Rain Without Thunder

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 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.

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).

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.

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).