Sam Mendes's Road To Perdition reads like Oscar bait on the surface, but it's anything but once it gets down to business. Based on a downbeat graphic novel, it's a dark and tragic downward spiral of violence, betrayal and crime with beautifully acted characters and burnished, shadowy cinematography that brings the pages of the book to life in moody, snow blanketed detail. Tom Hanks, taking a chance and playing a rougher character for once in his goody two shoes career, is Michael Sullivan, enforcer for small town Irish mob boss John Rooney, played with force and feeling by Paul Newman in his final cinematic outing. Rooney treats Sullivan like a son, as his own offspring (Daniel Craig, cast way against type and loving it) is an insidious, hateful psychopath. After Craig needlessly murders a subordinate (Ciaran Hinds) and Sullivan's youngest son (Taylor Hoechlin, excellent) inadvertently witnesses it, Sullivan is left no choice but to go on the run after his wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and youngest child (Liam Aiken) are subsequently slaughtered. The rift that forms between Hanks and Newman is tough to watch, a paternal relationship soured by the ugliness of the lives they live, violence finding its way in and grabbing hold of any goodness that once was, like it always does. Forced to seek help from infamous Chicago gangster Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci), Sullivan soon finds himself on his own and fast becoming a vigilante with a short life span amongst the underworld, especially when a dangerous assassin (a rodent like Jude Law) is dispatched to kill him. Sullivan knows his way around both a pistol and a tommy gun though, and won't go down in a hail without raising hellfire first. There's a calmness to the action scenes, the most hectic of which is accompanied by no sound effects whatsoever, just simply a lyrical piece of the score, cushioning the violence with mood instead of hammering us with the sound of bullets. It's a revenge piece, no doubt, but it's also a careful treatise on how a parent's actions and choices can affect their young, and in cases of extreme peril or trauma, sometimes bring them closer together where there once was distance. My only real issue with the film is the casting of Jennifer Jason Leigh, a unique, mesmerizing force on camera whose talents are wasted here in the throwaway wife role, getting to do basically nothing. There's a deleted scene featuring Anthony Lapaglia as lively Al Capone, which is not in the final film but can be found on YouTube. Hanks and Newman anchor the film respectively, as hard, determined men who would rather see things go in a more agreeable way, but have both left each other no choice other than willfully striding towards bitter ends. There's an eerie poetry in that which the film captures perfectly.
1,163 Reviews
Hall Leaves On A High Note
ccthemovieman-12 March 2006
Conrad Hall went out with a bang. The great film photographer finished his illustrious career with this movie before passing on. He did himself proud as this is one of the best-looking crime films you'll ever see.
Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.
None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?
As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome.
Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.
None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?
As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome.
A subtle masterwork of a great forthcoming director!
brooksmurphy-19 September 2002
This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.
This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.
With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.
But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.
With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).
The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement.
This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.
With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.
But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.
With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).
The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement.
Simply Beautiful
archienina992 March 2005
I loved so much about this movie...the time taken to develop the characters, the attention to detail, the superb performances, the stunning lighting and cinematography, the wonderful soundtrack...
It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.
The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.
I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.
(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)
It has a combined intensity and lightness of touch that won't work for anyone who wants the typical fast-paced action flick. If we lived in Elizabethan days, I'd say this movie's a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy. But since we don't, let's say it's more like a Drama-Suspense movie.
The plot is simple, but the story is complex. The movie is intelligent in the way relationships and issues are explored. Much of the story is shown rather than told, which I find makes it more subtle and moving - and which also works well for a story based on a comic book (or graphic novel). At times I felt I was actually there in the 1930s, part of this story - there was such a realistic yet dream-like quality in the style of its telling.
I don't often prefer movies to the books they were based upon, but in this case I do. (Though I did enjoy the book too.) I've bought the DVD, which is great because it has some wonderful deleted scenes and insightful commentary.
(I also took my little cousin, who's a little younger than the boy in the movie, to see it after I saw it for the first time, because he has issues at home and I wanted to use this as a way of starting a discussion on father-son issues with him. He loved it - and the discussion.)
Despite what you may have heard, it's an awesome movie
fsuplaya200317 July 2002
Many have either hated, loved, or been let down by this film. Hype does terrible things to the best and worst of things. Most of the reasons i have heard for not liking this film are ridiculous. Let me just tell you, if you have not seen it yet, go see it. Even if for some reason you don't think its amazing, it will be among the best films you have seen of the year anyways. Road to Perdition is a beautiful movie, both visually and in performance. Every actor here is deserving of acclaim and Academy attention, mainly Jude Law. Any emotional detachment is intentional; It is a tragic story, one of betrayal, love, bonds, and revenge. There is no doubt this film will become a classic. Don't dare compare it with Godfather: this is a GANGSTER film, not a MAFIA movie! Godfather will never be surpassed, so don't compare to it. Road to Perdition as of now is the leading Best Picture Oscar contender. Unlike past years, it deserves it.
A true masterpiece
Juni78ukr19 August 2005
Road to Perdition, a movie undeservedly overlooked at that year Oscars is the second work of Sam Mendes (and in my opinion his best work), a director who three years before won Oscar for his widely acclaimed but controversial American Beauty. This is a terrific movie, and at the same time ultimately poignant and sad.
It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.
My grade 10 out of 10
It's a story of a relatively wealthy and happy family from outward appearance during difficult times of Depression when the, Michael Sullivan, a father of two children, played by great Tom Hanks (I'm not his admirer but ought to say that) is a hit-man for local mafia boss, played by Paul Newman. His eldest son, a thirteen years boy Michael Sullivan Jr., perfectly played by young Tyler Hoechlin, after years of blissful ignorance finds out what is his father job and on what money their family live. Prompted by his curiosity and his aspiration to know truth he accidentally becomes a witness of a murder, committed by John Rooney, son of his father boss. Such discovery strikes an innocent soul and it caused numerous events that changed his life forever. The atmosphere of the period, all the backgrounds and decorations are perfectly created, editing and cinematography are almost flawless while the story is well written. But the main line of the movie, the most important moments and points of the movie and the key factor of the movie success are difficult father-son relations in bad times. They are shown so deeply, strong and believable. Tom Hanks does excellent and has one of the best performances of his career in a quite unusual role for him and all acting across the board is superb. Finally worth to mention a very nice score by Paul Newman and in the result we get an outstanding work of all people involved in making this beautiful (but one more time sad) masterpiece. I believe Road to Perdition belongs to greatest achievements of film-making of this decade and undoubtedly one of the best films of the year.
My grade 10 out of 10
A Rolls-Royce Movie
mpofarrell13 July 2002
I f you thought Sam Mendes' first film, the much heralded American BEAUTY was a movie with style to spare, wait until you see his highly anticipated second effort, the unrelentingly grim 30's gangster melodrama ROAD TO PERDITION. Some critics have hailed this new movie as a worthy successor to THE GODFATHER, a rash judgment made by several reviewers taken with Mr. Mendes' extraordinary technical prowess. If the mechanics of movie making are what make a picture great, then yes, ROAD TO PERDITION is a distant cousin to THE GODFATHER in terms of what it achieves in cinematography, editing, music scoring and sound. What it doesn't have is a resonance that all great stories and some very rare movies have that stay with the viewer long after the experience of reading or seeing it is over. As with American BEAUTY, there is a cold, distancing feel to this movie, despite some very tense scenes involving paternal love, loyalty and betrayal.
This story of a hit man (Tom Hanks) and his relationship to a surrogate father - figure who is also his boss, an elderly Irish mob leader (Paul Newman) , seems to have been culled from innumerable gangster movies of years past. The father /son motif that hangs over this picture is so heavy handed in its treatment that there is not much room for spontaneity ; the entire enterprise has been very carefully wrought , and nearly all the dialog is delivered with an air of great portent : this is obviously a gangster film , hence the requisite amount of violence and bloodshed , but the film is nearly devoid of any humor to speak of ; only in scenes involving a young boy driving a getaway car in a cunningly edited montage is there any sense of lightheartedness to leaven the pervasive sense of doom.
That being said , I have nothing but the highest praise for the stunning look of this film ; indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that this is one of the most beautifully photographed and designed movies I have ever seen. Veteran cameraman Conrad Hall will very likely win another Oscar for his work here . The production 's sets and costumes are just as exemplary ; in fact , the entire film is a technical marvel. Mr. Mendes continues to astonish with his vivid use of color, and he and Mr. Hall again make very dramatic use of red blood splattered against pale colored walls , all the more effective and disconcerting due to the preponderance of blacks, blues and grays that dominate the movie's color scheme.
If I have failed to duly note the acting , it is not because the actors do not purport themselves ably ; everyone in the film is top notch, with special mention going to the two malevolent bad guys : Daniel Craig is the classic "man you love to hate", the spoiled, impulsive son of Newman's gangster father ; and an almost unrecognizable Jude Law as an especially slimy miscreant who goes on pursuit of Hanks and his son and figures very importantly in the film's riveting second half. But acting in a movie this dazzling is bound to take a back seat to the photographic fireworks on display here. If a Rolls-Royce was a movie , I've no doubt it would look like ROAD TO PERDITION.
This story of a hit man (Tom Hanks) and his relationship to a surrogate father - figure who is also his boss, an elderly Irish mob leader (Paul Newman) , seems to have been culled from innumerable gangster movies of years past. The father /son motif that hangs over this picture is so heavy handed in its treatment that there is not much room for spontaneity ; the entire enterprise has been very carefully wrought , and nearly all the dialog is delivered with an air of great portent : this is obviously a gangster film , hence the requisite amount of violence and bloodshed , but the film is nearly devoid of any humor to speak of ; only in scenes involving a young boy driving a getaway car in a cunningly edited montage is there any sense of lightheartedness to leaven the pervasive sense of doom.
That being said , I have nothing but the highest praise for the stunning look of this film ; indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that this is one of the most beautifully photographed and designed movies I have ever seen. Veteran cameraman Conrad Hall will very likely win another Oscar for his work here . The production 's sets and costumes are just as exemplary ; in fact , the entire film is a technical marvel. Mr. Mendes continues to astonish with his vivid use of color, and he and Mr. Hall again make very dramatic use of red blood splattered against pale colored walls , all the more effective and disconcerting due to the preponderance of blacks, blues and grays that dominate the movie's color scheme.
If I have failed to duly note the acting , it is not because the actors do not purport themselves ably ; everyone in the film is top notch, with special mention going to the two malevolent bad guys : Daniel Craig is the classic "man you love to hate", the spoiled, impulsive son of Newman's gangster father ; and an almost unrecognizable Jude Law as an especially slimy miscreant who goes on pursuit of Hanks and his son and figures very importantly in the film's riveting second half. But acting in a movie this dazzling is bound to take a back seat to the photographic fireworks on display here. If a Rolls-Royce was a movie , I've no doubt it would look like ROAD TO PERDITION.
Hanks and Newman play against type
kellielulu15 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Making it more effective . The line by Newman's character to Hanks I'm glad it was you is a scene that stays with me. It's Newman's final onscreen film and scene. Without going into the entire plot it's about how both men ultimately choose their own son's but still had some kind of code between them that made this final moment between them poignant.
Hanks own character Michael Sullivan gets to know his older son after a tragedy sends them on the run ( he didn't even know his favorite subject in school and is surprised by it but seems to understand the reason as Michael jr tells him). He always thought he treated his sons the same but realizes he didn't want his older son to turn out like him and may have made him harsher with his older son. The younger one Peter being sweet and gentle. Michael Sr and Jr realize they have more in common. They have a tender moment and it will help Michael jr in the future.
Michael Sr.'s final act saves Michael jr literally but also morally.
Michael jr returns to a farm house where an elderly couple helped them before and he lives out his childhood with them.
Minor complaint Jennifer Jason Leigh is wasted in the role of Annie Sullivan Michael Sr. Wife and Michael jr and Peter's mother. She even lacks the insight to her family dynamic that the farm lady picks up on easily. Another mob movie that doesn't seem to know how to make better use of female characters.
Well written, acted and directed Road to Perdition also has incredible cinematography.
Hanks own character Michael Sullivan gets to know his older son after a tragedy sends them on the run ( he didn't even know his favorite subject in school and is surprised by it but seems to understand the reason as Michael jr tells him). He always thought he treated his sons the same but realizes he didn't want his older son to turn out like him and may have made him harsher with his older son. The younger one Peter being sweet and gentle. Michael Sr and Jr realize they have more in common. They have a tender moment and it will help Michael jr in the future.
Michael Sr.'s final act saves Michael jr literally but also morally.
Michael jr returns to a farm house where an elderly couple helped them before and he lives out his childhood with them.
Minor complaint Jennifer Jason Leigh is wasted in the role of Annie Sullivan Michael Sr. Wife and Michael jr and Peter's mother. She even lacks the insight to her family dynamic that the farm lady picks up on easily. Another mob movie that doesn't seem to know how to make better use of female characters.
Well written, acted and directed Road to Perdition also has incredible cinematography.
Road to No Where
dafuzzbudd15 June 2009
Let me start this off by saying this movie is beautiful. By a technical standpoint, perfection was achieved. I'll remember this movie as proof of example; outstanding direction/cinematography cannot fully compensate for a lackluster plot.
On paper, the plot is an average set up. Relationships in a crime family are tested, but none are ever stretched too far. In this sense it feels somewhat familiar and not very original.
But what does keep this movie from being average-blah, is the care put into EVERY shot. I give a huge amount of credit to the cinematographer. A good amount of noticeable techniques were used. I particularly liked one symmetrical pillar shot that used a zoom in dolly in trick. A slight variation of the Vertigo introduced, zoom in dolly out.
But with all of these wonderful shots I noticed something. There was so much technically stunning camera work, I found myself completely drawn out of the story. Was this done intentionally? To some degree I think so. This nicely compliments the dark and rainy 1930's settings.
Noticing this I tried to put more thought into the plot. There basically was none. The characters were cold and lacked development. Any dialog is important and used sparingly. I couldn't stop myself from drawing comparison to The Godfather. What Road to Perdition lacks is any underlying intensity between the characters. I never feel like they were a tight-knit family and do feel as if I'm simply watching characters play their parts. The story has no poetry and feels more like a collection of parts that aren't worth its sum.
I appreciate it in its stunning visuals, but once the credit rolled I felt nothing. And I find no reason to return back to it.
On paper, the plot is an average set up. Relationships in a crime family are tested, but none are ever stretched too far. In this sense it feels somewhat familiar and not very original.
But what does keep this movie from being average-blah, is the care put into EVERY shot. I give a huge amount of credit to the cinematographer. A good amount of noticeable techniques were used. I particularly liked one symmetrical pillar shot that used a zoom in dolly in trick. A slight variation of the Vertigo introduced, zoom in dolly out.
But with all of these wonderful shots I noticed something. There was so much technically stunning camera work, I found myself completely drawn out of the story. Was this done intentionally? To some degree I think so. This nicely compliments the dark and rainy 1930's settings.
Noticing this I tried to put more thought into the plot. There basically was none. The characters were cold and lacked development. Any dialog is important and used sparingly. I couldn't stop myself from drawing comparison to The Godfather. What Road to Perdition lacks is any underlying intensity between the characters. I never feel like they were a tight-knit family and do feel as if I'm simply watching characters play their parts. The story has no poetry and feels more like a collection of parts that aren't worth its sum.
I appreciate it in its stunning visuals, but once the credit rolled I felt nothing. And I find no reason to return back to it.
Great Film!
gottogorunning9 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Frankly, this movie has gone over the heads of most of its detractors.
The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.
The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.
Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.
For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.
I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.
The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.
The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.
I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film.
The opposite of perdition (being lost) is salvation (being saved) and this movie is one of a very few to deal with those two concepts. The movie also explores the love and disappointments that attend the father-son relationship. It should be noted at the outset that none of these are currently fashionable themes.
The premise is that the fathers in the move, hit-man Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his crime boss John Rooney (Paul Newman), love their sons and will do anything to protect them. But Rooney's son Connor is even more evil than the rest. He kills one of Rooney's loyal soldiers to cover up his own stealing from his father. When Connor learns that Sullivan's son Michael witnessed it, he mistakenly kills Sullivan's other son (and Sullivan's wife) in an attempt to silence witnesses.
Sullivan decides he wants revenge at any price, even at the terribly high price of perdition. Rooney, who in one scene curses the day Connor was born, refuses to give up his son Connor to Sullivan, and hires a contract killer named Maguire (Jude Law) to kill Sullivan and his son. So Rooney joins his son Connor on the Road to Perdition.
For the rest of the movie, accompanied by his surviving son young Michael, Sullivan pursues Connor Rooney down the Road to Perdition, and Maguire pursues Sullivan. When Sullivan confronts Rooney in a Church basement, and demands that he give up Connor because Connor murdered his family, Rooney says - "Michael, there are only murderers in this room,.., and there's only one guarantee, none of us will see Heaven." As the movie ends, somewhat predictably, one character is saved and one character repents.
I'm not a big Tom Hanks fan, but he does step out of character to play hit-man Sullivan convincingly, giving a subtle and laconic performance. Newman does well as the old Irish gangster Rooney, showing a hard edge in his face and manner, his eyes haunted by Connor's misdeeds. Jude Law plays Maguire in a suitably creepy way. Tyler Hoechlin plays Young Michael naturally and without affectation.
The cinematography constantly played light off from darkness, echoing the themes of salvation and perdition. The camera drew from a palette of greens and greys. The greys belonged to the fathers and the urban landscapes of Depression era Illinois. The greens belonged to the younger sons and that State's rural flatlands. Thomas Newman's lush, sonorous and haunting music had faint Irish overtones and was played out in Copland-like arrangements. The sets were authentic mid-Western urban - factories, churches. The homes shone with gleaming woodwork.
The excellence of the movie lies in its generation of a unique feeling out of its profound themes, distinctive acting, and enveloping music and cinematography. The only negative was a slight anti-gun message slipped into the screenplay y, the movie's only nod to political correctness.
I give this movie a10 out of 10; in time it will be acknowledged as a great film.
One-dimensional
mr_walsh24 December 2006
Even though I believe this is based on a graphic novel, This movie looks like the result of someone who enamored with the 20s who wanted a vehicle for Hanks/Newman. There wasn't enough action to be an action film, there's not enough surprises to be a suspense film, and not characterization to care about the characters - particularly Michael Junior. All the tender moments with piano seemed like someone was trying to emulate Frank Darabond a bit too much. I guess I just sensed a profound lack of depth - nothing provoked any thoughts for me. Cinematography was excellent, though, as were Hank's and Newman's performances.
Beautiful cinematography
cardsrock17 April 2020
Road to Perdition is a classed-up mob story about revenge. With a stellar cast and Oscar-winning cinematography, the film is a dark meditation on vengeance and the fate of one's soul. Heavyweights Tom Hanks and Paul Newman anchor this film, with great support from Daniel Craig and Jude Law. This is a brooding film, but I think it does a great job of conveying its more hopeful messages through some stunning photography.
Camera, Camera, Camera. Its over.
vishal_wall13 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
An innocent lad gets involved in his father's underworld business by accident. This is my interpretation of the film. I don't doubt that director's intentions were the same but I think it was either poor execution of the idea or may be screenplay did not have anything new at all in the first place. I think it was all about cool shots in the rain, lighting and camera movement. Road to perdition would have been a much better film if it was not hijacked by the cinematographer. Through out the film shots are so well composed that you forget the character itself. It looks as if you are sitting in front of a TV to witness composition of each frame and not the story. I think the story is good for one hour. In the first half an hour you don't know what's going on and that the only interesting part. Once you know the characters there's nothing to watch except for rain, suits and car. Extremely overrated film. Acting wise I don't think there was a scope for any great stuff. Recommended only for film students. 7/10
Not about gangsters, but about how ineffectual feeling-centric "new men" fantasize themselves as gangsters.
unauthvu25 July 2002
(NOTE: Certain plot details are given below. It is not crucial to enjoyment of the movie for these to come as surprises, but if you don't want to know anything at all about the plot, please skip this review.)
Road to Perdition certainly got me thinking--but not about anything the filmmakers would likely have cared for me to address. The main realization I came away with was how difficult it can be to sit through a movie when what's going on is not convincing.
The first signal that something might be awry comes with Tom Hanks' initial appearance. After having read a lot about the "dark side" of him that's revealed in this film, I was shocked to find a lack of anything powerful, ominous, or menacing about his presence. He mainly just looks nervous and uptight.
The story itself begins to ring untrue when Hanks' son, the morning after having witnessed a murder, sasses his parents and refuses to attend to his dirty dishes. Hanks and his wife quietly sit there, shooting each knowing glances that say, "Uh oh. Acting out. Wonder what's up here?" This may be a typical enough reaction for contemporary parents, but for 1931? None of the kids I grew up with in the **1950s** would have dared backsass their dads that way. Nor would any credible parents have allowed it--no matter how much they might also have inwardly wondered what was wrong. And for a mob enforcer to be doing this?
Hanks later returns home one evening to find his wife and one of his two sons shot to death in his home. The other son is still in the house--extremely vulnerable to a return attack, once the killer realizes he's hit the wrong boy. Hanks makes no immediate effort to get his surviving son out of the house, or otherwise protect him in any way. He simply sits boo-hooing in the hallway. The problem is not with the emotion itself, but with how he deals with it--in a way that rings jarringly false for a man who earns his living by winning life-and-death contests.
Shortly after the killing, Hanks' character approaches mob boss Frank Nitti for a job with his Chicago organization. Although he has no idea how he'll be received (he might be summarily killed), he immediately blurts out his need for vengeance. Is this how a powerful and streetwise man behaves in the company of cunning, devious, and ruthless killers?
Or consider the behavior of Hanks and his son in their car, on the run, out in farm country. They spot a diner, and Hanks pulls in. Although there's lots of graveled space in back of the diner, Hanks parks right up in front, putting his well-known car on display to the world.
Hanks next tries to convince his son that upcoming meals will be few and far between, so he ought to eat something--but calmly accepts his son's demurral. (He's a 1931 father, mind you, and he knows it will be important for their survival to eat when they can; but if he just told his son to eat something, apparently that might be imposing on his delicate feelings, or sense of independence, or whatever.)
Not only that, but Hanks agrees to let the boy sit reading by himself **out in the car,** where he can't even see him--but every passing driver can--all the while parked conspicuously in front of a diner, when killers are out scouring the countryside for him. (Hanks is hungry, but his son won't agree to go in. What's a father to do? The more protective options of bringing his son in with him or skipping his own meal apparently never occur to him.)
In another scene, following a harrowing brush with a contract killer, in which the boy won't even *duck* when his father tells him to--**while they're being shot at**--Hanks angrily informs his boy that he's got to "start listening" to him, because of all the scary things that people other than Dad might do, if the son keeps on disobeying. Here Hanks' true character is finally revealed. He's not an authority figure; he's not a strong protector; he's not even in any way effectual. He's just a late-1990s mommy-daddy, braying out contemporary "parenting" catchphrases (no doubt learned from his wife) in a Richard Simmons voice: "Now, Justin, stop that! Justin, I'm going to count to ten..."
It only gets worse. Not only is Hanks ineffectual at protecting his son from outsiders, he can't even protect him from himself. Hanks unburdens himself of all kinds of details about his work and plans--things that a child of his son's age absolutely does not need to know.
Somehow they manage to survive Hanks' passive feeling-centric ineffectuality, despite colossal blunders like failing to ensure that a gunman he's just shot is actually dead.
Partly this is because the other mobsters are just as absurdly ineffectual as Hanks is.
For example, an entire mob family's command structure is taken out at a place where they've made no provisions for security other than some old guy waiting outside in a car. They emerge from a building to find the driver dead--then just stand there passively, completely exposed and out in the open, thinking about it (or perhaps coming to grips with their feelings about it).
Hanks' ineffectuality and lack of basic judgment goes on to assume absolutely epic proportions as the movie reaches its climax. Among other things, he actually asks another guy's permission to *kill his son*--and is **surprised** when the answer is no.
All in all, Road to Perdition is an astonishingly unlikely beast: a gangster movie completely devoid of comprehension of what strong men are like, and a tale of fatherhood with no conception that it's possible to be something other than an ineffectual 1990s-style mommy-daddy. Because it is never anything more than a "new man's" groundless fantasy about what it would be like to be a gangster, it is no more convincing than a bad skit.
Most of the fault is obviously in the script, but it's disturbing that neither Tom Hanks nor Paul Newman nor director Sam Mercer noticed anything wrong with it.
Road to Perdition certainly got me thinking--but not about anything the filmmakers would likely have cared for me to address. The main realization I came away with was how difficult it can be to sit through a movie when what's going on is not convincing.
The first signal that something might be awry comes with Tom Hanks' initial appearance. After having read a lot about the "dark side" of him that's revealed in this film, I was shocked to find a lack of anything powerful, ominous, or menacing about his presence. He mainly just looks nervous and uptight.
The story itself begins to ring untrue when Hanks' son, the morning after having witnessed a murder, sasses his parents and refuses to attend to his dirty dishes. Hanks and his wife quietly sit there, shooting each knowing glances that say, "Uh oh. Acting out. Wonder what's up here?" This may be a typical enough reaction for contemporary parents, but for 1931? None of the kids I grew up with in the **1950s** would have dared backsass their dads that way. Nor would any credible parents have allowed it--no matter how much they might also have inwardly wondered what was wrong. And for a mob enforcer to be doing this?
Hanks later returns home one evening to find his wife and one of his two sons shot to death in his home. The other son is still in the house--extremely vulnerable to a return attack, once the killer realizes he's hit the wrong boy. Hanks makes no immediate effort to get his surviving son out of the house, or otherwise protect him in any way. He simply sits boo-hooing in the hallway. The problem is not with the emotion itself, but with how he deals with it--in a way that rings jarringly false for a man who earns his living by winning life-and-death contests.
Shortly after the killing, Hanks' character approaches mob boss Frank Nitti for a job with his Chicago organization. Although he has no idea how he'll be received (he might be summarily killed), he immediately blurts out his need for vengeance. Is this how a powerful and streetwise man behaves in the company of cunning, devious, and ruthless killers?
Or consider the behavior of Hanks and his son in their car, on the run, out in farm country. They spot a diner, and Hanks pulls in. Although there's lots of graveled space in back of the diner, Hanks parks right up in front, putting his well-known car on display to the world.
Hanks next tries to convince his son that upcoming meals will be few and far between, so he ought to eat something--but calmly accepts his son's demurral. (He's a 1931 father, mind you, and he knows it will be important for their survival to eat when they can; but if he just told his son to eat something, apparently that might be imposing on his delicate feelings, or sense of independence, or whatever.)
Not only that, but Hanks agrees to let the boy sit reading by himself **out in the car,** where he can't even see him--but every passing driver can--all the while parked conspicuously in front of a diner, when killers are out scouring the countryside for him. (Hanks is hungry, but his son won't agree to go in. What's a father to do? The more protective options of bringing his son in with him or skipping his own meal apparently never occur to him.)
In another scene, following a harrowing brush with a contract killer, in which the boy won't even *duck* when his father tells him to--**while they're being shot at**--Hanks angrily informs his boy that he's got to "start listening" to him, because of all the scary things that people other than Dad might do, if the son keeps on disobeying. Here Hanks' true character is finally revealed. He's not an authority figure; he's not a strong protector; he's not even in any way effectual. He's just a late-1990s mommy-daddy, braying out contemporary "parenting" catchphrases (no doubt learned from his wife) in a Richard Simmons voice: "Now, Justin, stop that! Justin, I'm going to count to ten..."
It only gets worse. Not only is Hanks ineffectual at protecting his son from outsiders, he can't even protect him from himself. Hanks unburdens himself of all kinds of details about his work and plans--things that a child of his son's age absolutely does not need to know.
Somehow they manage to survive Hanks' passive feeling-centric ineffectuality, despite colossal blunders like failing to ensure that a gunman he's just shot is actually dead.
Partly this is because the other mobsters are just as absurdly ineffectual as Hanks is.
For example, an entire mob family's command structure is taken out at a place where they've made no provisions for security other than some old guy waiting outside in a car. They emerge from a building to find the driver dead--then just stand there passively, completely exposed and out in the open, thinking about it (or perhaps coming to grips with their feelings about it).
Hanks' ineffectuality and lack of basic judgment goes on to assume absolutely epic proportions as the movie reaches its climax. Among other things, he actually asks another guy's permission to *kill his son*--and is **surprised** when the answer is no.
All in all, Road to Perdition is an astonishingly unlikely beast: a gangster movie completely devoid of comprehension of what strong men are like, and a tale of fatherhood with no conception that it's possible to be something other than an ineffectual 1990s-style mommy-daddy. Because it is never anything more than a "new man's" groundless fantasy about what it would be like to be a gangster, it is no more convincing than a bad skit.
Most of the fault is obviously in the script, but it's disturbing that neither Tom Hanks nor Paul Newman nor director Sam Mercer noticed anything wrong with it.
`Road to Perdition' is a rocky road of revenge and reconciliation, punctuated by some gorgeous Conrad Hall cinematography.
JohnDeSando9 July 2002
`Road to Perdition' is a rocky road of revenge and reconciliation, punctuated by some gorgeous Conrad Hall cinematography. Tom Hanks is a 1930's mob hit man whose 12 year-old son sees him commit a murder. The rest of Director Sam Mendes' (`American Beauty') film is the boy's coming to terms with that knowledge. Paul Newman plays a `godfather,' a father to his errant son and like a father to Hanks.
Laced throughout are 3 father-son relationships, which seem to move toward the violent ends reserved for mobsters. Hanks' son is ambivalent about his dad, whom he seems to adore yet hold accountable for his crimes. Newman's son is like Sonny Corleone, too loose to be in charge and no heir apparent; Hanks owes his lifestyle to Newman-all these relationships are subsumed by the business needs of the larger organization.
This is noir with a dark palette, costuming in clothes metaphorically heavy, and sounding often as stylized and minimal as the murders Hanks commits. `Road to Perdition' lacks the grandeur of Coppola's `Godfather' epic, but it succeeds in evoking an old-testament judicial system where eye meets eye and tooth savages tooth. The revenge motif is too dominant to let the film rest on the promising father-son motif.
Hanks' son learns about morality and decides about following in his father's footsteps. Hanks gives another controlled performance, and Paul Newman lets us know there is room for one more powerful screen godfather.
Laced throughout are 3 father-son relationships, which seem to move toward the violent ends reserved for mobsters. Hanks' son is ambivalent about his dad, whom he seems to adore yet hold accountable for his crimes. Newman's son is like Sonny Corleone, too loose to be in charge and no heir apparent; Hanks owes his lifestyle to Newman-all these relationships are subsumed by the business needs of the larger organization.
This is noir with a dark palette, costuming in clothes metaphorically heavy, and sounding often as stylized and minimal as the murders Hanks commits. `Road to Perdition' lacks the grandeur of Coppola's `Godfather' epic, but it succeeds in evoking an old-testament judicial system where eye meets eye and tooth savages tooth. The revenge motif is too dominant to let the film rest on the promising father-son motif.
Hanks' son learns about morality and decides about following in his father's footsteps. Hanks gives another controlled performance, and Paul Newman lets us know there is room for one more powerful screen godfather.
Sometimes familiar, but always good
rbverhoef23 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the best made movies from 2002. Maybe it is not the best movie, but it looks the best, has great acting and is directed perfectly by Sam Mendes, who debuted with 'American Beauty'.
It tells the story of a gangster named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) who is seen by his son (Tyler Hoechlin) on one of his jobs. Michael's boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), thinks things will be okay but his jealous son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) sets both his father and Michael up, leading to the death of Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and second son. Michael thinks Rooney is responsible and Rooney has to choose for himself and sends a hit-man Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) to finish the job. Since Michael is a respected man within the organization he tries to win some friends who can help him including mob boss Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).
In a way 'Road to Perdition' is a standard gangster movie but it is so well made you almost can not see that. This movie is good in its production design, art direction, sound, music and most of all in its cinematography. All these elements are able to surprise and create suspense although the outcome is pretty certain. That Hoechlin is not a annoying kid and Hanks, Law and Newman know how to act helps, of course.
Based on a comic this movie is so much better than you would expect and although it has it flaws it belongs to the better movies in the genre. Sometimes there are events where you realize you have seen it so many times before, but for some reason it also feels fresh at the same time. The scenes between the adult Hanks and the child Hoechlin help in that area. See this movie that will look familiar at times but is totally new on a lot of areas.
It tells the story of a gangster named Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) who is seen by his son (Tyler Hoechlin) on one of his jobs. Michael's boss, John Rooney (Paul Newman), thinks things will be okay but his jealous son Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) sets both his father and Michael up, leading to the death of Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and second son. Michael thinks Rooney is responsible and Rooney has to choose for himself and sends a hit-man Harlen Maguire (Jude Law) to finish the job. Since Michael is a respected man within the organization he tries to win some friends who can help him including mob boss Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).
In a way 'Road to Perdition' is a standard gangster movie but it is so well made you almost can not see that. This movie is good in its production design, art direction, sound, music and most of all in its cinematography. All these elements are able to surprise and create suspense although the outcome is pretty certain. That Hoechlin is not a annoying kid and Hanks, Law and Newman know how to act helps, of course.
Based on a comic this movie is so much better than you would expect and although it has it flaws it belongs to the better movies in the genre. Sometimes there are events where you realize you have seen it so many times before, but for some reason it also feels fresh at the same time. The scenes between the adult Hanks and the child Hoechlin help in that area. See this movie that will look familiar at times but is totally new on a lot of areas.
Those Who Live by the Sword
JamesHitchcock24 March 2012
Ever since Coppola's "The Godfather" came out in 1972, just about every auteur director working in America seems to have cherished the ambition to produce his own "Godfather", hence crime epics like Scorsese's "Goodfellas", Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America", De Palma's remake of "Scarface", the Coen brothers' "Miller's Crossing" and Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction". Following his acclaimed first film "American Beauty", Sam Mendes obviously decided that the it was time to make his own "Godfather", because his second film, "Road to Perdition" is a gangster drama in this tradition.
Michael Sullivan junior is a twelve-year-old schoolboy from Rock Island, Illinois. Although it is the early 1930s, the time of the Great Depression, the Irish-American Sullivan family enjoys a comfortable upper-middle-class existence. Young Michael, however, is puzzled about what his father, Michael senior, actually does for a living; all he knows is that he works for John Rooney, a seemingly respectable elderly gentleman who treats the boy like an adopted grandson. The truth, however, is that Rooney is an organised crime boss and Michael senior his "enforcer" When young Michael stumbles on the truth, after witnessing Rooney's unstable son Connor killing another gang member, he inadvertently puts himself and his family in danger. In an attempt to eliminate the boy, Connor murders his mother Annie and younger brother Peter, forcing Michael and his father to flee for their lives. The rest of the film deals with Michael senior's search for revenge for the deaths of Annie and Peter.
The title can be understood on a number of levels. On the most literal, Perdition is a town to which some of the characters travel at the end of the film. On another level, "perdition" can be interpreted as meaning "death" or "destruction", and on a third "eternal damnation". Perhaps the film's bleakest moment comes when Rooney says to Michael senior that "none of us have any hope of getting to Heaven". This is not just a figure of speech. Rooney is a practising Catholic who has nevertheless embarked upon a way of life which he believes can only result in his damnation to Hell. The film's emphasis on the futility and sterility of the criminal lifestyle is reminiscent of that great British gangster movie, "Get Carter".
The bleakness of the film's moral message is emphasised by its visual style, dominated by a muted palette with dark backgrounds and dull greens and greys. Filming took place in winter and early spring, often against a backdrop of snow and rain; Mendes intended the cold, bleak look of the film to reflect the characters' emotional states. Water, snow and ice are recurrent visual images throughout, from the snowy opening funeral scene with a corpse on ice to the closing scenes by Lake Michigan. The film's emotional impact is also heightened by Thomas Newman's evocative, elegiac musical score.
The film's two most important characters are Michael senior and Rooney, who loves Michael like a son, and yet tries to kill him to save his biological son Connor. In some ways the audience can sympathise with Michael, a man who has suffered unjustly through the deaths of two innocent family members, and this sense of identification is strengthened by the casting of Tom Hanks, an actor normally seen as sympathetic characters. On another level, however, we recognise Michael's moral responsibility for his own predicament as one of those who live by the sword and are therefore doomed to die by the sword as each killing fuels the cycle of revenge and leads to yet more bloodshed. This is one of Hanks's most accomplished performances as he is able to show both these sides of Michael's personality. One of his redeeming characteristics is his love for his son, who he hopes will be able to lead a better life than the one he himself has led, and the film ends on a note of hope in this regard.
This was to be Paul Newman's last appearance in a feature film, and it was to be a fine end to his distinguished career. Although Rooney is a lifelong villain, he is not wholly evil, but a tired, disillusioned old man, in Wilfred Owen's phrase a "devil sick of sin", who retains enough moral awareness to realise that his false system of values has blighted his life and the lives of others. The other notable performance comes from an almost unrecognisable Jude Law as Harlen Maguire, the hit-man sent by Rooney to kill Sullivan. Maguire also works as a crime-scene photographer, and the relish with which he photographs murder victims reveals a macabre fascination with death. In his remorselessness Maguire recalls Anton Chigurh, the hit-man played by Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men", although to my mind Law gives a better performance than Bardem. Maguire, for all his evil, is a recognisable human being whereas the one-dimensional Chigurh seems more like a personification of some abstraction such as "death" or "fate".
The "my own Godfather" syndrome means that the organised crime epic has become something of an overcrowded field in the last forty years, but I must say that "Road to Perdition" is one of the most impressive entries in that field. I was impressed by Conrad Hall's breathtaking cinematography, by the standards of acting and by an intelligent script with its themes of father-son relationships, of the ethics of revenge and of the consequences of violence. Above all I was impressed by Mendes's ability to weave all these elements into a mythic whole, an epic which manages to say something new in the otherwise clichéd gangster genre. When I reviewed "American Beauty" I said that Mendes had joined that elite group of directors (Orson Wells, Sidney Lumet, Bryan Forbes, Stuart Rosenberg) who had made a masterpiece with their first film. With "Road to Perdition" he has joined that even smaller group who have made masterpieces with their first two films. 9/10
Michael Sullivan junior is a twelve-year-old schoolboy from Rock Island, Illinois. Although it is the early 1930s, the time of the Great Depression, the Irish-American Sullivan family enjoys a comfortable upper-middle-class existence. Young Michael, however, is puzzled about what his father, Michael senior, actually does for a living; all he knows is that he works for John Rooney, a seemingly respectable elderly gentleman who treats the boy like an adopted grandson. The truth, however, is that Rooney is an organised crime boss and Michael senior his "enforcer" When young Michael stumbles on the truth, after witnessing Rooney's unstable son Connor killing another gang member, he inadvertently puts himself and his family in danger. In an attempt to eliminate the boy, Connor murders his mother Annie and younger brother Peter, forcing Michael and his father to flee for their lives. The rest of the film deals with Michael senior's search for revenge for the deaths of Annie and Peter.
The title can be understood on a number of levels. On the most literal, Perdition is a town to which some of the characters travel at the end of the film. On another level, "perdition" can be interpreted as meaning "death" or "destruction", and on a third "eternal damnation". Perhaps the film's bleakest moment comes when Rooney says to Michael senior that "none of us have any hope of getting to Heaven". This is not just a figure of speech. Rooney is a practising Catholic who has nevertheless embarked upon a way of life which he believes can only result in his damnation to Hell. The film's emphasis on the futility and sterility of the criminal lifestyle is reminiscent of that great British gangster movie, "Get Carter".
The bleakness of the film's moral message is emphasised by its visual style, dominated by a muted palette with dark backgrounds and dull greens and greys. Filming took place in winter and early spring, often against a backdrop of snow and rain; Mendes intended the cold, bleak look of the film to reflect the characters' emotional states. Water, snow and ice are recurrent visual images throughout, from the snowy opening funeral scene with a corpse on ice to the closing scenes by Lake Michigan. The film's emotional impact is also heightened by Thomas Newman's evocative, elegiac musical score.
The film's two most important characters are Michael senior and Rooney, who loves Michael like a son, and yet tries to kill him to save his biological son Connor. In some ways the audience can sympathise with Michael, a man who has suffered unjustly through the deaths of two innocent family members, and this sense of identification is strengthened by the casting of Tom Hanks, an actor normally seen as sympathetic characters. On another level, however, we recognise Michael's moral responsibility for his own predicament as one of those who live by the sword and are therefore doomed to die by the sword as each killing fuels the cycle of revenge and leads to yet more bloodshed. This is one of Hanks's most accomplished performances as he is able to show both these sides of Michael's personality. One of his redeeming characteristics is his love for his son, who he hopes will be able to lead a better life than the one he himself has led, and the film ends on a note of hope in this regard.
This was to be Paul Newman's last appearance in a feature film, and it was to be a fine end to his distinguished career. Although Rooney is a lifelong villain, he is not wholly evil, but a tired, disillusioned old man, in Wilfred Owen's phrase a "devil sick of sin", who retains enough moral awareness to realise that his false system of values has blighted his life and the lives of others. The other notable performance comes from an almost unrecognisable Jude Law as Harlen Maguire, the hit-man sent by Rooney to kill Sullivan. Maguire also works as a crime-scene photographer, and the relish with which he photographs murder victims reveals a macabre fascination with death. In his remorselessness Maguire recalls Anton Chigurh, the hit-man played by Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men", although to my mind Law gives a better performance than Bardem. Maguire, for all his evil, is a recognisable human being whereas the one-dimensional Chigurh seems more like a personification of some abstraction such as "death" or "fate".
The "my own Godfather" syndrome means that the organised crime epic has become something of an overcrowded field in the last forty years, but I must say that "Road to Perdition" is one of the most impressive entries in that field. I was impressed by Conrad Hall's breathtaking cinematography, by the standards of acting and by an intelligent script with its themes of father-son relationships, of the ethics of revenge and of the consequences of violence. Above all I was impressed by Mendes's ability to weave all these elements into a mythic whole, an epic which manages to say something new in the otherwise clichéd gangster genre. When I reviewed "American Beauty" I said that Mendes had joined that elite group of directors (Orson Wells, Sidney Lumet, Bryan Forbes, Stuart Rosenberg) who had made a masterpiece with their first film. With "Road to Perdition" he has joined that even smaller group who have made masterpieces with their first two films. 9/10
A bloody box of chocolate
carlos.virgile-321 September 2002
Is life another box of chocolate? Perhaps this times a rather bloody and morally reprehensible one. Is this road leading anywhere worth going? Road to Perdition tries so hard to be something that ultimately it can not accomplished that all its efforts seems so prefabricated, so full of mannerisms, so contrived that there is no room for reality or even true feelings to influence or penetrate neither the story narrative or its delivery.
The film feels totally empty at its core, empty of those same values that in spite of the bloodshed and violence of the gangster world it portraits it pretends to highlight: love between father and son, filial trust, honesty. It plays with the audience natural alliance to its main character and its moral ambiguity by casting Tom Hanks as a distasteful hero but giving him an aura of respectability by focusing in his caring fatherly love.
The film's contrived cinematography, the soft focus brown and sepia tones of the photography, the immaculate new repro-sets, the constant intrusion of a highly sentimental sound track that feels the need to emphasise every little nuance of the plot seems to try to make the audience an accomplice in hiding the true nature of the film's main character: a merciless gangster and a miserable b****rd. This is not The Sopranos territory where moral ambiguities and soul searching dilemmas constantly mark the plot neither The Godfather's world where character development and a genuine sense of realism prevails through the questionable characters that inhabits it.
I found the film so incredible distasteful, so sickening in its Hollywood sugary levels of story telling that it makes me seriously doubt about the future abilities to mix popular culture with subtle touches of sensitivity that Sam Mendes so clearly demonstrated in his first film. Let's hope he still has something to say and he is yet not totally lost, at such a tender age, to that road leading to vacuous and meaningless success.and with another Oscar waiting at the end of it.
The film feels totally empty at its core, empty of those same values that in spite of the bloodshed and violence of the gangster world it portraits it pretends to highlight: love between father and son, filial trust, honesty. It plays with the audience natural alliance to its main character and its moral ambiguity by casting Tom Hanks as a distasteful hero but giving him an aura of respectability by focusing in his caring fatherly love.
The film's contrived cinematography, the soft focus brown and sepia tones of the photography, the immaculate new repro-sets, the constant intrusion of a highly sentimental sound track that feels the need to emphasise every little nuance of the plot seems to try to make the audience an accomplice in hiding the true nature of the film's main character: a merciless gangster and a miserable b****rd. This is not The Sopranos territory where moral ambiguities and soul searching dilemmas constantly mark the plot neither The Godfather's world where character development and a genuine sense of realism prevails through the questionable characters that inhabits it.
I found the film so incredible distasteful, so sickening in its Hollywood sugary levels of story telling that it makes me seriously doubt about the future abilities to mix popular culture with subtle touches of sensitivity that Sam Mendes so clearly demonstrated in his first film. Let's hope he still has something to say and he is yet not totally lost, at such a tender age, to that road leading to vacuous and meaningless success.and with another Oscar waiting at the end of it.
Violent, disturbing and stunning
blanche-222 May 2007
A enforcer for a gangster in the liquor business finds the tables turned on him and goes on the run with his son in "Road to Perdition," a 2002 film directed by Sam Mendes.
Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a quiet, remote father of two who works for a crooked liquor dealer, John Rooney (Paul Newman) who took him in and treats him as his son. His two boys aren't clear about what he does, and one night, when he goes out on a job, his older son, Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) hides in the car and follows his dad and Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) as they go to "talk" to someone. As the young boy watches, Connor loses his temper and starts shooting up the place, and Michael joins in. Connor sees Michael Jr. when he exits. Michael Sr. of course promises that his boy won't say anything. On his next job, Connor gives him a note for the man Michael is to see, who is in heavy debt to John Rooney. Michael is forced to kill the man when he sees that the man is about to kill him. On looking at the note Connor asked him to deliver, it says, "Kill Sullivan and all debts are paid." Several hours later, Michael's life is devastated, and he and his older son are on the run, Michael determined to destroy Connor.
I saw this film without being aware of anyone liking or disliking it or of it being overlooked by the Oscars - I only had heard of it and actually rented it because I am a huge fan of Paul Newman's. Let me say that I was astounded by the brilliance of this film in every aspect. It possibly captured the time period of the early '30s better than any film I've ever seen, right down to the Doeskin tissues I used to see piled up in my grandparents' basement. The cinematography is staggering.
The gangster story in "Road to Perdition" actually wraps around a more important one, that of the bonding of father and son, which is beautifully told. Hanks is magnificent as a closed off man who gets to know his boy during their life on the run, and vice versa. "He dotes on you," a woman on a farm tells Michael. The two Michaels are alike, but Senior never wants Junior to follow in his footsteps. Paul Newman is, as usual, terrific as John Rooney, a tough gangster who goes to Communion but knows "none of us will ever see heaven." He was around 77 at the time of the filming and as handsome and dynamic as ever. Daniel Craig does a phenomenal job as the vicious Connor.
Amid so many brilliant performances, Jude Law plays one of the most disturbing, frightening characters in film history, Harlen Maguire, a hit man who makes money not only by killing, but by photographing the dead victims and selling the photos, which adorn his wall. He's absolutely nauseating, and Law doesn't miss a beat. The always wonderful Stanley Tucci is Frank Nitti, and Jennifer Jason Leigh has a small role as Michael's wife. As Michael Jr., Tyler Hoechlin perfectly embodies all the emotions necessary for the role: the fear, anger, love, and loyalty. He and Hanks have the film's biggest roles, and they carry it, making it look easy.
This is a suspenseful, poignant, sad and violent masterpiece. One of the comments warns against comparing it to The Godfather - I hope nobody did this. It stands on its own, and one has nothing to do with the other. A great artistic achievement by Sam Mendes who worked with a beautifully realized script and top cast. Now that I've seen it, I can't believe it was so overlooked at the Oscars, but when I think of all the Oscars Newman has been cheated out of, I guess I'm not only surprised, but I've about had it with the Oscars.
I almost gave "Road to Perdition" a 9 instead of a 10 only because I'm not big on lots of blood. If you are, too, I suggest you watch it anyway. You won't be sorry. A powerful experience.
Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a quiet, remote father of two who works for a crooked liquor dealer, John Rooney (Paul Newman) who took him in and treats him as his son. His two boys aren't clear about what he does, and one night, when he goes out on a job, his older son, Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) hides in the car and follows his dad and Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) as they go to "talk" to someone. As the young boy watches, Connor loses his temper and starts shooting up the place, and Michael joins in. Connor sees Michael Jr. when he exits. Michael Sr. of course promises that his boy won't say anything. On his next job, Connor gives him a note for the man Michael is to see, who is in heavy debt to John Rooney. Michael is forced to kill the man when he sees that the man is about to kill him. On looking at the note Connor asked him to deliver, it says, "Kill Sullivan and all debts are paid." Several hours later, Michael's life is devastated, and he and his older son are on the run, Michael determined to destroy Connor.
I saw this film without being aware of anyone liking or disliking it or of it being overlooked by the Oscars - I only had heard of it and actually rented it because I am a huge fan of Paul Newman's. Let me say that I was astounded by the brilliance of this film in every aspect. It possibly captured the time period of the early '30s better than any film I've ever seen, right down to the Doeskin tissues I used to see piled up in my grandparents' basement. The cinematography is staggering.
The gangster story in "Road to Perdition" actually wraps around a more important one, that of the bonding of father and son, which is beautifully told. Hanks is magnificent as a closed off man who gets to know his boy during their life on the run, and vice versa. "He dotes on you," a woman on a farm tells Michael. The two Michaels are alike, but Senior never wants Junior to follow in his footsteps. Paul Newman is, as usual, terrific as John Rooney, a tough gangster who goes to Communion but knows "none of us will ever see heaven." He was around 77 at the time of the filming and as handsome and dynamic as ever. Daniel Craig does a phenomenal job as the vicious Connor.
Amid so many brilliant performances, Jude Law plays one of the most disturbing, frightening characters in film history, Harlen Maguire, a hit man who makes money not only by killing, but by photographing the dead victims and selling the photos, which adorn his wall. He's absolutely nauseating, and Law doesn't miss a beat. The always wonderful Stanley Tucci is Frank Nitti, and Jennifer Jason Leigh has a small role as Michael's wife. As Michael Jr., Tyler Hoechlin perfectly embodies all the emotions necessary for the role: the fear, anger, love, and loyalty. He and Hanks have the film's biggest roles, and they carry it, making it look easy.
This is a suspenseful, poignant, sad and violent masterpiece. One of the comments warns against comparing it to The Godfather - I hope nobody did this. It stands on its own, and one has nothing to do with the other. A great artistic achievement by Sam Mendes who worked with a beautifully realized script and top cast. Now that I've seen it, I can't believe it was so overlooked at the Oscars, but when I think of all the Oscars Newman has been cheated out of, I guess I'm not only surprised, but I've about had it with the Oscars.
I almost gave "Road to Perdition" a 9 instead of a 10 only because I'm not big on lots of blood. If you are, too, I suggest you watch it anyway. You won't be sorry. A powerful experience.
A let down
jmaycock21 September 2002
I'll keep this short. I thought the movie was too slow, boring in places, and lacked character development. I didn't care at any stage who got shot etc. Don't understand why it has such a high rating on IMDB? I gave it a 6, because I suppose there are a lot worse films out there.
A very well told coming of age/father and son/gangster picture, the best of its kind since Bronx Tale...
Quinoa198417 July 2002
...although it is very difficult to compare it to the likes of the Godfather, which many critics have talked of following the release of Sam Mendes' (Best Picture of 99 American Beauty Mendes' 2nd effort) Road to Perdition. However in truth, this film takes place in a universe all its own, giving connection to Al Capone here and there and scenes of mid-west life in depression era America, yet the story with its plot and characters are what matter and Mendes and screenwriter Self know this from first frame to last.
Tom Hanks gets another challenge this time (after a retard, an AIDS patient, an island survivor and a conflicted World War 2 soldier), in getting a role of the likes of Michael Sullivan Sr, a expertly trained hit-man for boss John Rooney (Paul Newman in one of the years best supporting roles), since his is a life that is cold and ruthless and sometimes compassionate given the circumstances, and Hanks pulls it off in his compelling fashion and it can be seen even in the more subtle scenes, like with his son Michael Jr. They go on the run when Rooney's son Conner shoots Hanks' other son and wife, and the story unfolds from there, which includes a juicy, sinister persona sent on Hanks' tale named Maguire (Jude Law).
With photography by Conrad L. Hall that ranks with some of the best so far this decade and performances made to match the edge, this is THE dramatic thriller of the season; one of the best pictures of the year. A+
Tom Hanks gets another challenge this time (after a retard, an AIDS patient, an island survivor and a conflicted World War 2 soldier), in getting a role of the likes of Michael Sullivan Sr, a expertly trained hit-man for boss John Rooney (Paul Newman in one of the years best supporting roles), since his is a life that is cold and ruthless and sometimes compassionate given the circumstances, and Hanks pulls it off in his compelling fashion and it can be seen even in the more subtle scenes, like with his son Michael Jr. They go on the run when Rooney's son Conner shoots Hanks' other son and wife, and the story unfolds from there, which includes a juicy, sinister persona sent on Hanks' tale named Maguire (Jude Law).
With photography by Conrad L. Hall that ranks with some of the best so far this decade and performances made to match the edge, this is THE dramatic thriller of the season; one of the best pictures of the year. A+
Too long and misses the mark
BishoptksKnight23 February 2003
To see Sam Mendes team up once again with Conrad Hall is see and hope for the same excellent result in filmmaking which was accomplished with American Beauty. Somehow though, it did not happen. Road to Perdition is too long and misses the mark, the idea of fathers and sons and redemption vs. perdition, is one that could have been used with a much more poignant and visceral message and deliverance. What's more, the right actors were all there for Mr. Mendes. Finding oneself in the company of Paul Newman, Tom Hanks and Jude Law certainly gives one room for superior performances, but there is no punch to the story and the actors all seem somewhat misused (not to be mistaken with miscast) by the slow pace of the film and the lack of a definitive or strong arc in story.
Mr. Hall, as per usual, shoots the film with beauty and style, yet it is frustrating to watch the camera not come in close at moments that could have been so much more if we were allowed closer to the faces in frame. But it is the director's picture, so I find Mr. Mendes to be the one at fault for this oversight. I also thought the editors could have done a better job in the cutting room. While I have no problem with movies that run long, I do have a problem with movies that run long due to not being trimmed down to the essence of the story. The film, in that sense, was somewhat vague and rambling.
All of the above being said, both Paul Newman and Tom Hanks were right on the money. So also was Jude Law, although it seemed as if his part in the film was not maximized to what it could have been. Close ups or no, Conrad Hall hits paydirt with his cinematography and given that this was his last film, it is a consoling thought to think that he left at the top of his game. One of the best, he weaves a dark tapestry with careful use of light to convey the world of his subjects.
Certainly not a bad film but a little disappointing given the expectations going into it. And for $80 million dollars, I believe they could have done a much better job than this.
Mr. Hall, as per usual, shoots the film with beauty and style, yet it is frustrating to watch the camera not come in close at moments that could have been so much more if we were allowed closer to the faces in frame. But it is the director's picture, so I find Mr. Mendes to be the one at fault for this oversight. I also thought the editors could have done a better job in the cutting room. While I have no problem with movies that run long, I do have a problem with movies that run long due to not being trimmed down to the essence of the story. The film, in that sense, was somewhat vague and rambling.
All of the above being said, both Paul Newman and Tom Hanks were right on the money. So also was Jude Law, although it seemed as if his part in the film was not maximized to what it could have been. Close ups or no, Conrad Hall hits paydirt with his cinematography and given that this was his last film, it is a consoling thought to think that he left at the top of his game. One of the best, he weaves a dark tapestry with careful use of light to convey the world of his subjects.
Certainly not a bad film but a little disappointing given the expectations going into it. And for $80 million dollars, I believe they could have done a much better job than this.
Drew me in right from the start and never let go
TheLittleSongbird29 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For me, 'Road to Perdition' is Sam Mendes' second best film after 'American Beauty', though it is a very close call. It is every bit as wonderful a film, and while it may not click with everybody there is just so much to admire.
'Road to Perdition' has been criticised for starting off sluggish, Jennifer Jason Leigh being underused, Jude Law being out of place with a cartoonish one-dimensional villain, the action scene in the rain being anti-climactic, having a generic script and a lack of emotional attachment.
From personal opinion, however, the first ten minutes isn't as good as the rest of the film, but it is not due to the fact that it's uninteresting, just that 'Road to Perdition' is one of those films that gets even stronger and even more interesting as it goes on. It is true too that Jason Leigh is underused, though she still does a good job. So in conclusion from this paragraph, the criticisms are understandable, just don't happen to agree.
As said, there is so much to admire about 'Road to Perdition'. The cinematography is superb, some of the best and most beautiful of any film from the 2000s, while the evocative production design is every bit as good, completely transporting the viewer back to the a moody 1930s Chicago. Once again, Thomas Newman's music score is hauntingly hypnotic, achingly melancholic and at times ominous, one of his best scores and he has impressed many times.
Sam Mendes does a remarkable job directing, keeping the film at an assured pace and keeping the atmosphere alive, the chemistry between the actors and the characters' development never undermined. The script is intelligent and thought-provoking, there are better scripts around certainly but also far worse. The story is compelling and makes the most of its fascinating and complex themes, while the characters are well-fleshed out and certainly not stereotypical.
Didn't feel that it was detached emotionally, 'Road to Perdition' to me more often than not was intense and moving. The action is well-staged, and the aforementioned scene in the rain had a good amount of tension.
Cast against type, Tom Hanks is the epitome of haunting understatement, his eyes and facial expressions have such a haunted quality that is so telling and tells so much. In one of his last roles, Paul Newman was rarely more intimidating than here.
In a role far removed from his usual roles, Jude Law is chillingly eccentric, the character is kind of one-dimensional but still interesting and very well performed. Daniel Craig also excels in an atypical role, and Tyler Hoechlin surprised me in how good he was. Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ciaran Hinds and Stanley Tucci are all solid.
All in all, a wonderful film that drew me in from the start and never let go and got better and better. 10/10 Bethany Cox.
'Road to Perdition' has been criticised for starting off sluggish, Jennifer Jason Leigh being underused, Jude Law being out of place with a cartoonish one-dimensional villain, the action scene in the rain being anti-climactic, having a generic script and a lack of emotional attachment.
From personal opinion, however, the first ten minutes isn't as good as the rest of the film, but it is not due to the fact that it's uninteresting, just that 'Road to Perdition' is one of those films that gets even stronger and even more interesting as it goes on. It is true too that Jason Leigh is underused, though she still does a good job. So in conclusion from this paragraph, the criticisms are understandable, just don't happen to agree.
As said, there is so much to admire about 'Road to Perdition'. The cinematography is superb, some of the best and most beautiful of any film from the 2000s, while the evocative production design is every bit as good, completely transporting the viewer back to the a moody 1930s Chicago. Once again, Thomas Newman's music score is hauntingly hypnotic, achingly melancholic and at times ominous, one of his best scores and he has impressed many times.
Sam Mendes does a remarkable job directing, keeping the film at an assured pace and keeping the atmosphere alive, the chemistry between the actors and the characters' development never undermined. The script is intelligent and thought-provoking, there are better scripts around certainly but also far worse. The story is compelling and makes the most of its fascinating and complex themes, while the characters are well-fleshed out and certainly not stereotypical.
Didn't feel that it was detached emotionally, 'Road to Perdition' to me more often than not was intense and moving. The action is well-staged, and the aforementioned scene in the rain had a good amount of tension.
Cast against type, Tom Hanks is the epitome of haunting understatement, his eyes and facial expressions have such a haunted quality that is so telling and tells so much. In one of his last roles, Paul Newman was rarely more intimidating than here.
In a role far removed from his usual roles, Jude Law is chillingly eccentric, the character is kind of one-dimensional but still interesting and very well performed. Daniel Craig also excels in an atypical role, and Tyler Hoechlin surprised me in how good he was. Jennifer Jason Leigh, Ciaran Hinds and Stanley Tucci are all solid.
All in all, a wonderful film that drew me in from the start and never let go and got better and better. 10/10 Bethany Cox.
Not one of Tom Hanks most famous roles, but a great one nonetheless.
vithiet1 August 2023
This movie has been in my watchlist for the past 20 years and I can't believe I just now got to watch it. I am not a big fan of the whole 30s gangster genre so that was always a bit of a turn off, and to be honest, probably the reason why I only give it a 7/10 instead of an 8/10. Because otherwise, it is a great movie. Everything from the writing to the directing, and of course the acting, is impeccable. And will keep you engaged from beginning to end. And even if I'm not a fan, I have to admit that the costumes. Props, and sets for that era and extremely well done. All in all I greatly recommend it, especially if you're a Tom Hanks fan (but who isn't, really).
AKA the Road to Bogus City (spoilers)
webmaster-4915 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Seldom does a movie fail on so many levels and in so many genres.
As a Coming of Age Story it's unrealistic. Anyone whose entire family had been shot dead, and was on the run from both police and the mob (oh sure, Capone just forgave him taking all that money) isn't going to be a faux, philosophical boy-man. They're going to be an emotional basket case.
As a Depression Era Gangster Movie it's shallow. We learn nothing about Chicago, the gangs, the Depression (everybody looks plenty rich in this movie) or even Sullivan himself. Everyone and everything is a complete cipher. This movie could have taken place in any decade of the 1900s and wouldn't have been a bit different.
As a Revenge Flick it's hokey. One well-known guy and his punk son take on the Capone Mob and the "Rooneys"? Yeah, sure.
As a Father and Son Caper movie it's unintentionally hilarious. "Gee Dad, let's rob a bank today. C'mon, let's shoot some guys. Dad, Dad, I wanna go ambush the Capone Mob!!" "No, son. You must not grow up to be a gangster like me. You should let creepy Jude Law kill you because it's better to be a dead innocent youth than a stone cold killa like your old man."
And so on. Some parts are just ridiculous beyond belief. Jude Law is after Tom Hanks and Son under orders to kill them. He sees them making a telephone call, and oh-so-cleverly picks up the phone after they've left and pretends to have been disconnected. He finds out where they're going. Why the hell does he even care? Why doesn't he just *kill them right there and then?!?*
The boy is doing a voiceover (in the same voice he used during the movie) about how "that was the last time I touched a gun." Last time since when, boyo? A few weeks ago? If this is supposed to be Grown Up Gangster's Son, why is he reminescing in a kid's voice?
Speaking of winter, boy Chicago sure has some mild ones, huh?
Tom Hanks ambushes the "Rooneys" (what a dumb name for a gangster clan) from the shadows and starts blasting them with a tommie gun that has about a 1000 round clip. In classic Hollywood style, nobody dives for cover. They just stand there and get shot. Paul Newman never goes for his gun. He stands there and waits for Hanks to come up and shoot him point blank. Yep.
Jude Law, dead guy photographer. I guess the police are so corrupt that they never ask questions about why Law is killing off people himself. Creepy Jude Law is becoming a fixture, the next Crispin Glover. When you see his name, you can be almost certain there will be some "psycho" character in the film. Oh, he's a brilliant hitman too. Instead of waiting outside the diner and plugging Hanks when he's finished eating, and killing the sleeping boy in the car, Law goes in there and sits right down and starts talking to him, setting the scene for Hanks to escape. Brilliantly Stupid.
But the worse part of the whole mess is the director's inability to decide what story he wants to tell. He does 30mins of Gangster film, 30 of Father/Son bonding, 25 of chase across the Midwest, etc. Even the title isn't immune from this kind of inability to focus. Road to Perdition has a clever, and draining, double-meaning since that's where the Aunt lives, in someplace called "Perdition." Uh-huh. God, that's dumb. Lame "symbolic" names are the nadir of poor writing.
And the message in this whole mess? "Admire me, son, but don't grow up to be like me." That kid would have needed a whole lotta therapy to even be able to grow up at all.
There's no reason to give this piece of ill-conceived garbage more than 2 stars. It looks pretty and it has a great soundtrack. Apparently, that's all you need these days to have critics talking about "Oscars". Hah! Road to Bogus City didn't get more than a few token nominations. It didn't deserve anything more.
Hm, maybe the Academy isn't as blind as I thought it was.
RstJ Salem, Oregon
As a Coming of Age Story it's unrealistic. Anyone whose entire family had been shot dead, and was on the run from both police and the mob (oh sure, Capone just forgave him taking all that money) isn't going to be a faux, philosophical boy-man. They're going to be an emotional basket case.
As a Depression Era Gangster Movie it's shallow. We learn nothing about Chicago, the gangs, the Depression (everybody looks plenty rich in this movie) or even Sullivan himself. Everyone and everything is a complete cipher. This movie could have taken place in any decade of the 1900s and wouldn't have been a bit different.
As a Revenge Flick it's hokey. One well-known guy and his punk son take on the Capone Mob and the "Rooneys"? Yeah, sure.
As a Father and Son Caper movie it's unintentionally hilarious. "Gee Dad, let's rob a bank today. C'mon, let's shoot some guys. Dad, Dad, I wanna go ambush the Capone Mob!!" "No, son. You must not grow up to be a gangster like me. You should let creepy Jude Law kill you because it's better to be a dead innocent youth than a stone cold killa like your old man."
And so on. Some parts are just ridiculous beyond belief. Jude Law is after Tom Hanks and Son under orders to kill them. He sees them making a telephone call, and oh-so-cleverly picks up the phone after they've left and pretends to have been disconnected. He finds out where they're going. Why the hell does he even care? Why doesn't he just *kill them right there and then?!?*
The boy is doing a voiceover (in the same voice he used during the movie) about how "that was the last time I touched a gun." Last time since when, boyo? A few weeks ago? If this is supposed to be Grown Up Gangster's Son, why is he reminescing in a kid's voice?
Speaking of winter, boy Chicago sure has some mild ones, huh?
Tom Hanks ambushes the "Rooneys" (what a dumb name for a gangster clan) from the shadows and starts blasting them with a tommie gun that has about a 1000 round clip. In classic Hollywood style, nobody dives for cover. They just stand there and get shot. Paul Newman never goes for his gun. He stands there and waits for Hanks to come up and shoot him point blank. Yep.
Jude Law, dead guy photographer. I guess the police are so corrupt that they never ask questions about why Law is killing off people himself. Creepy Jude Law is becoming a fixture, the next Crispin Glover. When you see his name, you can be almost certain there will be some "psycho" character in the film. Oh, he's a brilliant hitman too. Instead of waiting outside the diner and plugging Hanks when he's finished eating, and killing the sleeping boy in the car, Law goes in there and sits right down and starts talking to him, setting the scene for Hanks to escape. Brilliantly Stupid.
But the worse part of the whole mess is the director's inability to decide what story he wants to tell. He does 30mins of Gangster film, 30 of Father/Son bonding, 25 of chase across the Midwest, etc. Even the title isn't immune from this kind of inability to focus. Road to Perdition has a clever, and draining, double-meaning since that's where the Aunt lives, in someplace called "Perdition." Uh-huh. God, that's dumb. Lame "symbolic" names are the nadir of poor writing.
And the message in this whole mess? "Admire me, son, but don't grow up to be like me." That kid would have needed a whole lotta therapy to even be able to grow up at all.
There's no reason to give this piece of ill-conceived garbage more than 2 stars. It looks pretty and it has a great soundtrack. Apparently, that's all you need these days to have critics talking about "Oscars". Hah! Road to Bogus City didn't get more than a few token nominations. It didn't deserve anything more.
Hm, maybe the Academy isn't as blind as I thought it was.
RstJ Salem, Oregon
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
