The Rainmaker (1997) | How Woke Is It?

Our VerdictNot Woke

12%

The Rainmaker1997

In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected speech. These reviews reflect personal opinions and not statements of fact.

What We Think

The Rainmaker is a refreshingly non-woke legal drama with grounded storytelling, respect for traditional values, and a notable lack of 21st-century identity preoccupations. Those tired of heavy-handed ideological messaging will find it a straightforward, character-driven tale.

Score Breakdown

Compromised:Narrative Integrity

Not Woke

What is this?

The Rainmaker takes a fairly classic legal drama approach, with well-developed characters driven more by plot and personal skill than by modern identity politics. There’s little sense that casting or narrative choices were made to signal wokeness, instead focusing on a David-vs-Goliath story that sticks with its genre roots.

Compromised:Cultural Foundations

Not Woke

What is this?

Traditional themes, like the fight for justice, the importance of family, and personal responsibility, are all present and respected. Masculinity is neither mocked nor exaggerated, and there’s no overt attempt to subvert established cultural values. It’s more rooted in 90s realism than modern revisionism.

Compromised:Ideological Monoculture

Not Woke

What is this?

The film presents a fairly pluralistic view, with good and bad actors on both sides of class and legal lines. There’s no overwhelming promotion of a single modern ideology, nor are dissenting views reduced to caricature. Debate and internal conflict are genuinely depicted.

User Reviews

No user reviews received yet.

Please leave a review and let the world know what you think.
Your review will be kept completely anonymous.

Your Review

Comments

Users Also Viewed

12%

30%

92%

Disclaimer: In a free society the right to critique art is essential and protected as a form of free speech and freedom of expression. The reviews and commentary on this site represent personal opinions and interpretations. They are not statements of fact and should not be taken as factual claims about any individual, company, or creative work.