Opiniones de usuarios

In the year 2042 a young college student is arrested with her mother under a new law charging them with 'fetal kidnapping', after flying to Sweden to terminate the girl's pregnancy. The set up might suggest nothing more than a thinly veiled pro-choice propaganda lecture, but the remarkably even-handed approach to a volatile subject helps make it one of the more provocative dramas in quite a while. First-time writer director Gary Bennett set himself a demanding task by designing the film to look like a documentary-in-progress, with the issues set forth through candid interviews with family, friends, lawyers, legislators, and so forth. The challenge was to write talking-head monologues that had to sound unscripted, and direct a cast of recognizable faces to look as unrehearsed as possible. The ominous music cues don't suit the mock-documentary format, and some of the pro-life fundamentalists are a little too unspeakably inhuman, but for the most part the film is a fascinating blend of science fiction with social fact, offering a compelling speculation into an all-too plausible near-future scenario.

As a disclaimer, I should note that I am a friend of the director, who, by the way, is a wonderful person and very fun to work with. His film, however, has it's issues. The soundtrack is really terrible, and the all-interview, talking-heads format is limiting. These things, however, are obviously the result of a very small budget, not just bad filmmaking. The story was what impressed me, specifically the way Bennett describes the series of small changes in the political and religious arenas that could very plausibly lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately the film was released right after Clinton was elected, and people were feeling very comfortable and safe under a new, liberal administration. I think the purpose of _Rain Without Thunder_ is not "preach to the choir" but rather to keep the choir from growing complacent. And even if you're unimpressed with the plot, it's lots of fun to spot now-stars like Ming-Na and Steve Zahn (not to mention that woman from the Nicorette ads).

RAIN WITHOUT THUNDER (dir. Gary Bennett) The title of the film refers to a quote by Frederick Douglass in which he postulates that to retain freedom without a certain degree of vigilance is like 'rain without thunder'. The Abortion Dilemma is the controversial subject of this rather stolid film. The movie is set in the year 2042, and employs an interview structure in which various 'talking heads' are given time to explore their points of view, and there is no 'action' in the usual sense of the term. We learn through the interviews that in this future, Women's Rights have been seriously eroded, and a tenacious female district attorney is able to apply a new law which allows the mother to be prosecuted for 'kidnapping' the fetus after she has obtained an abortion. However, It would seem to me that if Abortion was so aberrant in this future time, then it would be treated as 'Murder', and the mother would be tried and executed for a capital crime. Although the film touches on numerous interesting points, the lame presentation makes the film almost painful to watch.

Sure, this film, like "Bob Roberts" and some others I could name, indulges in a bit of preaching-to-the-choir... But, then, one could argue that the drivel they peddle on CBN and those inane Tim LaHaye books do the exact same thing, for the Church Lady Crowd. What's truly scary about this film isn't its absurdity, but rather its plausibility- some of this would doubtless become reality if certain forces and groups in our society had their way. Our modern world is full of examples of once relatively progressive, modern secular states that fell into extreme repression at the hands of religious fanatics. Afghanistan is only the most blatant, recent example. For those who are "pro-life", but maybe haven't thought through the full implications of enshrining their agenda into law, I would think this film raises some pretty pertinent questions, like- would an IUD, which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, be considered a "murder weapon"? Will women have to be locked up to insure that they don't commit "crimes" against their fetuses? Just how will the legal apparatus deal with regulating the sex lives and reproductive systems of millions of Americans? It's all well and good to talk about "saving the babies", but these questions will invariably come up if the radical right is able to implement it's plan of making abortion (and, for some "pro-life" groups, all forms of birth control) a crime. Everyone should see this movie. It's not a "liberal's nightmare", it's the nightmare of everyone who doesn't want Big Brother hanging out in their bodies and bedrooms.

All abortion debate hysterics aside, this movie is awful. The acting makes you think the body snatcher pods got to all the actors before they filmed this, or maybe they passed out horse tranquilizers before filming. It's wooden and like they are being fed their lines as they recite them. Just awful acting, even from the few pros in this waste of celluloid.

On top of that the docudrama scene jumping is just another distraction. Maybe the director thought he could save the uninspired acting by jumping between mediocre monologues? It didn't work.

I made it through 30 minutes of this really bad movie before I gave up and watched an old western rerun. The horses in the western were better actors than the people in this movie.

Avoid at all costs unless you are rabidly pro abortion and want to reaffirm that the anti abortion people want to turn you into a really bad actor in gray coveralls to punish you for killing the unborn.

At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir.

I caught this movie by chance because the TV was on . . . knew nothing about it. I saw the "2042 A.D." notation at the beginning and I decided to watch it since I like science fiction.

Only a few minutes in, the film revealed its pro-choice propagandist objective. Since I pay close attention to social issues in politics, I continued to watch. At the first commercial break I read reviews written at the time of its release, which mostly remarked that it was the most boring 85 minutes a person could experience.

However, now after more than twenty years, the film is quite interesting -- not for its quality but for its "hits and misses" at predicting the future. For example, there is mention of economic expansion through the end of the twentieth century, followed by a pull-back causing Americans to believe that the nation needed to be reclaimed -- apparently by criminalizing abortion. The writer correctly predicted the pro-life trend in America for the next few decades, but attributed it to the wrong reasons. In reality, ever since 1973, science has provided ever-increasing evidence that life begins too soon after fertilization for most Americans to support abortion on demand even at ever-decreasing gestation periods.

A more reasoned prediction would be that IF the unborn in America were defined as persons with the constitutional right to life (and thus Roe v. Wade overturned), it would happen BECAUSE society as a whole gravitated in the same direction (as opposed to increased polarization), and thus the extent of the punishment for illegal abortion would be less controversial than this film presents.

Although abortion advocates may see the film as showing both pro-choice and pro-life viewpoints, I could find only one instance of a pro-life message: A Catholic priest describes the gruesome details of tearing a fetus limb-from-limb in the womb or alternatively burning it to death with chemicals. Otherwise, the film is 100% pro-choice and anti-Christian.

The writer's prediction concerning feminism (and male/female relations) was far from the mark, at least for the first 20 years after release of the film. Certainly feminist advocacy has shifted since 1992, but to predict that women would lose so-called rights and societal stature was ridiculous -- apparently it was presented as an extreme claim in order to prompt a reaction.

this is a movie everybody who's even remotely interested in abortion should see, especially male persons. the actors are brilliant (I've never seen Jeff Daniels in a movie like this...) and the story is, though filmed with modest means, very compelling, even exciting. the story takes place in a future where abortion is illegal in the USA. a young women who's pregnant goes to sweden in order to abort her baby and gets convicted for her abortion when she goes back to the states. the movie's filmed in an interesting way. it's mostly made of short scenes where the people involved directly or indirectly in the story talk about their experiences and thoughts and what has happened and why they think it has happened to a female reporter.

This seems to be a series of interviews depicting a dystopic future where abortion has been criminalized.

The makers of this film have created a future where not only is abortion and birth control illegal in every state,but women are prosecuted for murder and sent away to serve long prison sentences.In other words,this film is every liberals worst nightmare!The political agenda is so heavy-handed here and the style of the film is so low-key that it just loses steam pretty quickly.Regardless of which side of the fence you're on,I'd recommend skipping it.

I think that most of the people who don't like this movie don't know a little bit of the background regarding one reference - Margaret Atwood's book (and movie) The Handmaid's Tale. Notice that Linda Hunt's character is from the Atwood society. Without that reference, I'm not sure everyone can understand the full weight of this film.

Moreover, I think anyone who wants to really know if this film has a basis in reality should just look at what's happening (slowly, but apparently surely) in the USA regarding abortion laws today. Yes, this could happen in the USA and that makes it the most scary movie I've ever seen.

A must-see for anyone who is interested in abortion issues (although pro-lifers will certainly call it bunk).

A very thought-provoking film, no matter which side of the abortion issue you fall on. Well done, capable handling of a sensitive topic. The title is from a Frederick Douglass quote : If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

A pro-choicers nightmare, an anti-choicers wetdream! This is a film for everyone. It's very slow, so if you're looking for explosions, gun fights, car chases, etc, just move on. If however, you don't mind a film that is a fake documentary that makes you think, this is it. As a pro-choice person, it reminds me that the fight will NEVER be over. To the anti-choice, it gives them a happy glimpse into the future they are trying to create. Of course, this won't be good enough for the h4rDk0r3 extremists who think abortionists and women who have abortions should be put to death, but I'm certain they'd still find it entertaining and would enjoy sneering at the comments on womens rights. - This movie made me sad. One of my mothers cousins was unable to ever have children because of a botched illegal abortion she had while young. She is lucky she didn't die... I hope to never return to those days. - YMMV, but I loved it. Of course, I have unusual tastes...

I just saw (2013 Aug 4) this film on broadcast TV so it may have been trimmed. I liked the way the film is portrayed as a documentary. I read some early reviews and did not see the production problems described.

The writer did not really push their leaning toward pro-life or pro-abortion, I felt there seemed to be more pro-abortion persons "interviewed". I think the pro-life side was not well represented, maybe because today (15 years later) we know more about women's mental and physical health after abortion. Today the Catholic church doesn't want to persecute but to show a true love for life.

Mike L.

This movie could have been an interesting look at the abortion debate, however what you get is a one-sided movie that is meant to provoke paranoia.

The movie over-indulges in perhaps one of my biggest pet peeves -- instead of letting me decide how I feel about a character and their views, it telegraphs what I'm supposed to feel, which is okay when characters are given dimension, however these characters are all pretty one-sided -- the pro-choice characters are portrayed as good but victimized people, while the pro-life side is portrayed as ominous, evil, vindictive and manipulative. No dimensions, no shades of gray, just black and white, pro-choice good and pro-life bad.

Let me add one caveat, I am not pro-life and my feelings on this movie are not based on my feelings about abortion. I would have felt the same if the movie had reversed the roles and made the pro-choice people "evil", much like you see on TBN or the like...

Any right wing woman who is against abortion should be tied to a chair, have her eyelids taped back and made to watch this movie.

Firstly in 1992, when this film was made, and today, the US has and does give MORE rights to women when it comes to abortion than Sweden does. Yet this bizarre film has the protagonist going to Sweden to get an abortion.

Newsflash: in Europe people LEAVE Sweden to get abortions. today and for decades in Sweden after 18 weeks women cannot have an "at will" abortion, there must be a threat to the woman's health. In the US the average is 20-22 weeks.