Review: Hamlet 2

So Much Drama

Films today have this habit of going in and out of fads rather quickly. As soon as one film on a particular note is successful, everybody wants a piece of it. The latest to fit into that niche is the so called "indie comedy". Personally, I don't really think that something has a degree of comedic labeling based on a film's budget, but ever since movies like Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno, there has been this suspicsion that comedies with big jokes and small budgets are the best way to cash in. This film doesn't really live up to that standard, which is a little sad. However, it does manage to squeeze out a few elements that can deliever some mighty hearty laughs.

The plot centers around familiar-faced-funnyman Steve Coogan, who plays Dana Marschz. Dana was an actor who had high spirits at one time, but never reached the level of stardom he wanted. He mostly just participated (as several clips point out) in informercials, bit roles on popular series and one of those annoying guys who proudly announces he has genital herpes in those awful medication ads. Fast forward to today, and Dana is a failed drama teacher living in Tucson He has a non-responsive wife (Catherine Keener) who has a love/hate relationship with a live-in board (a mostly mute David Arquette, his best role) and his drama teachings aren't going so well. His class consists of two students: the sexually confused teacher's pet (Skylar Astin) and the wholesome, suburban white girl who's a bit too frank about racism (Phoebe Stroll). They put on plays based on Hollywood movies translated to the stage (the show starts with Erin Brockovich). Then Dana gets thrown two curveballs: 1) A horde of Latino students have invaded his classroom and might cause a ruckus, and 2) drama is getting canceled because of poor critical reception. This inspires Dana to write "Hamlet 2" a sequel he hopes will save the school's drama department.

The plot of the play "Hamlet 2" doesn't really matter that much for the film. To be honest, the plot of the first play doesn't really matter that much either. The play being made is only a stage to bring out all sorts of jokes that attempt to push the envelope. No doubt that South Park alumn and co-writer Pam Brady had something to do with that. Not everything about the play really works, but sometimes just the onslaught of imagination is enough to be inspired. The actual production is also an element to the film that is one of its best qualities that's not being discussed. Anybody who has seen a play and is in awe of the constant visual spectacle will acknowledge the beauty in the production. One could care less what the actors are saying in those scenes, but it is very amusing watching the process. Even the first stage version of a movie is funny, especially seeing all the subtleties that are hidden in film being amplified for the stage.

Like most comedies, there is usually a core that holds it together and makes it worth while to keep watching. Very few comedies that I've seen have had a whole ensemble cast deliver equal comedic brilliance (Sideways and Superbad are the few exceptions). This film is no different, as Steve Coogan is the wonderful ray of sunshine in this film. Previously seen in this month's Tropic Thunder, Coogan somehow makes most of his scenes work, even when you can point out the place when the physical humor wears off or he started to improvise. As the play becomes more developed, unfortunately, his character gets sidelined for all of the edgy humor. Catherine Keener is no stranger to these types of films, and I've always loved her grounded personality and humor, making her one of the many multi-Oscar nominated actresses who are still underrated. Outside of Coogan and Keener, the rest of the cast really just drags on, including some very funny, but completely unnecessary, roles by Amy Poehler as an attorney from the ACLU and Elisabeth Shue as Elisaeth Shue (don't ask).

At the end of the day, Hamlet 2 just becomes an excuse to slop on a bunch of potentially offensive jokes without much meaning. It actually means a little less than an edgy comedy that would dissect high school theatre. I would have liked to have seen that film. Coogan already plays this character like a combination of every high school drama teacher (H-F readers: think of a mixture of Mr. Rose and Miss Stroemer, with a dash of Mr. Sinclair). Being a film person, an interesting take on the world of theatre sounds interesting, and I have any friends in theatre that have told me much that would make a trilogy Lord of the Rings-style. Sadly, the film doesn't do that, but thanks to Coogan and Keener, it tries. Just not hard enough, which is too bad. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Review: Vicky Christina Barcelona

Sight Fleeing

No other filmmaker has received such an uneven career as Woody Allen. His heyday was in the 1970s when he ended with his ultimate classic Annie Hall. The '80s was still good, with Crimes and Misdemeanors, The Purple Rose of Cairo and the superb Hannah and Her Sisters. The '90s was a little rocky, as I think Bullets Over Broadway was a mild success while Mighty Aphrodite was the type of comedy that I'm still not sure why exactly I liked. Then came the new millennium, and with it a streak of forgettable flops from this once claimed master of cinema (remember Anything Else? How about Melinda and Melinda?) Being born during that rocky decade, I didn't have much to be interested in with Mr. Allen. Then came the absolutely brilliant, wonderfully symbolic, cleverly ironic Match Point and the whole world rejoiced. Had the master finally come back? Here's the answer: Scoop. This film isn't a great one, but it does provide yet another change of scenery for the evolving director, and it's a quirky ride indeed.

Allen sets up this story with his most famous pairing of friends. Their introduction (provided by busy narrator Christopher Evan Welch) is put out as two people as complete opposites: the controlling, over-analytical Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and the spontaneous, open-minded Christina (current muse Scarlett Johansson). The two are invited to stay in Barcelona by a couple friend of Vicky's (Patricia Clarkson, Kevin Dunn). While in the city, the two come across the mysterious Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem, oozing suave) who invites them on a weekend romp. Christina seems to be the one more interested (mainly because Vicky is engaged to a nice, yet dull, millionaire), but then Vicky begins to have a relationship. All of this is seriously dashed when Juan sultry ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz) conveniently shows up.

The campaigning for this film has put Cruz as the main attraction for the film. She steals the show many times, and her constant rants are always made even better by the flighty Spanish language (a language I think she should stick with). However, I would also argue that her presence always harps on notes that seem forced. She never comes across as a natural character but more like a force of nature that blows in from a storm when it sees an opportunity to ruin a quiet moment. The real actress to campaign for this film is Rebecca Hall. Her character arch is handled with such delicacy that she goes through a subtle metamorphosis without even realizing it. Every scene of hers is so real. Johansson is alright, but I still feel a wall behind her acting. Bardem doesn't pour himself as much energy as he did for his Oscar-winning role last year (my vote still would have gone to Casey Affleck), but his charm and constant ability to change his persona depending on which woman he's kissing is something to marvel at.

The way that Allen directs this film is full of kinetic energy, as his films always are. He moves his characters around which trigger more events later down the road until all the action snowballs into a tension-peaking moment at the end. While Hall plays Vicky wonderfully, I don't know if Allen really writes her as a character that intentionally steals the show; I think it happens accidentally because of Hall's performance. There is also something about the strange relationship between Juan, Christina and Maria. The three become a legitimate "couple" (Juan and Maria share the opposite personalities of one person) and the dynamics of their emotions is really well played out in Allen's script. However, Allen also suffers from not having his supporting players doing much as he virtually wastes the magnificent and brave talents of Patricia Clarkson as a painfully obvious symbolic reference as being an older version of Vicky. The narration is also a bit strange, only because Welch's voice is more casual than I would have liked. I prefer the stern oration of a Hugh Ross (The Assassination of Jesse James) or the public informant of a Will Lyman (Little Children).

I am not so quick to label this as a successful comeback for Mr. Allen, but it does seem that he needs a change of scenery now and then. After decades of being isolated in New York, and his work diminishing, he relocated to England and there was his grand return. Then he began slipping in his new location, so he's moved again. The next great Woody Allen classic will probably come along when he decides to film in Moscow (I predict South Africa somewhere down the line). Still, this film is light, fun entertainment. It's not a masterpiece, but it puts a grand smile on the face, and sometimes, that's all we need. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Tropic Thunder

War Games

As the summer windles down, the days start to get a tad shorter and the school bells start to ring to bring the children back, there isn't much to offer at the movies, and that is an ultimate downfall that has constantly plagued August. Its first big feature, the three-quel to the Mummy franchise was underwhelming, and the highly anticipated Pineapple Express was nothing more than a shallow comedy that disappointed many. And while it may make loads of money, I'm still not betting a huge amount on the last hurrah of the season: the latest Star Wars cash in The Clone Wars. Still, over the horizon comes this film, a witty, poignant film that knows exactly what it's mocking. And I loved nearly every minute of that self-mockery.

The story seems simple enough. Filmming is underway of a Vietnam war epic that has gone awry. The film's director (Steve Coogan) is incompetent, the author of the original story (Nick Nolte) is a little looney, and its three stars, action man Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), funnyman Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), and serious thespian Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) can't quite find a way to work together. Two other actors (Jay Baruchel, Brandon T. Jackson) are there to try and anchor the craziness. While the production is being threatened, Nolte's character suggests that the movie be made in the thick jungle to add that sense of realism. That doesn't go over so well, as the principle actors, and primarily Speedman, get caught up in a drug trade in Laos and are taken into a real life war zone.

Of the three leads, Downey is the key to the film's success. Downey is a master comedian, and makes every scene of his 100% authentic. There has been some controversy surrounding what some are calling an updated version of black face since his character underwent a procedure to change his skin tone. In reality, it is not a racial poke, it's a jab at method actors who pour way too much into a role (the film's more vulgar take on the portrayal of the mentally challenged and the parallels to Oscar-winning performances I found more offensive). Still, Downey is flawless. Black is okay and does deliver one or two very howling moments. As for Stiller, I've never really been able to buy into his comedy, but there are some moments when his appearance with the ensemble lightens the mood.

The other great addition to the cast is the supporting players. Coogan makes an all too brief appearance but gives a rousing speech that an innovative director would, Nolte gives light in his role, even brief roles from Bill Hader, Jon Voight, Lance Bass and even a strangely placed Matthew McConaughey do wonders in the few moments they have. However, it is the much publicized cameo by Tom Cruise as studio head Les Grossman that reigns supreme. His bald cap, fat suit, wide rimmed glasses and foul temper make an obvious caricature for a Harvey Weinstein or Scott Rudin. His presence is a continuous riot, and it's amazing.

In addition to acting, Stiller also directed, co-wrote and co-produced the film as well. I've never been a big fan of Stiller's directorial career. I didn't like the one-note joke of Zoolander and The Cable Guy speaks for itself. However, Stiller has found the perfect way to shoot this film with its blend of action and comedy. He also has the thanks of brilliant cinematographer John Toll, and he lights this film beautifully. The script is also very funny by Stiller, Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen.

I admit that I've always had a weak spot for industry movies. Whether they range from popular entertainment venues (Sunset Blvd., Get Shorty, Network) to some that are more obscure (Boogie Nights), I'm always interested in films that dissect an industry, and this movie does it pretty well. The funniest parts in the film actually come before the film officially starts, as faux trailers (some of the best parts of last year's flop Grindhouse) spoof on action films from the likes of Sylvester Stallone, the multiple role-playing comedies of Eddie Murphy (wouldn't there be a riot if the film's makeup was nominated for an Oscar?) and the shameless award-hungry vehicles (this one involves the love affair between Lazarus and a monk, played by Tobey Maguire - the film's second best cameo appearance). That sets a tone that the rest of film tries to live up to. It doesn't always, as some physical humor falls flat and Stiller can be an unimpressive force, but I'd say this is one self-ridiculing film that offers a hell of a time. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: Pineapple Express

Up in Smoke

The Judd Apatow factory should be known to be one of the most productive machines working today. I've never really encountered a product of theirs that didn't result in some kind of enjoyment. It's prototype The 40-Year-Old Virgin, was a cute little film that managed to show us another side of Steve Carrell before he would later show off on the television, and the year's earlier showing of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, let people know that good acting combined with writing can mean good results even with a familiar premise. The latest to come out of that machine now shows us that it may be time to shut down the factory for a little while and give everyone a tune up before people start returning these products, declaring them defective.

Seth Rogen, who is already a regular for Judd Apatow, plays the lead role of Dale, a loser who attempts to survive his hellish job by dressing up in disguises while giving people subpoenas. During the day, he visits his drug dealer Saul, played very entertainingly by James Franco. Saul gives Dale the premium pot called Pineapple Express. Upon leaving, Dale inadvertently witnesses a murder by a crime boss (Gary Cole) and a corrupt cop (Rosie Perez). This starts a chain of events that follows most other action films.

Rogen is not necessarily a talented actor, but he's one that's been able to get by with playing characters that don't require much stretch and mimic his personality. Franco is a true delight in a role that is completely the opposite of what you'd expect him to do. So many of his lines and mannerisms are so well played, you'd think there is a real thespian behind that goofy smile. However, to paraphrase my second favorite Chicago film critic, Michael Phillips, that would mean that there's an actual motive behind his acting and would throw off the realism. Danny McBride also has a funny role as a friend of Saul who gets into a very funny fight, but the rest of the cast struggles. In particular, Cole and Perez don't act like their in a stoner comedy, but more so like clumsy villains in a Michael Mann film that still come off as menacing. I don't think that's quite the right tone for the film.

The film is written by Rogen and Evan Goldberg (with additional story material from Apatow), and it is reminiscent of the same type of amateur writing that was present in Superbad. I liked that earlier effort and remained a strong supporter for a campaign to have it nominated for Best Original Screenplay. This one, however, lacks the charm that the former film had. Superbad had juvenile dialogue, but it was alright because it came from teenagers. The script sounded like it was written by teenagers, and the characters represented that. Juvenile dialogue doesn't sound quite as nice when it is coming from grown men, even if they are high all the time. There is also something a little disturbing about a film that glorifies marijuana the way that it does, even relishing in how its lead characters get ahead by selling joints to twelve-year-olds.

This movie also has a strange taste in director: indie sensation David Gordon Green. Green has spent was seems to have been a lifetime of making obscure films that no one has seen, such as George Washington, Undertow, and this year's little gem Snow Angels. It's almost absurd to think that a man with this kind of background would be directing a film that is actually aimed at a large audience. However, it goes back to a thought that everyone has had at some point: the thought of what would happen if a good director actually made a movie considered to below their reputation. When put to this film, we get a sometimes imaginative film that indulges the audience is an interesting way. Still, it's not like a noticeable director like Green brings anymore to this project. Although, it does make me wonder if Green had directed Superbad, would it have been a bigger hit? Or even an Oscar contender?

Judd Apatow has another film coming out next year that will also star Rogen, along with overseeing Rogen in a Sherlock Holmes spoof. However, I'm hoping that Apatow writing and directing his next feature will be the tune up that his factory desperately needs. It's not that the products are bad, but they are declining. And it needs to happen rather quickly. ** 1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Review: The Dark Knight

Dark Victory

I'll be the first to admit that of all the superhero franchises out there, whether they come from the world of DC Comics or Marvel, none has fascinated me so much as Batman. I have always been attracted to the very dark style that has led to the development of deep psychological, disturbed and dangerous issues that were never present in Peter Parker's hectic teenage world or Superman's perfect alliance of superhuman powers. I also love Tim Burton and his first two installments remained for the longest time the best films the series had endured. Then, when Christopher Nolan was brought in to resurrect the series almost a decade after Batman & Robin, I loved his take on trying to make Batman grounded in a real world, as if a "Batman" could actually exist. I applauded that, but was still a bit hesitant to give it high praise, considering my allegiance to Burton and the previous films. With The Dark Knight, however, I have no problem in saying that this is much more than just the best Batman movie, or even the best superhero movie; this is the best genre picture that I have seen in a very long time.

Picking off exactly where Batman Begins left off, the Caped Crusader is still fighting the menacing threats of Gotham City. Christian Bale strikes an even greater balance of duality playing Bruce Wayne and his alter ego, who both face problems that are intriguing. Wayne is having trouble with his personal life still, as Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal, a clear improvement) becomes a rising star prosecutor alongside the new DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent is seen as Gotham's "White Knight" a figure whose face is friendly to the public and can help clean up the streets. Dent is also trying to nab certain mob guys, and enlists Batman to help track down one of them to Hong Kong (it's nice to see a Batman film get out of Gotham for a change). But Batman has more to worry about than some gangsters. His most famous arch -nemesis throughout the comic books, The Joker, is plaguing Gotham with attacks that offer to question the establishment with no real cause other than creating chaos. There's a lot on Batman's plate.

There are so many elements that make this film stand above many other pictures that came before it. One magnificent highlight is the acting. Bale is fantastic in a role that separates the problems of Wayne and Batman and then making the separate problems blur into each other. I had a slight problem with his "Batman voice" intruding on nearly every scene, but it's only a slight complaint. Gyllenhaal is always great in anything she does, and she brings so much more weight to the character than Katie Holmes did. Holmes wasn't bad in the first installment, but Gyllenhaal makes Rachel a character believe in, not to just fill up time until Batman rescues her. Other supporting players, including Eckhart (who does become Two-Face in this film), Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and even Eric Roberts in the gangster role that takes over for Tom Wilkinson, are all excellent pieces in the ensemble world of this film.

But of course, the true star is the late Heath Ledger. Like so many others, I believed that his performance was going to be good, but half of that would lend to the fact that his untimely death would result in higher praises than necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ledger pours so much passion into this character that the thought of him not being here to enjoy this success never once crossed my mind (maybe once when the Joker is brought out in a body bag - that's not really a spoiler). Far from Jack Nicholson's interpretation, Ledger's Joker is a true psychopath; an insane menace who taunts our heroes for making points, not necessarily for personal, monetary gain. Ledger is the true star, and we can't wait to see him again on screen.

Another thing that makes this film excellent is Christopher Nolan. Now given proof of his genius of filmmaking, Nolan crafts this story like it's the real deal. He invests so much into the atmosphere in the story that sometimes the epic scale makes us seem like we're watching The Untouchables or Heat. He also does good of not only losing a Joker backstory, but allowing him to tell three different version, keeping the character clouded in mystery and focusing on what is happening now. The script, written by Nolan and his brother Jonathan (working off a story from David S. Goyer), reaches to new heights in the genre, and while containing many heavy plot elements, it only shows the sophistication of franchise now. Cinematographer Wally Pfister does fantastic work in lighting every bit of scenery, and I will always thank Nolan for choosing Chicago as his Gotham City (fellow Chicagoans, be on the lookout for an exciting chase scene through Lower Wacker and Randolph Station).

The talk is now starting to form if The Dark Knight will be up for a Best Screenplay, Director or even Picture nomination. I'd say of the three, screenplay is the closest it will come to. However, I completely believe in Leger's Oscar campaign for Best Supporting Actor. This is a performance that should be awarded not because of his passing, but because of simple great acting. Ledger's Joker is simply fantastic, and he has a great ensemble and the film's wondrous technical elements to aid him. It's unclear where a third Batman entry will go (I think Warner Bros. should chain Nolan to a desk and keep him forever), but as of now, we're looking at true victory, even if it is clouded in some darkness. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Review: Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Red Scare

Whether you want to preach it on the top of a mountain or mutter it quietly to yourself, one has to give credit to the fact that Guillermo del Toro is a cinematic genius. That intelligence, however, can sometimes be an acquired taste. For instance, not everyone responded so warmly to his treatment of the first Hellboy and even though Pan's Labyrinth received praise almost universally (including from yours truly), there was still a sense that a dark imagination was surfacing that was unlike anything that was seen before, and that can be a dangerous thought. Now, del Toro has made us face that danger head on and tenfold, and what results is a slightly less impactful, but still energetic work of art.

Del Toro prefaces the film with an overtly visual prologue narrated in the raspy tone of John Hurt and featuring some really creepy looking puppets. The bedtime story talks about a war between humans and a race of powdery-skinned elves(?) whose warring stops when the mythical creatures build an unstoppable brigade of robots, called the Golden Army, that are deemed too powerful and kept underwraps as a truce is installed. However, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) doesn't trust humans and wants to Golden Army to start up the war again. That's when the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense comes in and Hellboy (Ron Pearlman, returning) is sent to save the day.

I'm actually omitting many details from the plot that would make it a tad more complicated than it already is. There is an overwhelming feeling that del Toro picks and chooses some story elements and scenes only to provide an arena for his twisted imagination. Sometimes it pays off, such as in an extended marketplace filled with creature effects that remind you of the balance of makeup and physical effects from the Stan Winston days. Other times, it feels like it is a real stretch of time, like when Hellboy battle a giant plant monster that then takes about ten minutes to disappear. Still, I admire del Toro's dark vision, particularly his new take on the "tooth fairy" (which means that you should probably not take the kids to see this one) and I know that others who have appreciated his previous films will enjoy the imagery here as well.

Another part that makes Hellboy work is the cast, and in particular it is Pearlman. Everytime he shows up on the screen, you can't help but love his tough-guy-who-tries-to-be-good routine as he stomps though and tries to make some sense of his love life with the flame vixen Liz Sherman (Selma Blair). Jeffery Tambor returns, and he's always a delight, and also listen for Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane voicing the smoke-faced (literally) government agent Johann Krauss, whose German accent becomes the butt of many a joke, including one highlight that showcases the mispronunciation of "focus."

All of Hellboy 2 leads up to a big, climatic final scene. A part of it is even more satisfying than the first film, which I thought was resolved too quickly. That problem isn't present here as the sequence probably goes a little bit too long. Still, that doesn't mean anything is really taken away. Despite some setbacks in storytelling, when you add up the visual spectacle of del Toro's imagination, the lovable performance from Pearlman, and the familiar territorial score from Danny Elfman, the red guy is certainly up to the challenge of entertaining us once again. *** / ****; GRADE: B

5 Most Underrated Tom Cruise Performances

In honor of Tom Cruise's 46th birthday (along with my own 18th), I decided to take this opportunity to write about this famous star and focus on the highlights of his career. At least, they should be highlights. Cruise might be remembered for films like Risky Buisness, Top Gun, Born on the Fourth of July, and Jerry Maguire, he also has delievered some worthy performances that went under the radar. Here is a shortlist of Tom Cruise performances that should have registered heavily than they ultimately did.

Vincent in Collateral

In probably the most underrated performance of his career, Cruise shines as a sliver clad assassin who takes an all-nighter ride with cabbie Max, played by Jamie Foxx. Foxx wound up with the Oscar nomination, but Cruise’s work is so refined and subtle here that I wish their places could have been traded. From the beginning to the end, Cruise makes Vincent a character to hate because of his deeds, to admire because of his resourcefulness, to fear because of his predatory skills, and ultimately pity because of his solitary ending. This was truly a highlight in his career that went unjustly unnoticed.

Frank T.J. Mackey in Magnolia

Some people might question the presence of this film on the list considering Cruise earned a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his work. However, I think Paul Thomas Anderson’s meandering (and at times, laborious) multi-character study is so grand, that Cruise sometimes can get lost within the sea of numerous talented actors. Still, there is a reason that Cruise is a standout. His energetic self-help guru is full of that bouncy energy that has actually tainted some parts of Cruise’s career. However, he then comes to play off it, and lets it backfire on his character during the pivotal confrontation between his father, played by the late Jason Robards. He self-destructs in front of us, and it is a move that Cruise rarely does.

David Aames in Vanilla Sky

Cameron Crowe’s absorbing remake of the Spanish film Abre los Ojos is already a difficult thing to take in. However, despite the lukewarm reception, Cruise is actually the piece that makes it work. As the story spirals into all sorts of different paths, Cruise remains grounded in the center, casually swaying with each plot twist but never losing his footing and always making the unbelievable seem believable in his circumstances. He also presents a wide range of emotions that flutter in and out, adding to the theme of the reliability of reality. Crowe might have gotten Cruise nominated in Jerry Maguire, but he gave him much stronger material in this underrated film.

Sen. Jasper Irving in Lions for Lambs

Robert Redford’s gigantic flop about a social commentary on politics and war didn’t register much with people. However, those who missed it also missed Cruise in a defining role. From the start, his own casting is ironic (a Hollywood elite playing a Republican politician) and that tone sets us up for something Cruise has done little of: plain talking. Cruise makes the words of Irving believable; he sells the idea of presenting conservative values to a liberally biased world and fights like hell against it. He gives us a window of what might happen with all conservatives who fight this same battle, and even though the film ends with a perceived loss on his side, Cruise still shows that politicians will keep fighting, no matter what side of the fence their on.

Charlie Babbitt in Rain Man

It is true that everyone remembers this movie, but Cruise immediately takes a backseat to Dustin Hoffman, who won the Best Actor Oscar in 1988. And in all honesty, that’s the way it should be. Still, that doesn’t mean Cruise delivers a worthy performance in Hoffman’s shadow. Cruise is the audience’s view, since little was known about autism at the time. He represents all of our fears and frustration when encountering someone with this condition and then, after getting to know them, starts to see the actual person. His ending isn’t even a real happy one, but Cruise takes on a journey that we could not have done alone and allows us to grow with him.