रेन मैन

I was thinking of the way different movies seem to be good. Some have lots of action, others a bunch of special-effects. But then it strikes you, that what represents real depth, real quality is when a movie can be good without those features. When it's the dialogue, the story and the acting that strikes you. This film has really only two characters, all others play only minor roles (Cruise's girlfriend has some importance though). Two characters basically, and one dialogue - that's all you need when you've got a script as good as this, and two such great actors. Only that is brilliant. But this film also has such fine, very true episodes, small stories in the larger film. One example is when Ray watches court TV with the working class woman and her many children out in the countryside...it's such a fine picture, just outstanding. ALL IN ALL A GREAT FILM!

It is something of a great cinematic achievement that Rain Man became the great film it clearly is because the story surrounding it is interestingly Hollywood in itself.

Four directors, six screenwriters, two cinematographers, eight producers, writers strikes, crew change, and a studio fighting for its life.

All of the above are common knowledge but it doesn't hurt to remember these facts when viewing the award wining triumph of a movie that stands the test of time today. The film is so simple in structure it really needed something special to pull it out of the prospective banality of being "just another road movie about finding oneself", Rain Man achieves something special by tackling its subjects with very sensitive hands and splicing a believable human concept into the story via the incredible shows from its two leading men.

Dustin Hoffman gives a magical moving performance as the Autistic Savant Raymond, the ultimate complement I can pay the performance is that it really is believable, both moving and clever rolled into one artistic result. Tom Cruise is equally as great in a role that called for drastic layer changes, a role that demanded much conviction from the actor taking it on, and Cruise gives the role much depth as he goes from shallow bastard to a very emotive and feeling human being, it's a great show that stands up to reevaluation these days. A performance that seems to have sadly been forgotten in light of Hoffman's film stealing show. With a film such as this you pray that the ending can do it justice, and I'm glad to say that there is no pandering here, it's an ending that says so much because it doesn't cop out, I thank god for those rewrites because the endings to the original scripts would of had me booting the TV set out of the window.

Essential cinema. 10/10

I finally got to watch this movie. It really was on my radar for a very very long time. The movie's story is not unconventional by any means, but thanks to Levinson's smart direction, Ronald Bass' powerful script that adds a lot of fresh details, and the terrific performances from the leads, Rain Man feels very original. In fact, I can even see how the ending would be from the beginning, but that didn't make the slightest issue for me.

Barry Levinson presented the movie in a way that manages to generate emotion in their audience without ever feeling melodramatic. That's because Levinson avoided many clichés, the most important one of them is the typical way of storytelling. Instead of making a movie that relies on drama, he made road-trip movie that produces a catharsis of emotions more than you would ever imagine.

As a matter of fact, the movie feels as if it has a character-driven story, except it's actually not. And the result is a movie that has a very restricted and bound plot, but it never feels that way. While watching the movie, I felt that I can't expect anything. I felt as if I was watching a movie with a picaresque tale, but it's actually far from being that. Unlike Wag the Dog, Rain Man has a lot of memorable moments that will stay with you forever. In other words, Barry Levinson made Rain Man feels more cinematic than Wag the Dog. But I'll say it again, the movie never feels overly sentimental.

Dustin Hoffman gave one of the Best Performances in his career, but I really can't say if he had deserved the Oscar more than Tom Hanks in Big or not. Tom Cruise's performance is really what stands out in my opinion. I think he gave one of, if not his best performance ever. I don't want to spoil anything for who haven't watched this wonderful film yet, but there are a lot of scenes that show Cruise's acting abilities, and prove that he is underappreciated as an actor who really can deliver some exceptional dramatic performances, not just doing incredible stunts and running. I think he deserved to be nominated for an Oscar at the least.

That being said, I have some issues with Rain Man. The first one is that the beginning was a bit rushed and very fast-paced for its own good. Specially because the drama kicks off very early, and the movie should have taken its time to represent it.

The entire message of the movie has been literally revealed near the end by Tom Cruise, so that's an obvious, and a bit annoying problem.

Also, the ending could have been a little bit shorter. However, the last 15-20 minutes has some of the smartest, and most powerful dialogue ever written. And it also has the most intense and moving moments in the movie.

The moments that show Raymond math prowess were very hilarious and funny at the beginning, then they became kinda overused, but after that they were taken advantage of very cleverly.

Overall, I loved Rain Man so much, and I really don't know why there are many people who think it didn't deserve the Oscar for Best Picture. It's meticulously written, impressively directed, beautifully shot, superbly acted, engaging, moving, touching, and above all that, it's very enjoyable. Also, Zimmer's score is electrifying!

(8.5/10)

Any movie fan remembers the iconic line from "Cool Hand Luke": "what we've got here is failure to communicate". I believe a similar diagnosis can be made about the two lead characters of "Rain Man", Raymond (Dustin Hoffman) because he's autistic, and his brother Charlie, 25 years younger, because he's a young yuppie blinded by his own ego. Both live in their world, both are their own referential; naturally, they're put in a situation where they have to interact. "Rain Man" features one of the most intriguing premises of the 80's, and although the film never strikes as a 'masterpiece', not even in style, it does deliver the emotional pay-off we all expect without recycling old archetypes or falling into sentimental trap.

Should I describe Raymond Babbit's condition? Those who know already have in mind his mimics, head-banging, 'uh-oh', his addictions to such TV programs as "Judge Wapner" and "The Wheel of Fortune" and his perfect recitation of Abbots and Costello's 'Who's on first' routine when he's uncomfortable. And to those who haven't, it's enough saying that Dustin Hoffman surpasses himself, if it ever was possible after performances of the caliber of "Tootsie" or "Midnight Cowboy". He's unbelievably convincing, capable to transcend the limits of acting. To win an Oscar for a rather one-note character is an exploit even more impressive because Hoffman manages to pull some human complexity in Raymond, making him absolutely endearing and adorable yet frustrating and scary. Raymond is a character we want to love without turning it into pity.

On the other hand, his brother Charlie is the total counterpart, young, handsome, he's a self-made man who exploited a passion for cars to sell imported vehicles. Even his girlfriend, played by the beautiful Valeria Golino is Italian, like a foreign beautiful possession, a trophy that elevates him above the others. Charlie Babbit is a character who flirts with the archetype of the young and arrogant go-getter, a role tailor-made for an actor like Tom Cruise, especially in the 80's. The talent of Cruise consists on making his character unlovable enough to laugh at his misfortunes with Raymond, but human enough to feel sad for him when he learns about his father's death, and much more, when he learns that he didn't get one cent from him, while he was full of debts. Charlie is a character we want to hate but end up giving him the benefit of the doubt.

And Charlie is so blinded by his financial problems that he's incapable to care for Raymond and take his medical condition into consideration; all he sees in him is the guy who inherited three millions from his father. At this point, I suspect the screenwriter immediately thought 'hey, in fact, Raymond is medically autistic, while Charlie is symbolically autistic; let's see if the viewers will figure that'. I don't think it takes a degree in psychoanalysis to jump to that conclusion. Anyone would see the kidnapping of Raymond coming. Naturally, the girlfriend leave them to let the adventure begin between the two brothers and both would learn how to communicate … not. This is where the odd-couple/road movie formula stops. The strength of "Rain Man" is to never make Raymond change, no miracle cure, no sudden change of behavior, if there is one who's up to change, it's Charlie. And he must change, otherwise, the whole premise of the film is pointless.

The quality of Barry Levinson's film is to make a predictable turn of events work remaining believable, it also grabs our interest without an abundance of spectacular scenes, or overused emotion. It's always interesting to see a character with leadership quality, handsome and somewhat charismatic, pushed to follow an autistic man and having to deal with out-of-control situations. Charlie wants to take Raymond in L.A, but they can't because Raymond is afraid of planes, and when Raymond starts screaming in panic, Charlie understands that the road trip will follow Raymond's parameters of life. In a way, Raymond Babbit is a leading role because he leads the story. And by following Raymond, Charlie will get to know more about his brother's sensitivity and become more empathic, a word he knew nothing about. The narrative progresses and provides the film's greatest twist, when Charlie realizes he can use Raymond's savant skills.

Till now, the film is mostly remembered for the 'Las Vegas' sequence and the iconic moment when the two brothers stand on a descending escalator wearing the same suit, and the last step between Charlie and Raymond's reconciliation, a clever partnership for a rewarding pay-off. It's obvious that Charlie was mostly motivated by greed, but it's impossible not to see genuine attachment growing between Cruise and Hoffman. Both had failure to communicate their feelings, but it's by inviting his brother to communicate his inner thoughts, his fears and desires that Charlie learned the process of listening, of using another referential than his, of being capable of giving and understanding. The film follows the traditional coming-of-realization structure, and on that level, Tom Cruise never makes his changing obvious and spectacular. Indeed, both actors are so good, almost equally, because it was to Cruise to portray anger and frustration without making it forced or over the top.

Without Hoffman and Cruise, I can't imagine the film having the same impact. Yes, the screenplay is well-written, and Hans Zimmer's score has a haunting effect, but it's definitely an actors' film. It ended up winning the Best Picture Oscar in 1988, which is quite surprising considering how simple and non-Best Picture material it feels, but it did created a genuine interest for autistic condition, and featured many memorable scenes, and I guess sometimes, that's enough to touch the hearts.

Tom Cruise stars as a used car salesman, who is angry when his father's inheritance is left to his older autistic brother (Dustin Hoffman), whose existence had not been revealed to him.

The film is built around its two assured central performances. Hoffman gives an excellent portrayal of a man with autism, totally unable to comprehend the real world around him. Cruise is no less impressive. While he is essentially playing to type, his character's attitude changes so gradually throughout the film that you barely notice, and without Cruise's subtle performance this transformation would be much less credible.

This is a highly commendable film, which, despite tackling a tricky subject, refuses to succumb to sentimentality. In giving autism such publicity, the film has hopefully helped to lessen the stigma brought on by ignorance of this condition.

Rain Man's great success is that it shows the way forward for issue driven movies in Hollywood. Its success at the box office demonstrates that taking a risk can pay off in spades, provided that the film is good enough.