Miss Sadie Thompson (1953)

Truly Dreadful Film

Thanks for the memories!

People are voting emotionally.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

When Joan Crawford did Rain and in my opinion not badly in 1932, she contended with the memory of Jeanne Eagels who did the original Broadway production. As we know Jeanne died way too young and we never got to see her do this on film. She was supposed to be nothing less than brilliant. Crawford suffered by comparison no matter what she did.Rita Hayworth may have suffered in comparison as well to Eagels as well as Crawford because Joan's version was done before the Code was put in place. A part which Hayworth should have scored a huge triumph laid a big old ostrich egg because of all the restrictions firmly in place courtesy of the Code. W. Somerset Maugham's story which was about some really brutal facts of life including sexual desire and sexual oppression was a sensation in the Twenties. This version water downed the guts right out of Maugham's work. Jose Ferrer who also should have been brilliant as Davidson does what he can with the part, but is ultimately defeated. In fact Davidson is supposed to be a clergyman as was Walter Huston in the Joan Crawford version. Here he's some kind of overseer of a religious/medical mission. The Code forbade any bad depiction of religious figures.Lester Lee and Allan Roberts wrote the score for Miss Sadie Thompson and the film given its subject matter reached incredibly ironic heights when Rita with Jo Ann Greer's singing voice does a number with kids like you would find in a Bing Crosby film. Ironically the rest of the musical part of the film is the best thing about it with Blue Pacific Blues winning an Oscar nomination for Best Song. But this film also includes a number forever associated with Rita Hayworth with The Heat Is On. Now that WAS in keeping with the subject matter.They should have waited to do a remake of Rain once the Code had been lifted. A G rated version is ludicrous on its face. But then we would not have had Rita Hayworth at the height of her star power.

i think Rita Hayworth does extremely well in this part of a vivacious, bawdy and flirty night singer given she was actually an extremely shy person at heart and was nothing like her character. this might sound strange but the story between Sadie and Mr Davidson rather reminded me of Esmarelda and Frollo. He was an obsessive moral preacher who despised and was attracted to her, she was a free spirited beautiful women who stands up to him at first, they have a big collision followed by her leaving the hotel, then having to return because he bad mouthed her all over the village, it sort of came as a shock at the end and sort of didn't when he rapes her whilst everyone is at the festival. The hotel is deserted. He is alone with her in her hotel room. She is defenceless. You sort of think you are seeing coming but you don't, the first sign he shows is when he won't moved completely from the doorway so she has to squeeze past him, after that he starts to walk nearer, closer to her then perhaps he should. Over all, its a good film, Rita shines and ferer gives you the creeps, the song 'the heat is on' will make you sizzle, its definitely worth a watch

This is the 1950's "Disney-ized" version of W. Somerset Maugham's wonderful story "Rain," which was filmed much more successfully and faithfully with Joan Crawford as Sadie back in 1932.Rita Hayworth is always a pleasure to watch--a true beauty with significant talent, though her performance here isn't much to shout about. Probably due to the wretched script and mediocre direction.This Technicolor, 3-D (in the original theatrical release), musical version demonstrates clearly that technology does not equal quality.The worst element of this version is perhaps Jose Ferrer as the unbending moralizer who tries to convert Sadie. Certainly he's supposed to be stiff, but not to the point where his face shows absolutely no nuance of emotion ever.Look for a studly young Charles Bronson in a minor role, listed in the credits as Charles Buchinsky (this must have been before he discovered that Hollywood didn't like ethnic--especially in the 50's).No, your best bet is just to read the story. Maugham deserves the attention; he's a much under-rated writer.

I was so excited to find this movie...two of my favorite actors together! But the movie just doesn't work. It can't get the spirit of its author (and what a sour spirit) because of censorship, nor does it try to get into the minds of fundamentalist Christians (I don't think the filmmakers could). It's very sad because you see glimpses of greatness. Ferrer and Hayworth seem to be struggling without a director to deliver, but the soundstagey mess of a film overtakes them. The supporting actors aren't very good. If this film had been made with some grittiness, maybe it would have succeeded. But as it is, it's a messy hodgepodge.(the story is definitely not obsolete. we can see versions of it with Jessica Hahn and Jim Bakker, etc.)