Last night I came across a disc I had called 'Natural Disasters.' One film was THE RAINS CAME, and another one was THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR.As I watched these films, I read user reviews on the IMDb and various message board comments about both the original, starring Tyrone Power, Myrna Loy and George Brent, plus the remake with Richard Burton, Lana Turner and Fred MacMurray. The Power version currently has an overall user rating of 7.0, whereas the Burton version has a 5.9. I disagree with those scores. I personally rated the Power showcase a 6, and the Burton effort a 9. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons.First, it is more than the casting, though the casting and quality of acting does matter quite a bit. I have never been a fan of Tyrone Power's acting, and while I don't entirely dislike his work, it certainly pales by comparison with the level of excellence Richard Burton brings to the screen in any role. Probably a real Indian actor should have been cast, and in my view, this property is ripe for another remake so they can get that part right. In the 1955 offering, which is in Technicolor, we see that Burton is more like a Welshman with a tan-- almost implying the character is a half-breed, not a full-blooded Indian. If Fox was going to 'go there' with the interracial storyline more than in the first production, they couldn't make him too dark, I suppose. Continuing with the acting, I think Lana Turner is much better (though slightly miscast) as Lady Edwina. Why do I say this? Well, Myrna Loy definitely comes across as a lady, and Lana does seem by comparison to have the morals of gutter trash in this story-- but Lana oozes a lot more passion. We get the feeling she is rather desperate for real and lasting love, believing Dr. Safti can give it to her. Myrna just seems too put together emotionally and a little too brittle to be affected this way. Also, when the conflicts come to the surface between Edwina and the Maharani, we can see the Indian woman's points more clearly in the remake that maybe Edwina is poison for Dr. Softi. Also, I tend to like the secondary love story performers better in the remake. Fred MacMurray does a convincing job as a self-loathing drunk, and when he reaches redemption later in the story, his tenderness towards Joan Caulfield seems a lot more realistic. Like they are equals despite the age difference. I felt like MacMurray was probably tapping into his own redeeming relationship with his younger wife June Haver when he played those scenes. In the other picture, George Brent just comes across smarmy and he still treats Brenda Joyce like a kid at the end, who can't get over her schoolgirl crush on him-- not at all signifying any type of equality or character growth.As for the Maharani, I love Madame Ouspenskaya in the original despite her obvious Russian ethnicity. She seems very authoritative during the flood sequence. But Eugenie Leontovich is better I think in the remake. Leontovich is not afraid to tap into the more shrewish aspects of the character and fight Edwina no matter how ruthlessly. Ironically, I think Leontovich seems to be channeling Ouspenskaya's shrew in DODSWORTH.Now that I've addressed casting and performances, I want to talk about dialogue and special effects. The dialogue in the original is a little too stiff. A lot of it seems interchangeable, like it doesn't matter who is speaking it, because it is all coming from a third-person screen writing point of view. But in the remake the dialogue is much more personalized. The lines the characters utter seem more idiosyncratic and less archetypical. Meanwhile, the use of Cinemascope helps aid the special effects extravaganza in the remake in ways that make the action in the first one seem cropped or chopped off. I do agree that the splitting of the earth and the bursting of the dam in the first film were done very well and deserved at least an Oscar nomination (not a win over GONE WITH THE WIND's burning of Atlanta sequence). But the collapse of the bridge is better in the remake, because even though they may be using models in some shots, we see people losing their lives and the danger is much more apparent. There are many other things I could cite as examples regarding why I feel the second film is better than the original. But I will end for now with a comment about the overall sweeping nature of the film. The remake seems more epic to me, and much more ambiguous. When Lana rides off with Michael Rennie at the end, we know that this is not a real happy ending. She will wind up like Vivien Leigh in THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE. There will be other men behind her husband's back, young gigolos and hangers on that she will spoil to keep her company. She will always love Dr. Softi but continue to be punished for her immoral ways by being stuck in a loveless marriage with Rennie and forever denied her true Indian soul mate. As they drive off, and the words 'The End' flash over the screen, you know that it truly is the end of her happiness. MacMurray and Caulfield have the happy ending here, but not any of the other main characters. And back inside the palace, the Maharani, who is a twisted psychological mess of feminine success, takes comfort in having driven the so-called lady back to the gutter. It's a drama, a tragedy of epic proportions-- a wholly unnatural disaster.

With the exception of a mid-film earthquake and flood, there is really nothing to recommend here. Directed by Jean Negulesco in the blandest way imaginable. Lana Turner is an amoral "lady" married to "lord" Michael Rennie. Visting Ranchipur, she falls in love with Hindu doctor Richard Burton(!). Turner & Rennie have a lot of nasty arguments and Burton spouts a lot of corny philosophy. They're all terrible. Turner, who smokes in EVERY scene, looks stunning, and gives a very bad performance. Burton is dreadful with turban and tan. Surely he was contractually obligated to 20th Century Fox to appear in this potboiler. Fred MacMurray is wasted as Turner's old friend and de facto Greek chorus. Rennie is shuffled off during the film's first half. Eugenie Leontovich adds some color as the local Maharani but beyond that, this movie is a dog. Director Negulesco, who made some really good movies in the 1940s (ROAD HOUSE, JOHNNY BELINDA) put out some of the most ridiculous soap operas of the 1950s (THE BEST OF EVERYTHING, WOMAN'S WORLD), and this is surely his worst.

This wide-screen romance yarn showcases the lovely Lana Turner as a wealthy and restless socialite who becomes smitten with a handsome native doctor during a trip to India. This is the main thread of the film although there are other sub-plots at work here. Richard Burton is good as the object of Turner's affections and Eugenie Leontovich is regal as the Maharani who raised Burton from childhood. This sage queen watches the blossoming romance with cold displeasure, deeply jealous of Turner's hold on him. Fred MacMurray is involved in another clincher with Joan Caulfield that doesn't ring true and adds very little to the main story. Michael Rennie has a thankless role as Turner's husband, whom she keeps at arms's length throughout the movie. The ensuing monsoons, flooding and earthquake in the region are awesome and terrible in their destruction, the special effects of which are very good. Turner is clothed in a first-class wardrobe and the film's sets reflect the lavish production. Milton Krasner's camera and Hugo Friedhofer's exotic music score are first-rate.

Lana Turnmer is Lady Edwina Esketh, a beautiful, wealthy, and attractive man-hunting, the sort that finds it expedient to take her husband along on her wanderings... When the married couple arrive in Ranchipur as guests of the Maharani, they meet Dr. Safti, a young Hindu who is the ruler's protégé and in whom the Maharani has recognized the greatness that will be all-important to her country... Edwina, however, decides then and there that she must add this young man to her 'collection.'The Maharani does, of course, try to prevent the doctor from falling in love with Edwina, whose reputation as an amoral woman has preceded her to India... But as he becomes harder to get, Edwina becomes more and more determined to have him and, out of her yearning, there is born to her the first stirrings of genuine emotion... Soon, Dr. Safti admits his love for her and tells the woman he is prepared to go away with her...But a severe 'Mansoon' intervened, and the rains came to Ranchipur, followed by a devastating earthquake that destroys most of the bridges, schools and buildings, and smashes the structure of a dam promising for another catastrophe...Interwoven with all this was a secondary love story concerning a hard-drinking, disillusioned American engineer named Tom Ransome (Fred MacMurray), who wins back his self-respect as well as the love of Fern Simon (Joan Caulfield), a missionary's daughter attracted to him with the confident expectation to accomplish something good in her life...Lady Esketh, whose character is established in the film's first five minutes when her husband (Michael Rennie) calls her 'greedy,' 'selfish,' 'decadent,' and 'corrupt' all in one breath, is probably the most determined, straightforward femme fatale the star has ever essayed on the screen... "I just look at what I want," she tells the Hindu doctor... Her pretty dangerous character basically matches that of Doña Sol (Rita Hayworth) in "Blood and Sand." Eugenie Leontovich portrays with strong bravura style the 'demanding' Maharani who raised Dr. Safti as an honest man faithful to his duty, to his people, and his country... This truly remarkable woman proves not selfish for herself but a lot for Ranchipur...The film's final scene—a juicy, climactic confrontation between Lady Esketh and the Maharani—gives Lana the opportunity to utter that attention-getting line: "I don't give a damn!" We have heard these words in the climax of the all-time movie classic when Rhett Butler used it to tell off Scarlett O'Hara sixteen years earlier...Based on Louis Bromfield Novel, and with an excellent cast, "Rains of Ranchipur" is a tedious remake of Clarence Brown's "The Rains Came." Milton Krasner's photography in CinemaScope and DeLuxe Color is excessively flattering, and Lana Turner looks gorgeous in her elegant gowns, and Richard Burton specially handsome in the turban...