This is the sixth big screen adaption of yet another John Grisham novel, and like the last film, "The Chamber," this is one of his weaker stories that will most likely also have only a lukewarm run at the box office. Using the standard Grisham plot device of an idealistic (and usually) young lawyer who runs into big competition yet still manages to be victorious, this film has all of the elements needed to be successful. The plot, while not overly special, is competent and will have a comfy, well worn feel for Grisham fans. It features a varied and quite talented cast, along with an Academy Award winning producer (actor Michael Douglas) and an Oscar winning director (Francis Ford Coppola).
So why isn't this a great movie? The fault lies mainly with the story. While it has an okay plot, there's just not enough there to stimulate audiences that have already grown accustomed to so many of Grisham's similarly written stories. Whereas "The Firm" (still the best Grisham adaption) had an increasingly ominous law firm that endangered the main character's life, and "A Time to Kill" had a gut wrenching story about racism, this one deals with a corrupt health insurance company. While we've all had our run-ins with bad insurance, it doesn't make for the best cinematic villainous force.
Played more like an episode of nearly any TV legal drama, there's nothing special to this story. After a few key pieces of evidence are introduced, there's also not much doubt as to how the case will end (unless the jury is filled with complete idiots, but the movie's not about that). Additionally, a subplot involving spousal abuse -- while troubling -- doesn't add anything to the story and likewise has been examined countless times in numerous made-for-TV movies.
Part of the movie's listlessness also lies with Coppola's direction. Usually a great director with tremendous, award-winning films (the "Godfather" movies, "Apocalypse Now," etc...) and highly stylized features ("Bram Stoker's Dracula," "Tucker") under his belt, this is now his second lame movie in a row (the first being "Jack" with Robin Williams). Not only does the film lack the Coppola "feel," but he commits the cardinal cinema sin by resorting to voice-over narration and the heavy use of sappy, melodramatic music to induce the mood.
These are the sorts of things that novice film makers employ and while the voice over is often funny and isn't too intrusive, the overuse of the soap opera-ish music is so bad it's nearly campy. In an early scene with Rudy and Kelly in a hospital cafeteria, the music swings back and forth between serious and sappy as their topic of conversation changes, creating what one can only hope was an unintentionally melodramatic scene. Fortunately the film's second half loses much of that music, but the damage has already been done.
Still, the film manages to survive, and that's mainly due to the many decent performances. Like many of the main characters in the later Grisham adaptions (Matthew McConaughey in "A Time to Kill," Chris O'Donnell in "The Chamber"), the film makers chose a relatively unknown or non lead actor to head up the cast, and Matt Damon does a fine job with his turn. He perfectly plays the determined, but overwhelmed lawyer, and creates an occasionally fumbling character that everyone can root for. Claire Danes isn't given much to do beyond the standard material in her battered wife role, and Jon Voight adds yet another unscrupulous villain to his resume by playing the corrupt attorney.
Faring much better is Danny Glover as a new judge who cuts Drummond little slack (the first scene involving that is lots of fun) and Danny DeVito as Rudy's assistant. Given many of the better lines and scenes in the film, DeVito is a delight to watch (as usual). The film's also loaded up with well-known actors in smaller roles such as Roy Scheider, Dean Stockwell, Mickey Rourke, Randy Travis, and Andrew Shue who's nearly unrecognizable as the abusive husband.
Yet like a disaster film with its all-star cast, the bevy of talented actors can't circumvent a lackluster plot. Not that it's as bad as most disaster movies, but one would expect something much more special, what with the cast and the noted director and producer's involvement. It all falls back to the standard issue plot, and also to the fact that the main character's intentions, though noble, are unrealistic.
While Rudy's efforts dramatically work, it's doubtful this inexperienced lawyer -- who wants the best for the family and to bring down the insurance company -- would tackle the case himself. He obviously would have found someone else to do it, or at least to guide him through the motions. Of course that would have changed this movie's thrust, so we'll accept that he continues with it. Yet other than his strong beliefs, there's not enough impetus for him to do so. His lack of knowledge of courtroom procedure makes for an interesting dilemma, but again it's not realistic. Being an intelligent recent law school graduate, he would have known that he was not representing his client in the best way possible.
What's most blatantly missing -- and sorely needed -- is having the main character find some clever way to succeed despite the odds (think of Tom Cruise's character in "The Firm"). Instead of such crowd pleasing events, things simply fall into Rudy's lap, and he wins despite himself and his lack of experience. While things are set up as purely black and white and good vs. bad -- all of which makes it easy for the audience to get behind the protagonist and root against the insurance company -- we want to see the hero actively be clever enough to get around the obstacles and win the case. Here, it just comes too easy.
Sure, we're somewhat nitpicking and it's the story that troubles us the most. Having not read the original novel, I can't say whether they changed the story (as they did in "The Firm" and others), but it doesn't really make a difference whether it's the fault of Grisham or the film makers. Don't get us wrong -- the film isn't horrible by any means and it's certainly easy enough to sit through with the decent performances carrying us past the uninspired plot. Still, the final result is that it comes across more as a good made for TV movie -- except with a more stellar cast -- instead of what you'd expect on the big screen. If you didn't know better, you'd never guess that a director like Coppola was behind it.
The big question is whether the film will continue the downward trend of diminishing box office returns for Grisham adaptions. While the next to last made film, "A Time to Kill" may or may not have been an aberration, the trend has been a continuous decline from "The Firm's" more than $150 million domestic gross, to "The Chamber's" less than $15 million take. Without a well- known lead, and sporting a less than interesting sounding plot, this film may need a "rainmaker" of its own to survive. Our prediction is for a cloudy, but dry future for this movie. We give "The Rainmaker" a 5 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)