Well, that was not the greatest movie to spend six-fifty on. In the beginning, I bit my lip with frustration. Toward the middle, I was groaning inwardly. By the end, I sat in my seat filled with shock, ranting to my friends and anyone else who would listen.<br /><br />Obviously, not enough research went into this film. Sam (Sean Penn) was an unrealistic character. The characters explained that he had autistic tendencies and was retarded. No. I have dealt intimately with autism (living with someone who has it, working at a daycare for children with it, going to preschool in a class with well over half people with disabilities) for over sixteen years, and I can tell you that Sam is well off his marker. He is far too high functioning for some of his low functioning traits. In other words, he becomes incredibly capable when the plotline requires it, then appears to be quite low functioning at other times.<br /><br />He knows the Beatles like the back of his hand. Okay. I can go for that. But how does he apply the songs and life stories to and draw complex connections from the Beatles to his own life? How can he come up with these life lessons for his daughter and profound statements for just the right time ("Always set your dreams high, Lucy." "You need to leave your husband." "You don't know what it's like when you try and you try and you try, and you never get there!")? So he is high functioning enough to do all that, but he can't make a drink at Starbucks after many years there? He can't understand concepts simpler than the profound exclamations he makes?<br /><br />Some of the other disabled people in the movie were well done. However, the man who the filmmakers apparently wanted to appear to have autism (the one who kept rattling off movies and their release dates) was a cheap Rain Man rip off but plausible. The largest problem with him however, the thing that made me not believe in him, was that he seemed capable of analyzing the characters in the movies of which he spoke. While this only happened once or twice, it was enough to cause me frustration.<br /><br />Also, there was very little to no background given. How did Sam have a baby? How did he hook up with a woman, hooker or not? How did he raise a child alone (except for the help of a woman who never leaves home) for seven years? How did he know what diapers to buy? How, how, how? How did all of these plot holes sneak by? This only served to confuse viewers and give an unstable view of Sam's abilities. More "hows" were generated than answers.<br /><br />The best thing to come out of this movie was Dakota Fanning (Lucy, Sam's daughter). She was the most believable character, and seemed to innately know how to act and react. Laura Dern (Randy, foster mother) was also fantastic. She obviously just wanted the best for little Lucy. Sean Penn did the best he knew how for Sam, but it just wasn't up to par. With a script that had adequate research, a well-defined character with a well-defined disability, and some more research on his part, he would have fared much better.<br /><br />Many think this is "just a movie" and doesn't deserve harsh criticism, but face it, this is what the general public sees of disabilities. This is what the average person thinks about people with autism. They'll get their education about disabilities from movies like this one. And what they're seeing is a false image. I'm so sick of seeing autism misrepresented in cinema.<br /><br />If you want to see a good drama that deals with disabilities, Rain Man is the best. Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of autistic savant Raymond is dead on-I believed that he was autistic. The next best is What's Eating Gilbert Grape?. Leonardo DiCaprio does an excellent job with his autistic character Arnie, a completely unrecognizable change from the DiCaprio in Titanic or Romeo and Juliet. If you do want to watch I Am Sam, knock yourself out. Just don't waste any of your time believing it.