another case so the entire film wasn't centered on the insurance trial? I feel it gave the movie some heart, and showed that Rudy would fight for what he believed in, both in court and in life. But I think the movie could have been done without it.

I enjoyed the trial scenes and all the grunt work that went behind it (being a future lawyer myself (I hope)). And the cast was wonderful. Each person added a little more to the movie, and each gave a great performance. Danny Glover as the (2nd) judge gave a little humor to the movie, but also made you feel good about Rudy's chances in court. He was going to play fair, but hew as also going to give Rudy the benefit of the doubt. Jon Voight played the insurance company's lead lawyer, and he played his character to it's swarmy best. He is what people think lawyers are like, out only for money; win at all costs, no soul (I know attorneys like that). And he was convincing. And of course DeVito and Damon carried the film.

I had my doubts about Damon playing a lawyer, but the more I watched, the more I realized that he looked like people I see at work everyday. He had the same fear in his eyes that we all do, but also that dog-eat-dog determination to prove to the world that he could do the job. The Rainmaker was more about the performances than the story. And the performances won me over. Give it a shot, it's worth it.

It was something else, seeing The Rainmaker again, 20 years later. The plot, the cast, the look of it, it all has that Coppola touch and that

has to be with truth, the way he, Francis Ford Coppola sees it. Beautiful, powerful and moving but the most powerful element after 20 years turns out to be Johnny Whitworth. What a gorgeous, soulful performance. It took me by surprise, I remember the character from my first viewing but this time his is the character who affected me the most. Imagine in a cast that includes Teresa Wright! Yes, Teresa Wright, Dean Stockwell as well as Matt Damon, Mary Kay Place, Jon Voight, Danny De Vito, Mickey Rourke, Claire Danes. Time does extraordinary things. It reveals the center of the center of the truth.

Readers are usually disappointed when a favorite book is translated to film. If you are looking for a Grisham thriller here, you will be disappointed. But, if you are looking for a courtroom drama with a great cast, then this is a great film.

Matt Damon shines as Rudy, recently out of law school, who sets up an office with Deck Schifflet (Danny DeVito) who is still trying to pass his bar exam. He also finds a place to stay with Miss Birdie (Teresa Wright) who has hired him to handle her estate papers.

Rudy is drawn to the plight of Kelly (Claire Danes), a working-class girl whose husband has battered her with a baseball bat. But the real drama is centered on Great Benefit, an insurance company that has refused to pay a claim of one of its policy holders.

Dot Black (Mary Kay Place) whose son is dying of leukemia is suing the company for denying her claim. In the courtroom, the unpolished Rudy is forced to square off against Leo F. Drummond (Jon Voight), a corporate lawyer who knows all the tricks of the trade. This David versus Goliath battle is well worth watching.

Damon, De Vito and Voight, along with Claire Danes and Danny Glover shine in this film.

So, forget the book and enjoy a great film.

Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon) is fresh out of law school. He has no family, or any connections. He starts to work for notorious lawyer Bruiser Stone (Mickey Rourke), and with street smart Deck Shifflet (Danny DeVito) who can't pass the bar. They take on a case against a health insurance company who refuses a claim from a seriously sick boy. Meanwhile, he falls for Kelly Riker (Claire Danes) who is in constant fear of her abusive husband.

This is a simple David vs Galioth story from the pen of John Grisham and the directing skills of Francis Ford Coppola. There are big time talents involve in this. Matt Damon is superb in the boyish charm department. Danny DeVito likewise is superb. The acting in this movie is top notch. However the Claire Danes battered wife storyline is too simple and too separate. It doesn't really connect with the rest of the movie. The romance seems to be sidelined in importance and short shrifted. It needs more attention. On the other hand, the courtroom drama has good fun and good tension.

Readers of John Grisham's book will find this film rather less of a thriller and more of a courtroom drama, albeit with a curious flat feel to it. The story is that of a legal action on behalf of a teenage boy denied coverage for an expensive bone marrow transplant by his family's medical insurer. Changes to the plotline to accommodate the story to the demands of film drama have removed the unique feature of the book – a largely successful attempt to make the details of legal civil procedure interesting. Francis Coppola is a very innovative yet conventional director (you could credit him with authorship of several current movie clichés) and his storylines develop according to convention. Thus the love affair, which is completely extraneous to the main storyline in the book, is pumped up, and the fascinating battle of wits between the lawyers played down. As in the book, Rudy is the tyro David up against the experienced Goliath, Drummond, but Rudy's inexperience is played up to the point that you wonder how he got this far. The trial judge, who in the book is extremely helpful to Rudy, is replaced in the film by a sympathetic but much more impartial figure. In Hollywood conventional courtroom drama, His Honor or Her Honor doesn't take sides.

That said, there is much to enjoy. Danny de Vito, playing Deck the paralegal (or `paralawyer' as Rudy names him) who can't seem to pass the bar exam, is just brilliant. His Deck is a disheveled, unimpressive little guy who is nonetheless good at what he does, `rainmaking' or finding new business. His strengths are his intelligence, his energy and his lack of pride; he is quite happy to chase ambulances and give cops backhanders for information. His ethics are simple: fight for your client, don't steal and try not to lie. While the Deck of the book verges on the grotesque, De Vito makes him less of an oddball and hence more sympathetic. Matt Damon as Rudy is wetter behind the ears and not such a quick learner as the Rudy of the book, but every so often he connects and we understand how he feels. Mickey Rourke is a bit too elegant as Bruiser, Rudy's erstwhile mentor, (who wears cufflinks on a tropical beach?) but it's also an enjoyable performance. Although the script tones down his role, John Voight is nastily urbane as superlawyer Drummond.

Once again we have a courtroom drama filmed in a grand but gloomy courtroom, in fact the lighting people seem to have been absent. We hardly get a glimpse of the face of one important minor character, Cliff the wife-beater, (Andrew Shue) yet there is no apparent reason for this. The way some of the scenes were strung together, and started and finished were vaguely familiar, and half way through it hit me - ` The Godfather', where scenes just seem to begin and end without any particular reason.

One thing the film does almost as well as the book is send the message (sorry Mr Goldwyn) that America needs to do something about its medical insurance system, if the present chaotic mess can be so described. The court system, while not perfect, comes out of it a bit better (David is able to beat Goliath fair and square) but as for lawyers…well, let's just say things would be a lot better if they stuck to Deck's minimal ethics. The story also might explain why John Grisham (who has a walk-on role as a lawyer at an al fresco deposition) gave up the law to write books, thus bringing pleasure to millions instead of (hopefully) winning retribution for a few.

I thought this film was really good...... I like courtroom dramas and this is right up there with the best of them. It's basically about a young lawyer starting out who gets embroiled in what turns out to be a major case.

Matt Damon is really good in it... I'm starting to really like him as an actor. Danny DeVito supports him brilliantly as his wee helper-guy. John Voight is also very good and Danny Glover makes a surprise appearance as the judge.

A good courtroom drama that has you interested all the way to the end.

A 7/10 for me...

Dave

This film hits on all cylinders, at least until the ending. I have read the Grisham novel, but it was far enough in the past that it did not spoil the film for me, at least for the most part. Matt Damon was OK here, but the supporting cast stole the show, DeVito, Claire Danes, Jon Voight. Especially good in a small part was Virginia Madsen. And it was very interesting seeing Teresa Wright, the teenage star of Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" as the elderly Miss Birdie. The film's ending seemed like it just ran out of steam, though. Maybe it's just because I had read the book. I recommend this movie anyway. Grade: B

This gentle David and Goliath style story is a delight to watch and an inspiration to viewers to work hard, be determined and maintain self belief against the odds. Matt Damon underplays his role very well. Clare Danes is less believable as a battered wife - I'd be terrified in her shoes, but she maintains a fixed slight irritation when the baseball bat starts swinging. Virginia Madsen steals the movie, making her character shine with integrity and empathy. She appears for about ten minutes, so make the most of her. Micky Rourke? Was he bored, too much trouble or couldn't learn his lines? Seems to be under-used for some reason. I could actually smell Jon Voight's cologne, so well did he play the rich top lawyer in the expensive suit.

I have hardly ever seen a movie that is as good as the novel it is based upon, so I wasn't expecting this movie to be better than the novel. The story isn't as interesting in this movie, but the cast is great, the entertainment value is excellent, and veteran Director Francis Ford Coppola is behind the camera here. Coppola has directed movies like the epic mob masterpiece The Godfather and plenty of other great movies.

This was released a couple of weeks before Matt Damon's huge hit Good Will Hunting, so this is one of his first big roles in a movie. Danny De Vito does a great job in adding plenty of humor to the movie, and Jon Voight adds a lot of dramatic effect to his character.

The story follows a young lawyer who is representing the family of a boy with leukemia who could have had proper treatment, but couldn't because of a seedy insurance company. The movie pretty much follows the book, but the problem is that the book had a few great sub plots that seem absent from the movie, and one scene that happens in the middle of the movie happens in the end of the book. The scene is very intense, but it seems more like it belonged at the end of the movie, rather than the middle.

This is worth watching, it is one of the best Grisham films, and there are plenty of great qualities in it.

This movie is not a movie that makes you think. It's not arty, there are no Corleones, there's really no issues to ponder long after the credits have stopped rolling. Instead it's a human drama that uses a courtroom battle as its backbone, but the entire body is the honestly-told if ultimately remarkable of a greenhorn lawyer trying to make a life for himself after law school. Like the more recent "Garden State" the movie is far more interesting than one would initially expect.

I recently read the Grisham novel that the screenplay was adapted from and was impressed by the memorable cast of the characters. The corrupt-and-loving-it Prince and Bruiser, Deck Shiflett as the skeezy "paralawyer" who scrapes out a living with an amusing lack of self-consciousness, the bitter-tempered first judge and his pioneering, biased black successor, the politely patronizing and puffed-up Legal Titan Leo Drummond, Cliff and his straight-from-Deliverance hillbilly family, lonely and slightly bossy Miss Birdie, chain-smoking Dot and her addled husband, all of them set a standard for memorable but believable characters.

Yet the movie is itself a cut or two above the original material. The extended cast does a hands-down fantastic job of bringing each character to life. First billing has to go to Danny Devito for transforming Deck from Rudy's unscrupulous and ugly sidekick in the novel, into a more take-charge and casually hilarious partner. Just take a look at the scene where he leads Rudy into the hospital or when he's giving out his card to the kids in Dot's neighborhood. But that's just one of about twenty stellar acting jobs. The extended cast includes Danny Glover, Jon Voight, Claire Danes, Mickey Rourke (yes!), Virginia Madsen, and a handful of other talented but lesser-known actors who show their absolute best through the skillful lens of Coppola.

Besides the stellar job by the cast, the story is tweaked to absolute perfection. Whether it's the Coppola magic or an excellent adaptation and editing job, I see a transformation similar to his triumph with "The Godfather": an absorbing but complex and sometimes rambling story is condensed into its absolute essence. Not a single shot is out of place.

Something else struck me about this adaptation -- it reminds me of Peter Jackson's LOTR in the way comic moments are used to balance out the weightiness of the main plot. For example: in LOTR Merry and Pippin set off Gandalf's dragon fireworks, or in the second movie Gimli can't see over the parapet towards the advancing Uruk-hai, or in the third movie Sam and Gollum have their argument over the proper preparation of rabbits and 'taters and Gandalf instructs Pippin to keep his big mouth shut before they enter the hall of Minas Tirith. Likewise "The Rainmaker" has its little touches of humor as well, from the sardonic lawyer jokes in Rudy's voice-over, to the scene where Deck fake-helpfully hands over Drummond's lost shoe after he's been assaulted by an angry juror, to Rudy's red-faced apology to the car accident victim in traction whom he has accidentally jostled, to Madsen's laconic yet particularly devoted husband Bert. ("Guess who DIED last night?" "...Do you ever sleep?") There is anxiety during Kelly's return to her house, the suspense of the bug showdown, the pathos of Rudy's final speech: all these combine with the lighter moments to balance each other like a film version of Pickapeppa sauce.

Who could have ever guessed that a Grisham novel could be so perfectly adapted to the screen?! Just try watching the "Pelican Brief" afterward for comparison. My hat is off to Coppola, his cast, and everyone else who contributed to this understated masterwork.

I have mixed feelings about The Rainmaker. It's certainly watchable, and I think when it comes to acting and how it all looks, it works. But the screenplay is a little bad in parts, and it feels like a very awkward adaptation of a novel. I'll admit, I haven't read the source material, but I'd be surprised if this was a faithful adaptation.

At a point, somewhere in the back half, the contrast between the main narrative and all the stuff happening with Claire Danes's character just gets ridiculous. Something really dramatic happens, the movie just forgets about it for 25 minutes, it's returned to, and then resolved in the most rushed scene imaginable. Then it's back to the main plot for the last 20 minutes of the movie. It's genuinely shocking writing, really - no flow, and it's just awkwardly assembled, like Coppola really didn't care once he got to the second half of writing this screenplay.

It's a shame, because otherwise, most of this works. I think there are a couple of very silly moments regarding how trials and other legal processes function, but I guess that's something you just have to accept when watching legal dramas. I know nothing about medicine, and very little about science in general, so I'm sure many movies set in hospitals or featuring scientist characters are packed with similarly frustrating things for viewers in the know about the realities of such areas.

This was really good, and I'm not usually one for the courtroom dramas but a gripping story (thanks to John Grisham) and filled with fantastic characters I genuinely liked and cared about.

Matt Damon plays newbie attorney Rudy Baylor, who after a short stint working for the ethically challenged (Mickey Rourke) joins his new partner (Danny DeVito) to take on a large insurance company (Jon Voight & Roy Scheider) who refuse to pay valid claims. Damon is young, cute and ripped here (for some reason his weight changes with every movie he makes so I felt it deserved a mention)

Anyways, the cast is fantastic and I loved that there were several story lines going on at once, all of which are interesting. This has moments of humour and honest emotion throughout even if it did head into the melodramatic a couple of times.

Watching 'Rudy' struggle through his first days in court not really knowing the protocol was pretty funny and I enjoyed Danny Glover as the judge. The storyline following Claire Danes and her abusive husband was intense (lots of glass broken) and I liked his old lady landlord Birdie, who treated Rudy like a son and the gardener.

Rudy genuinely cares about his clients and his relationship with leukemia boy was touching (in an 'Erin Brockovich' sort of way) while the inclusion of the silent grieving father, was powerful. Just a great movie I'm glad I caught. 1/28/15

I remember when "The Rainmaker" came out in November, 1997, I was thinking a lot about rain saturating soil (here in Portland, we're known for rain). Since this movie is set in the South - where rain saturates the soil all the time - it sort of worked into my thoughts. I had never heard of Matt Damon before the movie came out, but I was quite impressed by his portrayal of a novice lawyer going after an corrupt insurance company. He looks like some teenage nobody, but he knows that he has to build up the will to do what's right. I will say that Danny DeVito came across as a little silly (he has a New York accent in Memphis, and there's the scene in the hospital), but his character makes it worthwhile.

When the trial comes, one can feel every cast member's touch. Aside from Damon and DeVito, there's Jon Voight's menacing stare, Dean Stockwell as the judge, Claire Danes's waiflike touch, Mary Kay Place's sense of the baby boom entering middle age, and even Teresa Wright (in her final role) as the older generation slowly disappearing. All very impressive.

So, this may not be Francis Ford Coppola's best movie ever, but I still recommend it.

It seemed in the 90's that Hollywood was on a mission to film every book from the prolific pen of best-selling writer John Grisham. I've never read one of his books but having watched a few of the movie adaptations of his novels, I almost feel I could write one. All you need is an idealistic central lawyer, confront them with a big moral dilemma, close with a big courtroom scene and simmer but never quite bring to the boil.

Matt Damon is the youthful unsullied hero here who belies his poor-boy background to try become a solicitor but who has to compromise his moral standards in starting up with a crooked ambulance-chasing litigation practice barely one step ahead of the law. There he's paired chalk and cheese-style with seen-it-all para-legal Danny De Vito and gets involved in not one but two cases which stretch his honesty and integrity to the max, one involving a law-suit against a mega-rich private medical insurance company denying a dying leukaemia victim his due pay-out and the other a cuddly old rich granny trying to stop her grasping kinfolk from getting her money when she expires. Along the way he also somehow manages to get romantically involved with a young battered wife.

To be truthful, there's not much to get excited about here, the drama fails to grip as a thriller and the supposed feel-good sentimental climax underwhelms too.

Damon and DeVito are okay in their stereotyped parts and Jon Voight gets to roll his eyes and chew the scenery as Mr Big Bad Corporate Lawyer.

The only surprising thing about the whole movie in fact is the dull TV-movie type direction it gets from none other than Francis Ford Coppola. Either he was under strict instructions to film the book as written or he really has lost it since his 70's hey-day. This is not his finest hour by any manner of means.

The Raimaker was a _great film, adherent to the book, even to the deposition of Donny Ray Black being moved from his bedroom to the backyard and his father getting into his old Ford to drink his gin.

Of course I seldom watch a movie without reading the book first as that gives me insight into the innuendos presented,and to see how closely the movie follows the book.

For those viewers who don't like to read I _still think the movie has continuity and an easy to follow plot development.

Very good entertainment, especially if you like Matt Damon, Danny Devito, John Voight and the delight of Virginia Madsen simply being on screen.

This was one of Matt Damon's early performances that really helped separate him from Affleck in the acting department. He plays Rudy Baylor, a law school student who (with the help of Danny DeVito's character) tries to take on the bad guys of conglomerate America.

I read the novel by John Grisham, a writer who has never really impressed me very much in terms of characterization (if you'll notice all his protagonists are almost identical) but the movie has solid performances that help define everyone. Damon is impressive, and Mickey Rourke (in his third pairing with Francis Ford Coppola) turns in a short but memorable performance as a corrupt and ignorant man.

Overall this may not be great but the performances are, and it was one of Coppola's few good films from the 1990s.

Lets start at the beginning; any film based on a John Grisham book has a head start in terms of plot. This is no exception. The Rainmaker is a very good story about a newly qualified lawyer who takes on a multi-billion insurance company for the family of a young man dying of leukaemia. Exciting stuff with a pleasing if slightly simplified end, but a entertaining law-procedural plot.

Enter, the amazing acting talent of Matt Damon. He was excellent in this film, measured, quietly strong and believable up against the arrogance of his opposite number Jon Voight for the Insurance Company. Also, Danny DeVito was good, and he and Damon seemed to work well together. Some of the make up special effects were a little poor. Aside from the main characters, some of the acting wasn't deep or developed enough but were generally good but the actual production of the film was lacking something. The sound quality was bad, there seems to be pauses in the action, and some continuity and pacing issues. The film feels amateurish and low budget. Coppola, who directed, clearly wanted a grim and grey feel to the film, which I think he achieved but it didn't make it look that good. However, it is Damon and DeVito and the story that carries this film and that is what you are invested in with a John Grisham film. Definitely highly entertaining.

To me it was quite boring. However if you like courtroom movies, such a movie where the little man stands up against rich wrong companies with expensive lawyers in the courtroom.....then you will like this movie. Good cast, good acting.

Amiable yet smooth adaption of the John Grisham novel, that closely follows an inexperienced Memphis lawyer, Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon), who gets the unexpected feeling of being in the profession by taking three cases right away. The cases vary from an old woman who is unsure about what to do with some money, a savagely abused domestic victim, and a lawsuit involving a major health insurance company.

Writer-director Francis Ford Coppola and one of his writers from "Apocalypse Now", Michael Herr, handle the adaption fairly well in knowing what to keep from the story in and what to leave out. For someone who made himself a legend by adapting "The Godfather" and "Heart of Darkness", Coppola sure knows how to use a novel as the main source for creating a good tale here.

Plus, the movie has an excellent supporting cast (Danny DeVito, Jon Voight, Mary Kay Place, Claire Danes, Dean Stockwell, Virginia Madsen, Mickey Rourke, Roy Scheider, and Danny Glover) to be in the movie alongside Damon. Among the ones that come to mind, DeVito is great Deck, as a crafty (and humorous) para-lawyer who has trouble with the bar exam and helps Rudy in adjusting to the line of work, Voight's fine as the not-so-totally slimey lawyer that Rudy faces in the lawsuit, just looking at the Danes character for a second alone, is a really sad and Rourke is amusing as Brusier, the employer that Deck and Rudy desert when they find out that he's the target of a federal probe.

In conclusion, "The Rainmaker" may not be as highly memorable as "The Godfather" or "Apocalypse Now", however; it shows that Coppola still has the skills to be a great film-maker. It's nice to see someone who has been on hard times, bounce back with a good movie.

The Rainmaker (1997)

Stolid and solid, steady to the point of functional, and extremely mainstream.

That is, here we have a somewhat sensational do-gooder kind of plot, taken from the Grisham novel, and a series of complications and good guys and bad guys fill it out. It's painfully predictable, and yet you are cheering for the underdog lawyers fighting the mean insurance industry and want to see how it ends. Even though it ends the way it has to.

I love director Francis Ford Coppola's best movies. A lot. And I also wonder what goes on in his worst ones, where a personal indulgence gets in the way. Here I feel another thing kick in—mediocrity. Or fulfilling a contract. The filming is good of course, the mechanics of editing and acting are top notch. The music is a bit forced, however, and the pace is slower than necessary for the limited range of events that are shown.

Matt Damon, years before his Jason Bourne stereotyping, is a recent law school grad who is instilled (according to a plain voice-over) with left-wing idealism. He falls into a shoe-string law firm with an oversized case. Classic David and Goliath. And of course he has setbacks and shows his naiveté, but perseveres, more or less, to the end (though the end itself you need to see for itself). Damon is very good. Jon Voight as the evil opposing attorney is even better, though with a more 2-dimensional role.

What really pulls this movie into the mainstream in a kind of disappointing way is the way it is all told. It is what it is—well done but nothing more. It seems that the goal is to be convincing and entertaining. And so it is. Routinely. A simple comparison is "Anatomy of a Murder" which I guarantee Coppola saw before shooting this. The scenario is roughly similar—underdog lawyer against overpaid big shots, with a sidekick who does all the last minute investigative work. But Preminger (in this earlier film) had a whole bunch of things going for him that Coppola somehow skipped. First is an amazing rather than a decent leading actor (Jimmy Stewart). Second is a great score. Third is a plot that threw some real twists at you, including a defendant you didn't know whether to trust or not. Fourth you set it someplace really interesting, filled with quirks. And so on.

So this movie, as solid (and stolid) as it is, just comes up short again and again. Enjoyable? Yes. As such!

I'm not a John Grisham fan. I did sneak a peek at a friend's copy of "The Rainmaker", read about twenty pages filled with cliched characters, and I still can't figure out why his books sell millions. The movie version of "The Firm" was lacklustre, and I nearly nodded off during "The Pelican Brief". On the flipside, I enjoyed "A Time to Kill". So, it was with some apprehension that I tuned into "The Rainmaker" on cable. The fact that Francis Coppola directed it eased my worries a bit. "Apocalypse Now" was amazing, and the Godfather movies are classics. Coppola has a way of bringing out the best in even the most simplistic material. Matt Damon was the ideal choice to play the young, this-is-my-first-case-and-boy-am-I-scared lawyer who takes on a big insurance company. Mickey Rourke disappears too quickly as Damon's would-be mentor, but thankfully we have Danny DeVito around as a resourceful paralegal who shows Damon the ropes. There's an awkward subplot involving a battered wife (Claire Danes, unfortunately always sporting a fat lip or a black eye). Naturally, Damon feels sorry for her, and falls in love. Perhaps Grisham should have written a second book! No, let's not give him any ideas. The investigations leading to the big trial are well done, and Coppola does a great job setting up the courtroom battle. We can't help rooting for Damon as he fights to prove the insurance company's failure to pay a claim resulted in the death of a young man. It's not exactly "The Verdict". That movie was far more complex (and featured a superb performance from Paul Newman). Still, "The Rainmaker" delivers. And, I'm actually looking forward to seeing "The Chamber." Note to Hollywood: Why not give Grisham a rest, and make more movies from Scott Turow's novels? Just a thought.

After making his master pieces ("The godfather I and II" and "Apocalypse now") between 1972 and 1979, Francis Ford Coppola never had the same success with other movie. He directed near a dozen of films in the 80's and 90's, and probably the most acclaimed were "The cotton club" (1984), 'The godfather III" (1990) and his adaptation of Bram Stroker's novel "Dracula" (1992). In 1997 he repeated a formula well known by him: adapt a novel to the big screen. He chose a story about a young lawyer, Rudy Baylor (fairly interpreted by Matt Damon) and his first experiences in the law world. There are four topics I would like to talk about this film, "The rainmaker" (1997). (1) Direction by Coppola. As a filmmaker, he proved that he is still capable of telling stories combining humor, drama and deep emotions. Coppola is very skillful developing his characters and has the ability to select a good cast to work with. Besides Damon (who is OK in his role), the director selected professional and experienced actors to support secondary roles. Mickey Rourke (as the folkloric Bruiser Stone), John Voight (as the big firm partner, Leo Drummond), Dany Glover (as the sympathetic judge), Danny Devito (excellent performance as the almost-lawyer Deck Shifflett) and even in minor roles was supported by good actors like Roy Scheider (Great Benefit CEO), Dean Stockwell (as the corrupt and hard smoker judge Hale) and Virginia Madsen (Jackie Lemanczyk). Other good thing about the director is his ability to move the characters to the exact point where they deliver a solid and convincing acting performance, including young actors in main roles, like Damon, Clare Danes (as the beaten wife) and Johny Withworth (as the young character dying of leukemia). As I mentioned in the title, Coppola is still a good director. (2) The criticism against two major American institutions: lawyers and insurance companies. As always, the poor and low income population is the affected. During the movie we can see what reality is along the "land of opportunities": big institutions and firms don't care about the individuals but for money. Individuals are only the means to get income, nothing more. There are interesting procedures used by the insurance institutions to get the majority of the income with the minimal expense (related with claims and reimbursements). In the other hand, lawyers are radicalized: since the young and idealistic attorney through the experienced and money oriented firm partner. Every lawyer in the movie represents a kind of attorney and the different believes. (3) Stories developed. During the film we follow at least four different sub-plots: the young wife beaten by her husband, the great trial against the insurance company, the tragic tale about a young man dying of leukemia and the old lady and her will. Rudy Baylor is personally involved in the different stories and we are moving from drama to romance, from tragedy to humor. Good combination and balance. (4) Finally, I would like to comment about Danny De Vito's role. With no doubt, is the best developed character of all. He is the responsible of most of the humoristic scenes but at the same time is the key element. He has a lot of connections, experience and non-sensibility manners to get what he wanted. De Vito developed his role with energy and comedy. He is the one that stole the movie for him self.

Hope that Coppola has the opportunity to direct a few more movies like this. If well, "The Rainmaker" is not his best film by far, the picture is a good example of what he is still capable to do. I recommend this picture to see it, discuss it and have a good time.

I just re read the novel for the third time when i decided to see the movie. And man was i disappointed,Francis Ford Coppola is a great director but this isn't one of his greatest works... What i didn't like about the movie is how the case is presented and the things revolving around it... In the book there are more facts about the research about the case how hard it was to get all the facts, evidence and so on, in the movie they just appear seemingly out of nowhere... They leave out too much that is relevant to the story.

Anyway i say read the book first and then see the film or don't see it at all... 5/10