Rain Man (1988)

This discussion needs to begin with the idea that whatever critique comes of this film; it is not in direct correlation to those that suffer from autism. The words written herein are only used to discuss the film “Rain Man”, not to have a lengthy discussion on my thoughts with this serious condition. With that said, I recently had the opportunity to sit down and watch “Rain Man” commercial-free, and unedited by TV – viewing it the way audiences may have seen it in theaters – and I wondered – is “Rain Man” that wonderful of a film, or we just all taken-aback by the intense performance by Dustin Hoffman? This is a tough question as I was somewhat bored with the story that Morrow and Base put together, yet each scene that Hoffman was in I was glued to the screen watching his idiosyncrasies, his apt ability to make this character out of merely studied influences. Hoffman deserved the Oscar for this film, but again, looking back – was it deserving of everything else that it won?

“Rain Man” recycles this age old story that Hollywood is familiar with, a dying family member leaves a will to another, unknown, family member that eventually becomes the savior of the film. The groundlings to this story are not anything new to direct-to-video markets, but with Hoffman and Cruise headlining, there is more of a mass appeal. What pulls this film up is, as already stated, Hoffman – continuing to prove his worth – but yet slips downward yet again with Cruise. He seems to be a bit of a loose cannon in this role. For the first moment that we see him, he is this fast-talking, smooth sailing entrepreneur that seems to be going through this financial crisis. Randomly he is able to leave, drive from California to Florida and finally making a pit stop in Ohio for his father’s funeral. Upon arriving he becomes bitter and more sinister as he learns that he is not inheriting his father’s wealth, but instead has a brother that will have it all. As we discover whom this is – our film changes from this family plight to this road movie – going all over our great nation to demonstrate brotherly love. Yet – from the moment this voyage begins, we see less and less of the Cruise’s initial character and we are welcomed into the third stage of Cruise, caring man who is just trying to survive.

Where “Rain Man” gets itself into trouble is that Hoffman is so good, we are unable to fully develop Cruise’s character. We are glued to Hoffman on the screen, and thus Cruise can get away with anything (slipping in and out of character within scenes) because are eyes are focused on one man, and one man only. Cruise does give a performance in this film, but it seems stale and disjointed. His emotion never seems to come out, especially with the very dark ending – leaving us with no hope for the future? The bleakest of endings, I was left wondering how much this would have worked if we were to focus on Cruise’s character throughout, only giving us glimpses of Hoffman throughout the film. I would have liked to see his inner turmoil, his struggle without the glossiness that was handed to us. As a man with no money, he was easily able to maneuver anything that his brother wanted? The suits for Vegas were not free. Yet, we seem to let this slide off our backs when we talk about this film because we are all in awe of Hoffman, which we have every right to be. Personally, Hoffman deserves all the kudos for his role, but watch Cruise carefully; I believe he gives one of the worst performances of his career.

Then there is Barry Levinson. There is so much that I like about him as a director and there are moments in this film that he pulls your heartstrings hard – and with the greatest of ease. He never gave us a false impression of autism – there are these moments where we believe Hoffman will say something that doesn’t fit, there are plenty of music-leading moments, but instead he pulls the rug and gives us honesty and truth. I appreciated that and adored Levinson’s choice of cinematography, but the ending needed work. Once we were out of the car, we were rushed to a conclusion. The less-tender moments at the end didn’t congeal well, leaving us with false hope and darkness. This isn’t a happy film, and I just don’t think Levinson had a way to wrap it up. The train scene was disappointing and disastrous to say the least.

Overall, I think I am going to answer my own question. “Rain Man” doesn’t seem to last the test of time. Hoffman’s performance kept the over two hours worth the viewing, but I don’t think I could watch this again. “Rain Man” is a mediocre film fueled by one great performance. There isn’t any meat to the overall story, and at times it just seem to flop around on the floor waiting for something to put it back into the vastness of cinema. “Rain Man” did sweep the Oscars that year, giving everyone that feeling of joy – but nearly 21 years later, it just doesn’t remain a memberable film.

Found in my "Time Out's 1000 Films to Change Your Life", I just don't think I could sit through this film again. It was important to watch sans commercials and editing, but I just feel this was a lackluster film boosted by an amazing performance. Outside of that, it didn't feel noteworthy or collectable. "Rain Man" will get a pink mark for mediocrity - never to be watched again (unless forced by friends).