Review of the Reviews

It is no secret that one of my favorite movies of all time is Rain Man- a 1988 drama directed by Barry Levinson. Nevertheless, as is common with any movie, not all critics are on the same page in terms of the film's rating. While overall, Rotten Tomatoes gives the film an 88%, there are many critics that disagree with this rating as well as others who agree. 

For instance, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times is one such supporter of the movie. In his review, Ebert takes the time to praise the film for the believability present throughout. He is happily surprised to learn that the movie does not attempt to fully answer some of the deep questions that it poses about life and identity. This is extremely important to Ebert because this ambiguity contributes greatly to the realistic quality of the film. Along the same lines, Ebert also highlights how parallels between the main characters Charlie and Raymond Babbitt (played by Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman) are effectively used to mirror important themes of limitations, proper perspective, and acceptance. Furthermore, he notes that even though at first glance the plot may seem very familiar, it is the change/or lack thereof that Raymond's character brings that makes it so memorable. He continues on to hit other key points in his critique such as acting. For example, he comments on the brilliance and dedication of Hoffman in this film. For even through his character is autistic, dry, and quirky, Hoffman is able to step up to the challenge of the role and transform him into a lovable and genuine leading man. In addition to simply the context of the critique, I also personally loved the witty tone used throughout. Ebert's choice to include snippets of Raymond's typical, repetitive phrases such as "definitely" and "of course" was stylistically endearing and fun. 

Roger Ebert- Rain Man Review

Yet, Hal Hinson of the Washington Post holds an opinion that is quite different than that of Ebert. In his review, Hinson focuses the majority of his time on what he considers to be the movie's main downfall: the acting. Ironically enough, according to Hinson, the movie is truly a story about Charlie Babbitt in which the role of Raymond is simply a distraction. He found the quality of Hoffman's acting to be too surface level and focused upon the physical traits of Raymond in terms of his disability so much so, that he was lacking in depth and accessibility. Even so, Hinson has many other problems with the film in terms of theme and plot as well. Like Ebert, Hinson writes that the plot is "fairly easy to state" meaning that it is predicable, yet in his mind there is absolutely no redeeming quality present. Although he finds that director Barry Levinson's style may be beautiful, it is also too unclear. Finally, the only positive feedback given was directed at the cinematography of the piece. Still, this too is somewhat backhanded seeing as he writes that the cinematography was so well done so as to "match the star caliber of the players" (which he already deems as unsatisfactory). 

Hal Hinson- Rain Man Review

In all, after watching the film, I do believe that both sides make valid points. In terms of Ebert's critique I most agree with his statement, "Rain Man is fascinating because it refuses to supply those questions with sentimental but unrealistic answers" (Ebert). I feel as though it is this twist in the plot that truly sets the film apart. For many times in our era we go to a movie expecting resolve at the end. Although this is not quite what happens in Rain Man to the extent you might presume, it is just enough to be both satisfying and realistic. In terms of Hinson's critique, I agree with the statement that although Hoffman may portray Raymond as "reclusive" and withdrawn, "he also has built a streak of droll comedy into his characterization; he invites us to laugh at Raymond's antics" (Hinson). Yet, unlike Hinson, it is this quality that I believe also helps to add to Raymond's true accessibility and superb role playing amidst trying circumstances. 

If I had never seen this film, the review that would be more convincing to me would be Ebert's. One of the main reasons that I say this is because Rain Man was a very successful film in terms of awards. Not only did it win the Academy Award for best picture, but it also won for best original screenplay, director, and leading actor. Thus, knowing this, it would seem strange to be so convinced that Hoffman failed in his portrayal of Raymond. Additionally, Ebert's critique hit on many more different aspects of the movie that I thought were important. It seemed to me that his work was more factual and straightforward than strictly opinion based. Thus, I think that the most important aspect of a film review is the extent of material covered. Many times when the review is so focused on one topic, personal bias comes through too strong. A clear balance and levelheaded tone is vital to a convincing critique.

If I were to write a film review, one of the things that I would be sure to include would be the different awards that the movie has received. This is important to me because in many cases the success of a film is one of the most important factors in evaluating it justly. For in order to win an award, a large majority must think that the film is deserving rather than just one critic. Also, I would include more about the actual camera work and cinematography because I feel as through at times these characteristics can truly set a films apart stylistically. 

On the other hand, after reading these reviews, if I were to write my own I would include less summary of the plot. I feel as though if I had read these reviews before seeing the movie, I would be disappointed that so much information was revealed. Although it is a fine line, I believe that it is always safer to summarize less rather than more so that viewers are still intrigued enough to actually go see the movie.