The Rains of Ranchipur

1955 "Theirs was the great sin that even the great rains could not wash away!"
5.8| 1h44m| en
Details

India. The spoilt and stubborn Edwina Esketh, comes to a small town with her husband. She falls in love with an indian doctor, Dr. Safti. She also meets an old friend of hers, the alcoholic Tom Ransome. An awful earthquake is followed by days of rain.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Micitype Pretty Good
Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.
Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
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.
jotix100 The second retelling of Louis Bromfield's novel was clearly a vehicle for its star, Lana Turner in a Twentieth Century Fox production after she had left her glory days at MGM. Directed by Jean Negulesco with a screen treatment by Merle Miller, the 1955 film showed recently on a classic channel.The story combines equal parts of romance and tragedy. In those days the special effects were not exactly the same as what can be achieved with computers and new techniques. The best thing in the film is the sequence of the earthquake after weeks of unending torrential rains. The rest of the story deals with Edwina, a rich woman, who can pick and discard men as she sees fit, which is the case with the man one first sees her with, Lord Esketh.It does not take long after she arrives in Ranchipur to spot the handsome Indian Dr. Safti, with whom she falls in love, creating a scandal in the local society, ruled with an iron fist by the Maharani, a no nonsense woman who knows Edwina is no good for the hunky doctor. Then there is the drunk expatriate Tom Ransome, who is drinking himself to oblivion among the higher classes and gets the eye of Fern Simon, an impressionable young woman. Everything is shattered by the arrival of the earthquake and the breaking of the dam over the river that wreaks havoc among the poor native population.The result was a glossy picture that looks sadly dated, The performances are what one expect of this cast. Mr. Negulesco's direction does not bring anything new to the story. Watch it as a curiosity of that era.
angelinastarr You know, some movies are great and others tank..... This one definitely tanked at my house.My mother and I watched this late one night thinking that it would be interesting because it was a movie starring Richard Burton right when his career was just taking off.WRONG!!!! Not only did this movie NOT help his career take off, but could have torpedoed it from the bomb that this movie was.Richard Burton stars in this movie as an Indian doctor who returns to his "roots" by doctoring the sick and needy.Lana Turner also appears as a wealthy American socialite (very social indeed) married to Michael Rennie who, I am assuming, is of English nobility. They happen to be in India as the guests of the Maharani (female version of the Maharaja, a big person in Indian society)I really don't need to go into detail about how Lana Turner and Richard Burton's characters get together, but I can assure you that they do. Michael Rennie warns the Doctor about his wife, basically saying, "Ya know, I have an airhead of a wife who likes to sleep with anything that remotely resembles even a coat rack, but you can still sleep with her and we can all be friends in the end"A few "action" scenes have their cheesy moments. In one scene, Michael Rennie is on a tiger hunt in India when all of a sudden a tiger (an actor wrapped in a tiger rug) flies across the screen and lands on him as he attempts to kill it, thus immobilizing him for a good part of the movie, giving Turner and Burton their chance to frolic with each other in some places.Another is when "The Rains" (read: killer monsoon) come and knock off the dams and bridges and wash out the poorhouse sections of the town. It goes for the same as the earthquake.The dialogue just flat lines throughout the movie. Towards the end, Turner and Burton's white, hot passion for each other cools way down with the help of "The Rains". Turner decides to be shallow when Burton tries to explain why he "couldn't come to her in her hour of need" Basically, it's like watching two elementary school kids in a little romance when all of a sudden, the girl gets mad at the boy for not playing with her on the swing set and decides to break up with him just because the boy missed one day of swing set time. Petty romances here, people.The ending was even bad. The audience expects one thing, and just the total opposite happens. I felt that the director or the scriptwriter needed some major adjustments to their craft in this movie.However, the movie was appropriately titled. The Rains of Ranchipur washed out my evening. I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I have to give this movie a -2 out of 1-10. It was that bad.
Greg Couture Oh, dear! One of my favorite mid-Fifties Twentieth-Century Fox CinemaScopuses was nearly ruined for me a few years back when Bette Midler released her comedy album, "Mud WILL Be Flung, Tonight!" in which she does an elaborate routine in her character as "Soph" in bed with her boyfriend, "Ernie" who excuses himself to use the loo. When she hears certain sounds emanating from the bathroom, upon his return to the boudoir she demands: "Ernie, what the hell was that?!?" and he advises: "Soph, those were the Rains of Raunch-I-Poor!!" The routine goes on to appropriate a few other famous movie titles like "The Snows of Kilimanjaro," "The Winds of Krakatoa" (i.e., "Krakatoa, East of Java")...well, you get the idea, I would guess!Anyway, Ms. Midler, no respecter of popular culture when it comes to her usually successful attempts at camp humor in her standup comedy routines, probably enjoyed this elaborate remake as much as I did, if she's ever seen it. 20th-Century Fox assembled a nicely balanced cast and assigned some top-flight professionals to give the whole thing the kind of gloss that's pretty much a thing of the past now. Of special note are the Academy Award-nominated special effects, rather convincing when I saw this on a big CinemaScope screen; some very nice use of DeLuxe Color (everyone looks handsome indeed, especially Miss Turner); and Hugo Friedhofer's tasteful score. (He was a composer who always successfully resisted producers' attempts to add music to an excessively gloppy extent and he was often astute in adding an exotic touch, where appropriate, with just a few bars of orchestration.) By the way I don't think, contrary to another comment here, that the production sent a second unit to Pakistan or anywhere outside of California. I might be wrong, since the opening sequence with Lord and Lady Esketh arriving by train into a bustling Indian metropolis is a terrific example of Hollywood fakery if it's not the real thing. There's one brief shot, however, where a limousine is seen turning into the supposed gates of the Maharani's compound and it is unmistakably the West Gate of Bel-Air, one of West Los Angeles' poshest subdivisions.