By the 1990s, expecting masterpieces from Francis Ford Coppola was no longer realistic. The era of his greatest triumphs—films like The Godfather (1972), The Godfather Part II (1974), and Apocalypse Now (1979)—had passed, and the director seemed to have lost the magical spark that had made him one of the leading visionaries of New Hollywood. By the early 1990s, Coppola was increasingly associated with commercial projects that, while showcasing his professionalism, couldn’t match the depth or innovation of his earlier work. Among these films was the legal thriller The Rainmaker (1997), an adaptation of John Grisham’s novel The Rainmaker. Despite its solid direction and compelling performances, the film faded into obscurity, failing to achieve the cult status of other Grisham adaptations in either the United States or, surprisingly, in post-Soviet countries. Why did The Rainmaker, widely regarded by both Grisham himself and many critics as the best adaptation of his work, fail to reach the same level of popularity as, say, The Pelican Brief (1993), directed by Alan J. Pakula? The answer lies in a combination of factors: from differences in the source novels and their cinematic interpretations to the cultural and social contexts that shaped the film’s reception. By the time The Rainmaker was released, Francis Ford Coppola was in a challenging position. After the financial failures of ambitious projects like One from the Heart (1982) and The Cotton Club (1984), the director was forced to take on more commercial projects to sustain his production company, American Zoetrope. In the 1990s, he directed films such as The Godfather Part III (1990), which received mixed reviews, and Dracula (1992), a commercial success but critically divisive. The Rainmaker marked a return to more grounded, narrative-driven projects where Coppola could showcase his craftsmanship without needing to reinvent the wheel. The choice of John Grisham’s novel was no accident: in the 1990s, Grisham was at the height of his popularity, with his legal thrillers selling millions of copies and their adaptations, such as The Firm (1993) by Sydney Pollack and The Pelican Brief, becoming box-office hits. The Rainmaker (1994), one of Grisham’s lesser-known novels, was an ideal fit for Coppola, who had always been drawn to stories about the little guy taking on the system. The plot centers on Rudy Baylor, a young lawyer fresh out of law school, trying to make his way in the cutthroat world of corporate America. His first major case is a lawsuit against an insurance company that refused to cover treatment for a terminally ill young man, Donny Ray Black. The novel, like many of Grisham’s works, hinges on the drama of a courtroom battle, but unlike more intricate novels like The Pelican Brief, The Rainmaker emphasizes social critique over convoluted conspiracies. Coppola, known for his ability to transform literary works into cinematic tapestries, saw in this material an opportunity to tell a story about morality, justice, and human dignity. Filming for The Rainmaker took place in Memphis, Tennessee, which allowed Coppola to create an authentic atmosphere of the American South. Memphis, with its stark contrasts between wealth and poverty, provided the perfect backdrop for a story about inequality and the fight for justice. Coppola, as always, paid close attention to the visual elements, collaborating with cinematographer John Toll, whose work infused the film with warm, almost nostalgic tones that contrasted with the grim theme of corporate greed. The cast of The Rainmaker was one of the film’s strongest assets. The lead role of Rudy Baylor was played by Matt Damon, who, at the time, was not yet a global star but had already garnered attention for roles in School Ties (1992) and Courage Under Fire (1996). Damon brought sincerity and vulnerability to Rudy, making him a relatable everyman hero. His co-stars included heavyweights like Jon Voight as the cynical insurance company lawyer Leo Drummond and Danny DeVito as Rudy’s partner, Deck Shifflet, a less-than-successful but charismatic attorney. Supporting roles were filled by Claire Danes, Mary Kay Place, and Mickey Rourke, whose appearance as the shady lawyer Bruiser Stone became one of the film’s most memorable moments. This stellar ensemble, under Coppola’s direction, created compelling chemistry that made the courtroom scenes gripping and the human dramas poignant. The Rainmaker is, at its core, a classic David-versus-Goliath story, with a young, inexperienced lawyer taking on a powerful insurance corporation. The film unabashedly critiques the capitalist system, portraying insurance companies as soulless machines profiting from the suffering of ordinary people. In this sense, The Rainmaker can be seen as an overtly leftist film, which may have contributed to its lesser popularity compared to other Grisham adaptations. While The Pelican Brief or The Firm offered audiences thrilling conspiracies and intricate plots, The Rainmaker focuses on a moral and ethical dilemma: can one person, armed only with the truth, defeat a system designed to protect the wealthy and powerful? This straightforward ideological stance may have alienated some viewers, particularly in the United States, where the 1990s were dominated by neoliberal rhetoric celebrating the free market. However, for Coppola, whose films often tackled issues of social justice (The Conversation, The Godfather), this theme was a natural fit. He didn’t merely adapt Grisham’s novel but infused it with his own directorial voice, emphasizing the human side of the story. Rudy Baylor, as portrayed by Damon, is not just a lawyer but a young man searching for his place in the world, grappling with moral compromises and disillusionment. Why didn’t The Rainmaker become as big a hit as The Pelican Brief? First, the novel The Rainmaker itself is less dynamic than other Grisham works. While The Pelican Brief revolves around a complex conspiracy involving political assassinations and high-level corruption, The Rainmaker is a more intimate story centered on a single courtroom case. Second, Alan J. Pakula’s directorial style in The Pelican Brief was more geared toward a mainstream audience: fast-paced editing, a star-studded duo in Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington, and an atmosphere of paranoid thriller made the film a blockbuster. Coppola, by contrast, opted for a more contemplative and dramatic approach, which may not have met the expectations of audiences craving adrenaline and plot twists. Nevertheless, many critics and John Grisham himself praised The Rainmaker for its fidelity to the novel’s spirit and its nuanced character work. Grisham, known for being critical of adaptations, called Coppola’s film the best adaptation of his work, noting that the director captured not only the plot but also the emotional depth of the story. Critics like Roger Ebert also lauded the film for its sincerity and performances, though they acknowledged it was unlikely to become a genre classic. It’s particularly intriguing why The Rainmaker didn’t gain traction in post-Soviet countries, where its anti-capitalist rhetoric might have resonated. In the 1990s, post-Soviet nations were undergoing a tumultuous transition: economic reforms, growing inequality, and disillusionment with new capitalist realities created fertile ground for films critiquing corporate greed. Yet The Rainmaker went largely unnoticed, while The Pelican Brief and The Firm achieved near-cult status. This could be due to post-Soviet audiences favoring fast-paced plots and star power over moral and ethical reflections. Additionally, the 1990s video rental and television markets in the former USSR were saturated with Hollywood blockbusters, and The Rainmaker, with its quieter drama, simply got lost in the shuffle. Another factor may have been the lack of local resonance. While The Pelican Brief’s theme of political corruption could evoke parallels with post-Soviet politics, The Rainmaker’s focus on the American healthcare system was less relatable to audiences unfamiliar with the intricacies of insurance disputes. Moreover, in post-Soviet countries, where populist leaders often rose to power on anti-elite sentiment, the film’s anti-corporate rhetoric might have seemed too abstract or even naïve.