ROAD TO PERDITION - Thoughts & Reviews [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Tuukka

07-02-2002, 10:51 AM

The film is having highly praising reviews. So far all the established critics have given it glowing praise, and the reaction from the test screenings has been similar.

Todd McCarthy of Variety:

Moody, methodical and measured, "Road to Perdition" takes a brooding look at the wages of sin and the heritage of violence among hoodlums during the dark days of Prohibition. Predominantly concerned about the passing of nasty traditions from fathers to sons, and the strenuous effort of one killer to be redeemed through his boy, Sam Mendes' much-anticipated second effort after his Oscar-winning "American Beauty" finds him working in a very different key while displaying an even more pronounced attentiveness to tone, genre variations and artistic niceties. Absorbing drama sees Tom Hanks fitting comfortably into the role of a morally aware bad guy, and while history has shown that one should never underestimate Hanks' extraordinary B.O. draw, production's autumnal feel and A-plus awards-season pedigree will make it fascinating to see if DreamWorks can pull off its gamble of putting this over as a summer attraction that can successfully duke it out with the more obvious popcorn pictures. Its seriousness notwithstanding, crime drama looks to play well with all audiences, although appeal to women could be somewhat limited.
"Sons are put on this earth to trouble their fathers," Illinois mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) confides to his top enforcer and surrogate son, Michael Sullivan (Hanks), a remark that has deep significance for both men and frames the concerns of the movie. Rooney, now an old man, has seen his biological son, Connor (Daniel Craig), go hopelessly astray into reckless (as opposed to "respectable") criminality, while Sullivan still hopes he can somehow keep his two pre-teen boys from inheriting his bloody legacy, having kept the nature of his work a secret for as long as possible.

It's a potent theme, one that recalls not only "The Godfather," with which "Perdition" shares "family" concerns, a dark look and period detailing, but also such explosive father-son dramas as "East of Eden." The connections to Coppola and Kazan are telling in the precision performances, resonant settings and perhaps above all in the unhurried pacing; while crisply edited and unindulgent, Mendes' work is gratifyingly old-school in its rejection of modern-day stylistic agitation, the better to achieve a slow but inexorable build to its climax.

That said, the film's heart still rests in the realm of pulp fiction, in this instance a 1998 graphic novel penned by Max Allan Collins (who wrote 15 years' worth of the "Dick Tracy" comic strip in addition to the historical Nathaniel Heller thrillers) and illustrated by Richard Piers Rayner. David Self's adaptation retains the 300-page tome's basic structure and principal characters while elaborating many scenes and tamping down its sensationalism.

One thing the film doesn't clarify at the outset is its setting, which might seem to be a suburb of Chicago but is actually Rock Island, Ill., clear across the state on the Mississippi River. Irish mob kingpin Rooney (changed from the character's real-life inspiration, John Looney) is presiding over the wake for the wayward son of a longtime foot soldier (Ciaran Hinds), and when the latter gets out of hand by (rightly) accusing Rooney of his son's killing, Sullivan effectively intervenes.

But when Rooney later tells Connor and Sullivan to pay the bereaved father a visit on a rainy night, Connor overdoes things as usual by shooting him, an effort quickly joined by Sullivan, who machine guns some other goons. Unbeknownst to them, Sullivan's 12-year-old son Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) has observed the whole thing, and the disturbed father receives his son's assurances that he'll never mention what he saw to a soul.

But Connor isn't so sure and, egged on by the knowledge that his father has always much preferred Sullivan to him -- a fact vividly conveyed after a tense mob board meeting by a great shot of Rooney walking away, his arm around Sullivan, with the ignored Connor in the foreground -- Connor goes to Sullivan's house to snuff the potential squealer when he knows the man's away, but kills the wrong son, the younger favorite Peter (Liam Aiken), as well as Sullivan's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh).

As with most of the considerable violence in the film, the murders are handled obliquely by placing them offscreen, the aftermath dealt with in understated fashion. For his part, Rooney is furious at Connor, beating him and cursing the day he was born, while the two remaining Sullivans get out of town, knowing it's too dangerous to stick around even to bury their loved ones.

At the 45-minute point, they hit Chicago, beautifully evoked on modern La Salle Street with a modest amount of digital erasures to convey 1931. Sullivan offers to go to work for Al Capone's (real-life) right-hand man, Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci), for whom he has done jobs in the past. But Nitti's ties to the Rooneys prove more binding, resulting in the Italian's recruitment of gimpy freelance hitman (and professional crime-scene photographer) Maguire (Jude Law) to do Sullivan in.

Film's second half, then, consists largely of a slow cat-and-mouse chase, with Maguire pursuing his prey across the flat Midwestern rural landscapes while Sullivan tries to stay one step ahead, break through to the son to whom he's never been close and even get the upper hand on the Capone gang. The latter he achieves through the ingenious ruse of robbing small-town banks where the Chicagoans have deposited "dirty" money, a sequence of events wonderfully and concisely expressed in a fluid montage of lateral left-to-right tracking shots intermingled with Maguire calmly rolling a quarter through his filthy fingers.

In one very fine scene, Maguire catches up to Sullivan in a lonely roadside diner, where they exchange some cryptic remarks before the inevitable fireworks. Significantly less satisfying is a crucial encounter Sullivan has with a mob accountant (Dylan Baker) who inexplicably is running around the boondocks with incriminating financial documents in hand. After Sullivan manages to exact the rain-soaked revenge he has so patiently sought, climax and coda fulfill the promise of fateful inevitability while providing the right measure of final dramatic release.

Practically every effect in the movie has been calibrated to the nth degree, from the nuances of the family dynamics and the color coordination of the decor to more subtle details such as laying a coffin on ice to keep the body cold but also to link with the winter snow outside, to emphasize the frigid ossification of the mobsters' lethal behavior patterns. But the picture is able to deflect charges of preciousness by putting narrative and character first; it's suffused in a distinct sense of aestheticism, but not artiness.

Of all the film's accomplished creative contributions, certainly the most notable is Conrad Hall's extraordinary cinematography. Whereas "American Beauty" was distinguished by its vibrant coloration, "Road to Perdition" is characterized by seemingly infinite shadings of brown, with strokes of black and green but little real color. Pic is filled with soft shadows, and backgrounds that tend to vanish in obscurity. As in "Beauty," lensing has been intricately coordinated with other primary craft efforts, particularly the deeply evocative production design of Dennis Gassner, Albert Wolsky's fabric-heavy cold-weather costumes and the superbly chosen Chicago-area locations. Thomas Newman's inventive score, while appropriately serious toward the end, seems intent upon lightening the mood earlier on with some overly busy and cutesy orchestrations and melodic doodlings.

Playing his first outright bad man, albeit one with commendable traits of loyalty and filial responsibility, Hanks happily resists any temptation to soften his character or quietly suggest to the audience that he's really an OK guy under it all; Sullivan is tough, clammed up and not easily expressive even to his son, who is compellingly underplayed by Hoechlin. His late-career vocal rasp scarcely in evidence, Newman is in excellent form as the mob boss with a stranglehold on his medium-sized town, and his intimate scenes with Hanks possess a lovely great-star-to-great-star quality, without ostentation. His hair thinned and his body bent at odd angles, Law makes a memorably creepy assassin, a sort of Weegee willing to kill to create his artistic subjects. Carefully selected supporting cast is spot-on.

With "Gangs of New York" yet to come, this looks like the year of the Irish-American gangster.

Tuukka

07-02-2002, 10:53 AM

Also, check out four highly positive reviews at rottentomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/RoadtoPerdition-1114614/reviews.php

And the glowing review from Moriarty of AICN: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=12628

Tuukka

07-02-2002, 10:57 AM

Like I have already said many times, there is a HUGE amount of people who are not interested in movies like Spider-man, Scooby Doo, AOTC, etc. When was the last time that there was a high profile adult drama/thriller relased? Three months? Four? And we won't get another one before Signs comes in at August. The point is that there is a very big audience who is right now STARVING for a film like this. It should do very well.

Of course, the film also probably has the best poster of the year:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLBO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-02-2002).]

Mike

07-02-2002, 11:32 AM

AMERICAN BEAUTY (10/10) was a GREAT film, but even with Mendes I doubt ROAD TO PERDITION could come anywhere near the greatness of that film. Sure it has some early Oscar buzz and a few good reviews, but the same thing happened with LIFE AS A HOUSE and THE MAJESTIC and they didn't even get nominated. I remember before both of those movies came out they had some buzz going and a few positive reviews, but once they opened bad reviews poured in and that buzz they had going was gone. I think the same thing could happen with PERDITION.

Horror whore

07-02-2002, 11:43 AM

I agree with idealdiscountdude and Mike, this movie looks boring! I'm definitley not seeing it. Tom Hanks will probably get nominated for an Oscar even if he's bad because, he's Tom Hanks!

inglourious basterd

07-02-2002, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Mike:
Sure it has some early Oscar buzz and a few good reviews, but the same thing happened with LIFE AS A HOUSE and THE MAJESTIC and they didn't even get nominated. 

The difference between those movies and this one is that Tom Hanks, who could get a nomination for simply sneezing dramatically, has the lead role. He is definitely a great actor and, consequently, Oscar courts him wherever he goes..

Arlius

07-02-2002, 12:23 PM

Oh yes, and don't forget DreamWorks is behind this one. It's going to be big. I've had to avoid reading reviews though, because I don't want to read too much about the storyline.. So I'm just waiting to see it right now and really can't have much of an opinion just yet.

Muha

07-02-2002, 12:55 PM

I agree with idealdiscountdude and Mike, this movie looks boring! I'm definitley not seeing it. Tom Hanks will probably get nominated for an Oscar even if he's bad because, he's Tom Hanks!

and again i have to repeat myself... IT IS NOT BORING... the trailer was designed to affect the adults in the audience... it is in fact, a very brutal and gruesome story. it has the father and son element to it, but it isnt sentimental or boring... if you dont see it youll be missing out.

i agree with psudoazn... tom hanks IS the best actor working today.

also... the majestic had good reviews early on, but when the film came out people didnt like it cause it was too sappy and unbelievable. jim carrey hasnt made a name for himself in dramatic roles, with only one SUPER drama film, the truman show. life as a house... there was no real actor that is extremely popular like tom hanks, jude law, or paul newman. kevin kline is a good actor, but not super popular and hayden christansen everyone knows as anakin skywalker not the actor from life as a house.

this movie will be phenomenal... i guarantee it.

max

07-02-2002, 12:57 PM

The cast is a who's who of classic american actors, old and new. Even if the movie is just ok, I'm sure the level of acting will be unbelieveable. Hanks, Jude Law, Jen Jason Leigh, PAUL NEWMAN!, Stanely Tucci

Not unbelievable. Merely adequate, at best. Jennifer Jason Leigh, especially, is criminally underused. She has about three scenes where she's mostly in the background.
Hanks gives an understated, boring performance. And you don't believe for a second that he's really a bad guy. Paul Newman fares better, but you could see him "acting." Jude law probably gives the best performance. He's barely recognizable with thinning air, yellow teeth, a weird posture and a funny gait. But it's all surface acting. His character is underwritten and sketchily motivated. But I wouldn't be surprised if this movie replaces MINORITY REPORT as the most overrated movie of the year.

gyro_44

07-02-2002, 01:50 PM

I didn't see the trailer (or any other footage) until last weekend when it was attached to "Minority Report", and I must say the film looks wonderful.

"American Beauty" is, IMO, one of the all-time greats - an experience so rich and rewarding it blows me away. And judging from advance word, Sam Mendes has worked a certain magic once again. I'm not expecting a classic but this film looks excellent. The poster is great and moody, and the trailer itself is a grabber. I'm very optimistic.

Michael Corleone

07-02-2002, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by max:
Hanks gives an understated, boring performance. And you don't believe for a second that he's really a bad guy

You can tell all this from a few trailers and TV spots? From what I've seen it looks like Hanks nails this role and is completely convincing as a hitman with a heart.

max

07-02-2002, 03:39 PM

You can tell all this from a few trailers and TV spots? From what I've seen it looks like Hanks nails this role and is completely convincing as a hitman with a heart.

I've seen the movie. They held a test screening here in Chicago a few months ago. Sam Mendes, Jeffrey Katzenberg and the Zanucks (dean and Daryl) were in attendance. The story is quite predictable and the dialogue is filled with platitudes. It's your typical shoot-em-up with added pretentious weight from the A-list cast and Mendes's overly precious direction. Conrad Hall's cinematography is the best thing about the movie. As for Hanks's role, you nailed it. He's a hitman with a heart, a Tom Hanks anti-hero. He kills but he doesn't enjoy killing. He kills only those more bad than he is. He kills to defend himself and his family. In other words, he kills but we love him anyway. We love him because he's Tom Hanks and we know he's not really a bad guy.

Michael Corleone

07-02-2002, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by max:
I've seen the movie. They held a test screening here in Chicago a few months ago. Sam Mendes, Jeffrey Katzenberg and the Zanucks (dean and Daryl) were in attendance. The story is quite predictable and the dialogue is filled with platitudes. It's your typical shoot-em-up with added pretentious weight from the A-list cast and Mendes's overly precious direction. Conrad Hall's cinematography is the best thing about the movie. As for Hanks's role, you nailed it. He's a hitman with a heart, a Tom Hanks anti-hero. He kills but he doesn't enjoy killing. He kills only those more bad than he is. He kills to defend himself and his family. In other words, he kills but we love him anyway. We love him because he's Tom Hanks and we know he's not really a bad guy.

I'm sorry too here that because I'm seriously looking forward too this one and you just brought my hopes down a notch. I'm still looking forward too it, but now I'm going have to wait and see what my favorite critic (Roger Ebert and/or Richard Roeper) say about it. Your review is greatly appreciated though. Anyway, from what I've read in script reviews and everything it seems as if Hanks is supposed to be playing a hitman with a heart. At the beginning of the film we're supposed to get the idea that Michael O'Sullivan is a ruthless killer, so ruthless in fact that even grown men are frightend by the mere mention of his name. But, all of this changes when his son witnesses a killing that he does, it's then when we start to realize that Michael is a hitman, but he also has a heart. You say Hanks isn't convincing in this role? I can't quite understand that because I feel he is convincing in everything does. But, your the one who has seen it and not me, so I'll take your word for it until I'm able to form my own opinion.

The Heart Collector

07-02-2002, 06:32 PM

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005JLBO.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005T7I1.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[This message has been edited by The Heart Collector (edited 07-02-2002).]

Strider

07-02-2002, 07:32 PM

Damn! By my count, there's only six people who are interested in seeing the flick. Anyway, why does Road to Perdition look boring to the lots of ya?

Hell, I was very impressed by the trailer, and the story doesn't sound that bad. And then look at the cast... Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law, and Stanley Tucci. How could this movie be boring?

Anyway, I'm hoping Road to Perdition turns out to be a much better film than American Beauty. Don't get me wrong, the movie's good, but definitely not great, and it's also very overrated.

Strider

Scarface98.9

07-02-2002, 07:35 PM

that's eerie Heart Collector.

XCoRyX

07-03-2002, 08:59 AM

Well like i said before,its just my luck to have all the movies i wish to see most and anticipate most to come out the same exact release date...crocodille hunter:collision course,halloween resurrection,reign of fire and this,road to perdition all my most anticipated movies this summer....and i gotta get around to see all of them in the theaters,this one looks like a sureshot for a winner and hanks,newman and law all look awesome in it.

max

07-03-2002, 10:42 AM

To be fair, advance reviews for ROAD TO PERDITION have been generally favorable. This really surprises me. I really wanted to like the movie more but it didn't happen. I'm wondering if people are honestly responding to the movie or are they responding to the Oscars that the cast and crew have either won or been nominated for? Are they too hyped up to admit that they weren't impressed by it? Or are they just grateful to see an adult-oriented movie during the summer?

Muha

07-03-2002, 11:29 AM

i dont know...

moriarity's reviews are always right on the money... i dont think he would buckle down like that.

i know from reading the book that the movie will be awesome. i mean if i know what goes on and from what i hear conrad hall's cinematography is great, then it should be a great moviegoing experience.

i had the same one with LOTR:FOTR and i was blown away.

max

07-03-2002, 01:00 PM

moriarity's reviews are always right on the money... i dont think he would buckle down like that.

I disagree with you. I don't like any of the reviewers over there at AICN. And that includes Harry. I think they're all a bunch of idiots. Anyway, regarding my reaction to ROAD TO PERDITION. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's the food I ate before the movie. Or the bad sex I had the night before. Or the fact that I'm not a Tom Hanks or AMERICAN BEAUTY fan. Or maybe I'm just smarter than the reviewers who liked the movie. Who knows? But I'm not gonna lie to you or to myself about how I feel about this movie. It's just not very good. Maybe I'll give it another try when it comes out.

Muha

07-03-2002, 01:16 PM

i cant stand harry either.

but with reviews, if i go by them, which i usually dont, its mori or smilin' jack ruby... and he loved it too.

Scarface98.9

07-03-2002, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by max:
I disagree with you. I don't like any of the reviewers over there at AICN. And that includes Harry. I think they're all a bunch of idiots. Anyway, regarding my reaction to ROAD TO PERDITION. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's the food I ate before the movie. Or the bad sex I had the night before. Or the fact that I'm not a Tom Hanks or AMERICAN BEAUTY fan. Or maybe I'm just smarter than the reviewers who liked the movie. Who knows? But I'm not gonna lie to you or to myself about how I feel about this movie. It's just not very good. Maybe I'll give it another try when it comes out. 
I don't think there was any strange reason why they liked it, or some hyped factor, maybe they just all liked/loved it. considering u don't like a lot of other movies I like, I take this as a sign that I will love Perditoin.

max

07-03-2002, 03:09 PM

considering u don't like a lot of other movies I like, I take this as a sign that I will love Perditoin.

I never said I disliked ROAD TO PERDITION. I was merely responding to the hype and the great advance reviews. Everyone's saying that this is an Oscar contender--and it may very well be considering all the undeserving films that have been nominated over the years--but a great film it isn't. It does have its moments and Conrad Hall's cinematography keeps it consistently watchable, but I found Mendes's direction too precious and self-important. Every scene screams "Oscar!" But underneath the sleek surface is a formulaic gangster story with predictable relationships and platitudinous dialogue. As for the performances, they all seem Oscar-driven rather than character-motivated. "Look at me, I'm playing a bad guy!" "I used to be pretty but check out my rotten teeth."

Benny

07-06-2002, 12:54 AM

This movie looks to be a valid alternative to the mindless action flicks coming out this summer. Plus I'll see anything with Tom Hanks in it, and with a cast this good (Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law, Jennifer Jason Leigh) and an interesting story, it has great potential. It will be interesting seeing Hanks not playing and Average Joe for once too.

ColinM

07-06-2002, 02:59 PM

After American Beauty (10/10), there's no way I'd miss the second film by Sam Mendes. The fact that Tom Hanks, Paul Newman and Jude Law are in it is just a bonus.

ColinM

07-06-2002, 03:00 PM

I think I remember reading once that people were saying Tom Hanks was not especially great in this movie and was not Oscar-worthy and that Tom Hanks would request that the performance would not be considered by the Academy. Any truth to this?

blankpage

07-06-2002, 04:07 PM

I can't wait for this movie.It is on my top 3 movies to see!I'll probably be biased cuz Tom Hanks,Jude Law,and Paul Newman are some of my fav actors.I loved the trailer,it looks like A Beautiful Mind kinda thing mixed with some mobsters.All of the characters seem interesting!And Jude Law's smile is still stuck in my head.The quote Paul Newman says,

"This is the path we chose and none of us will see hevean."

That's going into the books for all time favourite quotes.I hope Hanks gets nominated for best actor and Jude Law too!

I just can't wait for this film to come out.I'm gonna go opening day!I just don't understand why people think this flick doesnt look interesting?

Me and Strider can skip down the sidewalk holding hands and sing,"Were to See Road to Perdition the wondeful Road to Perdition!" http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

And I'm spent!

----blankpage----

Muha

07-06-2002, 04:43 PM

Strider

07-06-2002, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by blankpage:
Me and Strider can skip down the sidewalk holding hands and sing,"Were to See Road to Perdition the wondeful Road to Perdition!" http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

LOL! Yeah blankpage, you and I can go ahead and do such a ridiculous thing. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

Oh BTW, I'm in agreement with ya, that quote Paul Newman says at the end of the trailer is just classic.

Strider

blankpage

07-06-2002, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Muha:

no, i heard that hanks thought that rumor was bullshit.

That's the Tommy we all know and love!

----blankpage----
http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

The Other

07-06-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by ColinM:
After American Beauty (10/10), there's no way I'd miss the second film by Sam Mendes. The fact that Tom Hanks, Paul Newman and Jude Law are in it is just a bonus.

YOU KNOW I completely agree with you. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

max

07-08-2002, 11:27 AM

Ha! Great to know JoBlo and I can agree on certain things: http://www.joblo.com/roadtoperdition.htm

The 6/10 rating is just about right.

Strider

07-09-2002, 01:41 AM

Here is James Berardinelli's review for Road to Perdition.....

*** out of **** stars

"Tom Hanks as a cold-blooded hit man? Say it ain't so, Forrest!

Over the course of his illustrious career, which is well into its third decade, Hanks has played a cross-dresser, a man infatuated by a mermaid, the manager of a women's baseball team, a child in an oversized body, an idiot savant, an AIDS patient, and a man stranded on a desert island. However, during more than four-dozen TV shows and movies, he has yet to challenge himself with the most difficult role for a well-liked actor - that of a bad-to-the-bone villain. He comes close in The Road to Perdition, but doesn't quite reach that destination. For, although Michael Sullivan is a murderer for hire, he also has a conscience and a soul, loves his family, and kills not because he likes it but because it's his job. In short, Sullivan is portrayed sympathetically. The script's positive spin and Hanks' instant likeability ensure that Sullivan will be viewed not as a bad guy, but as a flawed man. There's some darkness there, to be sure, but not the pitch black of pure evil.

The film, director Sam Mendes' eagerly anticipated follow-up to American Beauty, is based on the "graphic novel" (a term that is applied to a very long comic book printed on high-quality paper and sold in bookstores) by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. As with many adaptations from this medium, The Road to Perdition stuns with its atmosphere and visuals, but arguably underachieves in some aspects of its characterization and plotting. The storyline is straightforward, with no twists or surprises, and the character interaction is not as multi-faceted as it could be. I was pulled into The Road to Perdition as much by the setting as by the story, however; while the film never ceased to engage me over its two-hour running length, I failed to develop an emotional bond with any of the characters. Mendes' laconic, unhurried approach defuses much of the tension. If you're expecting an action film or a traditional gangster narrative, you will be disappointed.

The setting is 1931 in Al Capone's Chicago. (Capone doesn't appear in the final cut of The Road to Perdition, although Anthony LaPaglia apparently plays him on the cutting room floor. Capone's right-hand man, Frank Nitti - the guy who ended up in the car in The Untouchables - is portrayed by Stanley Tucci.) Michael Sullivan is the number one hit man of suburban boss John Looney (Paul Newman), who has treated Sullivan as a son since he took in the orphaned boy. In fact, Sullivan's filial relationship with Looney is so close that the gangster's natural-born son, Connor (Daniel Craig), simmers with jealousy. One night, while Sullivan is on a job, Connor kills the other man's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and youngest son. Only the older boy, Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin), survives. Father and son go on the road, searching for revenge, closure, and a way to start anew. But Looney, recognizing that Sullivan will not stop until Connor is dead, ruefully hires another hit man, Maguire (Jude Law), to eliminate Sullivan (but not "the boy").

The Road to Perdition allows you to feel, smell, and breathe the air of 1930s Chicago. To some extent, Conrad L. Hall is as big a star as any of the actors, since there are occasions when the setting overwhelms the characters. At its heart, The Road to Perdition is a little drama about fathers, sons, and the covenants they make and break. Looney betrays Sullivan to save Connor, even though, to the very end, he loves Sullivan best. Sullivan risks everything, including his life and reputation, to protect Michael. A telling conversation between Looney and Sullivan italicizes this point. "None of us is going to heaven," says Looney. "Michael might," replies Sullivan. Looney then notes that it's Sullivan's primary duty to make sure that happens.

The movie's languorous tone rarely shifts into a higher gear, except during the shoot-outs and violent confrontations (at least one of which is filmed in a manner that is self-consciously artsy and pretentious). Still, despite weaknesses in the picture's emotional fabric, I liked what is presented. Mendes' technical virtuosity and unhurried pace kept me involved. Although I never felt like shedding tears, I appreciated the complexity of the ties between the characters, and how the code of loyalty within a family sealed everyone's fate. Perhaps the thing I appreciated the most is that the filmmakers are content to tell this story at its own pace and in its own way without throwing in gratuitous explosions and action sequences designed to appease audiences afflicted with short attention spans.

Hanks and Newman give performances one has a right to expect from men with gold statuettes on their mantelpieces. Both actors must play deeply conflicted characters. Hanks' Sullivan is in a constant struggle to reconcile his job with his family. Looney, on the other hand, is haunted by his own conscience from the moment he orders Sullivan's death. To the last, he is hoping against hope that his surrogate son will find a way out of an impossible situation. The rapport between these two is credible, but one would expect nothing less from actors of this caliber. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that both Hanks and Newman will be up for Oscar consideration when the awards season rolls around.

The third-billed actor is Jude Law, although he has a surprisingly minor role. He doesn't appear until the movie is almost half over, and his total screen time is only a fraction of Hanks'. Law does an adequate job with what he has to work with, which isn't much. (Aside from the fact that Maguire is a "gifted" killer, the only thing we learn about him is that he has a fondness for photographing dead bodies.) In many ways, the real star of the movie is Tyler Hoechlin, who plays 12 year-old Michael Jr. Hoechlin, in his first major role, gives a convincing portrayal of a young man who both idolizes and fears his father. If a viewer develops an emotional attachment to any character, it's likely to be to Hoechlin's.

The Road to Perdition romanticizes gangland Chicago, but no more so than other films set in the same period. And, like almost every movie about the mob, this one deals with themes of family, loyalty, and betrayal - albeit without the intensity of some of the great ones (The Godfather, Goodfellas). As was the case in American Beauty, Mendes illustrates how accomplished actors will respond to an assured director. Serious movie-goers embarking upon this journey will find that The Road to Perdition leads to a satisfying destination."

Hmmm... well, in my opinion, James Berardinelli is one of the most reliable critics around. So I'm sure Road to Perdition will be a good movie.

Strider

max

07-09-2002, 09:43 AM

I came across two more mixed/negative reviews. David Ansen of Newsweek describes the movie as "self-conscious to the point of suffocation...the harder 'Road to Perdition' strives to be Important, the less it has anything interesting to say." DAvid Denby of the New Yorker says: "Visually, the movie is all of a piece, and consistently impressive,...But, juedged by the standards of the original 'Scarface or 'Bonnie & Clyde' or 'The Godfather' or even 'Bugsy,' this is a stilted, self-conscious piece of work...There isn't a joke or a touch of wit anywhere in the movie."

The word "self-conscious" is what I've been using to describe what I saw at that test screening a couple of months ago. Apparently, they've done nothing to reduce the self-consciousness. But, of course, the only way they could've done that would've been to remake the entire film with a different director.

Jerk Shapiro

07-10-2002, 01:01 PM

Movies don't look much better than this. Oscar winner Sam Mendes directing Oscar winners Tom Hanks and Paul Newman... Geez. I can't wait. Two more days...

ColinM

07-12-2002, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Muha:
I think I remember reading once that people were saying Tom Hanks was not especially great in this movie and was not Oscar-worthy and that Tom Hanks would request that the performance would not be considered by the Academy. Any truth to this?

no, i heard that hanks thought that rumor was bullshit.

Good to hear. Thanks.

max

07-12-2002, 03:10 PM

Probably one of the better reviews of ROAD TO PERDITION that I've read: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1114614/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=737570

Muha

07-12-2002, 04:15 PM

expecting a great movie doesnt always mean it WILL be a great movie. coming into different films, i have a great expectation of what the film will be like and how good the film will be. expectations can ruin a film or make the film even better. last may, i went to see pearl harbor. i thought the trailer was outstanding, the actors were good, the subject matter was excellent, and the bombasticity of the attack looked phenomenal. however, i was hit hard by an incredibly boring and mundane film with a horrible love story and god awful characters.

last december, i attended the opening of the lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring. being a HUGE fan of the books, i had enormous expectations. as i was watching the film, i realized that i was witnessing a sheer masterpiece and cinematic history. it is one of the greatest films ive ever seen and im pumped for the two towers and return of the king.

now... for ROAD TO PERDITION. if i had to compare the final results with either pearl harbor or LOTR:FOTR, it would be FOTR.

i absolutely loved RTP for many reasons; the score, the acting, the characters, the setting, and the story all captivated me. tom hanks was great as sullivan, tyler hoechlin was great too. i enjoyed the prissiness of dylan baker's alex vance. jude law was a very despicable character and i thought the scars on his face were very fitting for the man. paul newman's character was great, but the best supporting actor nod is questionable. id rather see tyler hoechlin nominated instead.

i thought the one thing that might bother me would be the intensity of the action... i like a lot of action and i was hoping for an l.a. confidential type shootout. i got it. the scene in rance's suite was action packed.

the cinematography is a shoe-in for a nomination and i would think a win, but andrew lesnie's LOTR:TTT could be better. mendes's directing is great and it is the first movie ive seen of his. i plan to rent american beauty.

i highly recommend this film and i am saying it now... it IS the best film of the year.

10/10

[This message has been edited by Muha (edited 07-12-2002).]

The Other

07-12-2002, 04:33 PM

Thanks Muha. I hope to like it as much as well.

How can you go wrong with such a great group of people behind the film. Mendes is the director of my favorite film (American Beauty). Conrad Hall is also the cinematographer of my favorite film. Thomas Newman also did the score for my favorite film. Plus I like Tom Hanks, Jude Law, Paul Newman and Jennifer Jason Leigh (although her part is small).

The Other

07-12-2002, 07:39 PM

My local theater fuckin' sucks. They've got bullshit like LIKE MIKE, HALLOWEEN 8, & THE CROCODILE HUNTER movie, but they aren't showing ROAD TO PERDITION.

Muha

07-12-2002, 08:03 PM

that sucks... i wasnt even sure if my theater was playing it until i checked the carmike cinemas website this morning at like 2.

Scarface98.9

07-13-2002, 12:37 AM

saw it this morning at the first showing, no surprise that the room was filled with adults. I really liked this movie. I'd have to say this is my favorite non-action movie of the year so far for me. I'd give it an 8/10, a li'l bit lower than American Beauty (8.5/10). so I guess my guess about me liking a movie max thought was overrated (or something like that) was correct

APzombie

07-13-2002, 12:41 AM

I have to admit i walked in with a sore from some reviews i read but i came out with a fresh smile like Jesus healed me. Amen!

Road To Perdition portayed non steriotipical mobsters. These men are human, they do what puts food on their table, emotions are present and emotions get in the way of actions and even buisness. I loved this movie, the cinematography is so fantastic i hit the point were i would questioned blinking. Looking at this film is the kind of eye candy that dragons can't reach. What does the trick with this film is that Mr. Rooney's love for his son leads to what he has to do with the son he wished he had, and Michael Sullivan is lead to his son through the father he wished he had. Everything hit the right note in this film, this is the best movie i have seen this year.

Tom Hanks put a human in his role instead of a bad guy, there is a point were a character shows so much of himself you point him as being a true individual and not placed in a group (namley good or bad), Tom Hanks goes beyond this point. I am a great fan of all three of these actors, and thought Jude Law brought alot of depth to a character that could have been pretty thin.

I absolutley loved this film, and recommend it to everyone!

10/10

flowrchild

07-13-2002, 01:27 AM

I saw Road To Perditiontonight, and was very disappointed with it. It is extremely slow paced, predictable, and emotionless. There was not a single moment in the movie that rang true to me, it seemed almost cartoonish. I thought the look of the film was beautiful, and most of the actors did a good job. Tom Hanks had a somewhat monotone performance and I am debating whether or not I think he was miscast.

Anyway, my ratings of Mendes movies:

American Beauty- 10/10
Road to Perdition- 6/10

Strider

07-13-2002, 04:00 AM

Road To Perdition (2002)

Rated R for Violence and Language

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Stanley Tucci, Daniel Craig, and introducing Tyler Hoechlin.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0257044/CN-137-16.jpg

Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is a gangster who works for a man that is almost like a father figure to him, John Rooney (Paul Newman). Sullivan has a family of his own, however, both of his children have absolutely no idea what his job is. Eventually, bonds of loyalty are put to the test when Sullivan's oldest son witnesses what he does for a living

Tom Hanks as a gangster? No, that can not be possible. But it is. Hanks' role in this film is a big departure from all those clean cut, and very likable good guys he always plays. In his latest film, "Road To Perdition", Hanks' character does bad things, and has been corrupted by many people. Still, surprisingly, his character is likable enough to care about him. Hanks, as always, delivered another great performance. That really should not surprise anyone at all. Hanks is the kind of actor who tries his damnest to deliver a good performance in every film he appears in, and he never fails.

In the acting department, Hanks is not alone on this one. He has a wonderful supporting cast to back him up. Paul Newman is great as the mastermind behind his own little corrupted business. Jude Law delivers a superb, yet disturbing performance as a hitmen who just loves to take pictures of the people he has killed, and hang them up on his wall like a trophy. And last, but certainly not least, the young Tyler Hoechlin delivers a fine performance as Hanks' oldest son.

Director, Sam Mendes, has created a wonderful and beautiful piece of American filmmaking. His second outing just happens to be much better than the solid, yet slightly overrated oscar winning film, "American Beauty". Sam Mendes is definitely on his way to becoming one of the best directors out there today.

"Road To Perdition" features a wonderful story about fathers and sons. It's about how much love a father has for his son, and how much love a son has for his father. It's about how love can make us both weak and strong. "Road To Perdition" is a brilliant film, it's one of the best gangster films ever made, and without a doubt, one of the year's best.

Running Time: 2 hours 1 minute

Grade: 10/10

Strider

dellamorte dellamore

07-13-2002, 07:50 AM

Another film about the mob(boring).Another Tom Hanks film(annoying).Another sympathetic hitman(cliche).Another coming of age film in a mob setting(preposterous).Another scrutinized overrated darling of Hollywood director's sophmore effort(could care less).Another manipulative,calculated,soulless,narcissistic cineamtic creation that only exists to win oscars(ludicrous,annoying,boring,sickening,tiresom e,and pretentious).

Mix,and what do you get, a forgettable,but "oscar ready" offering from Dreamworks.

I'm so sick of Hanks,please stop giving him money to make films,the guy is so pretentious and annoying,i can't stand any of his films.

Bring on Signs.

And Hanks is not the best actor working today.Clive Owen can run rings around this Bosom Buddie reject.Ian Mckellan makes him look like a high school play participant.Jude Law makes him look like an amateur.Hugo Weaving,there's no comparison.Brian Cox,Ray Winstone.The list goes on,and on.

Please,please give me an oscar.That's what this film screams in every frame,and

[This message has been edited by dellamorte dellamore (edited 07-13-2002).]

The Heart Collector

07-13-2002, 11:35 AM

For the love of god, use the SPACEBAR.

Muha

07-13-2002, 11:44 AM

i'm wondering if he even saw the movie.

Scarface98.9

07-13-2002, 01:30 PM

I doubt it. he probably typed that before the movie came out so it would sound like a review

Zarathustra

07-13-2002, 02:55 PM

I live in England so I have to wait until August30th until I can see it, however due to our crappy Classification system, I am shit scared that I won't be able to see it, cause theres a chance it might be an 18. Seeing as I'm 16, its gonna be a bit difficult.
However I'm hoping someone here that has actually seen the film will lift my spirits and say that its more in tone with a 15 certificate.

Muha

07-13-2002, 03:01 PM

theres a lot of blood... violence is minimal cause mendes and hall show it in a different context.

i guess it all depends on what they think as appropriate or inappropriate.

id expect an 18.

max

07-13-2002, 03:19 PM

and i am saying it now... it IS the best film of the year.

God, I hope not.

ColinM

07-13-2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by max:
Probably one of the better reviews of ROAD TO PERDITION that I've read: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1114614/reviews.php?cri tic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=737570 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1114614/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=737570)

Better in what sense other than you agree with it?

max

07-13-2002, 03:27 PM

[quote]so I guess my guess about me liking a movie max thought was overrated (or something like that) was correct[quote]

I guess my guess about you liking something I thought was overrated was correct. I learned from my own moviegoing experience that when you're so psyched to like a movie, you're going to like it no matter what. And you probably liked it even more just to prove me wrong. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

max

07-13-2002, 03:32 PM

Better in what sense other than you agree with it?

Good in that it's accurate and well-written. Better in that he disagrees with most of the critics. Best in that I agree with him. Any other questions, Colin?

ColinM

07-13-2002, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by max:
Good in that it's accurate and well-written. Better in that he disagrees with most of the critics. Best in that I agree with him. Any other questions, Colin?

No, other than are you offended or something? (By the way you asked me if there were any other questions, I mean? If you are, sorry, but my question was meant to be literally how it sounded, not snotty.)

max

07-13-2002, 04:03 PM

My apologies, Colin. I meant to place a winky icon but forgot. Anyway, other than the reviewer agreeing with me, don't you think it's a well-written review? I also completely agree about his comments regarding AMERICAN BEAUTY. But for the record, I like ROAD TO PERDITION more than AMERICAN BEAUTY. I thought the latter was more banal and pretentious.

Tuukka

07-13-2002, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by max:
My apologies, Colin. I meant to place a winky icon but forgot. Anyway, other than the reviewer agreeing with me, don't you think it's a well-written review? I also completely agree about his comments regarding AMERICAN BEAUTY. But for the record, I like ROAD TO PERDITION more than AMERICAN BEAUTY. I thought the latter was more banal and pretentious.

I read both the reviews for RTP and AB. I'm sorry Max, but that critic is in my opinion the worst kind of critic. His reviews are snobby, pretentious and out of touch. He has the "I have studied film theory" written all over him. Pretty sentences with little content. It's always worrisome when a critic spends his entire review to ponder his own (often misguided) take on the themes of the film (AB). And sweeping statementes like "Mendes makes movies as if he hates them."... Something that he never backs up in any way. So Mendes hates movies because he likes to do visually sophisticated ones? Because he pays a lot of attention to little visual details? That's basicly what the review said.

""Road to Perdition" is graphically meticulous to the point of absurd deliberateness -- when a gangster takes a drag on a cigarette, the plumes of smoke that wreath his head look as if they'd been called in from central casting. ("We want something round, not too wispy, with a little curlicue at the end.")"

A critic who considers that kind of detail as important negative point doesn't have my respect.

cow

07-13-2002, 04:59 PM

I just saw it last night and loved it. The best part of the film, apart from the cinemtography was Paul Newman's performance.

By the way, did anyone see Newman's apperance on Letterman? it was so funny, you could totally tell he didn't want to be there.

daddiefatsacks

07-13-2002, 05:15 PM

this film deserves a 7/10

SPOILERS

i'd have to say the scene where Hanks is not seen, but his tommy gun is firing into the rain was a classic scene, the rain pouring down, the slow-motion effects, the guys just getting shot and falling down, and Paul Newman's reaction - i'll remember this scene for the Golden Schmos at the end of the year.

The Other

07-13-2002, 05:36 PM

Now that ROAD TO PERDITION is likely to have a healthy per-screen average, I hope my local theater smartens up and shows the fuckin movie.

dellamorte dellamore

07-13-2002, 06:33 PM

Tom Hanks blows,but the critics praise him,so if someone does'nt like his work,automatically they don't know anything about cinema.

Newman is over the hill,past his prime.All they do is turn the camera on and let him say a couple of words.Throw in a monologue or two,wow,brilliant stuff.

The only interesting one in the whole lot is Jude Law,and his character is walking the cliche tightrope too.

And i always felt AB was'nt as good as everyone said.The characters were cardboard cutouts,and of course the suburbs were littered with all types of despicable inhabitants(except the Homosexual neighbors,can't offend them).What a joke,an interesting first effort,but nothing approaching excellent by a long shot.

I agree Pulp Fiction was the Best Film in 1994,it blew that gag fest FG away.It was a narrative epic,that try to make everyone feel good.It was'nt afraid to show the seedy side of LA(maybe that's why it did'nt win).Nobody besides Altman ever juggled multiple characters and storyline with such ease,and in such a coherent manner than Tarrantino did in Pulp.But instead we get another sentimental,totally unbelievable,contrived,derivative,sappy Hanks vehicle,who's only purpose was to appeal to the academy.

I don't take them seriously anymore,because they are all friends,and they backslap each other around Oscar time.

Hanks is a joke,The Academy is a joke,and Mendes is merely good,not great.And he stole some ideas from a small independent Black and White film from 1994 called Criminal.Not everything of course,but a good chunk of the narrative.So,he's not even original.

[This message has been edited by dellamorte dellamore (edited 07-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by dellamorte dellamore (edited 07-13-2002).]

[This message has been edited by dellamorte dellamore (edited 07-13-2002).]

Muha

07-13-2002, 10:13 PM

---------------------------------------------
Tom Hanks blows,but the critics praise him,so if someone does'nt like his work,automatically they don't know anything about cinema.

Newman is over the hill,past his prime.All they do is turn the camera on and let him say a couple of words.Throw in a monologue or two,wow,brilliant stuff.

The only interesting one in the whole lot is Jude Law,and his character is walking the cliche tightrope too.

And i always felt AB was'nt as good as everyone said.The characters were cardboard cutouts,and of course the suburbs were littered with all types of despicable inhabitants(except the Homosexual neighbors,can't offend them).What a joke,an interesting first effort,but nothing approaching excellent by a long shot.

I agree Pulp Fiction was the Best Film in 1994,it blew that gag fest FG away.It was a narrative epic,that try to make everyone feel good.It was'nt afraid to show the seedy side of LA(maybe that's why it did'nt win).Nobody besides Altman ever juggled multiple characters and storyline with such ease,and in such a coherent manner than Tarrantino did in Pulp.But instead we get another sentimental,totally unbelievable,contrived,derivative,sappy Hanks vehicle,who's only purpose was to appeal to the academy.

I don't take them seriously anymore,because they are all friends,and they backslap each other around Oscar time.

Hanks is a joke,The Academy is a joke,and Mendes is merely good,not great.And he stole some ideas from a small independent Black and White film from 1994 called Criminal.Not everything of course,but a good chunk of the narrative.So,he's not even original.

---------------------------------------------

ok... i think its time for you to sit down and shut the hell up cause your rants have no point to them.

Scarface98.9

07-13-2002, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by max:
[quote]so I guess my guess about me liking a movie max thought was overrated (or something like that) was correct[quote]

I guess my guess about you liking something I thought was overrated was correct. I learned from my own moviegoing experience that when you're so psyched to like a movie, you're going to like it no matter what. And you probably liked it even more just to prove me wrong. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif
or maybe *JUST MAYBE* prepare folks: I really liked RTP, despite ur disbelief. I don't watch movies to prove people wrong, otherwise, what's the point? some people are gonna like it

Tuukka

07-14-2002, 03:57 AM

And i always felt AB was'nt as good as everyone said.The characters were cardboard cutouts,and of course the suburbs were littered with all types of despicable inhabitants(except the Homosexual neighbors,can't offend them).

RE: AB was a satire. Of course the characters were carboard cutouts, or more precicely, archetypes. AB is a very exaggarated film in many ways, like satires tend to be. And it's all intentional, not a sign of failure. Claiming that a film intended as a satire fails because it has too exaggarated characters is basicly the same thing as claiming a splatter movie is a failure because it has too much violence. If you can't accept the basic concepts of the genre, maybe you shouldn't watch that genre in general.

Satire's intention is to show human behaviour in an exaggarated manner. This way it can raise certain aspects of people and society up to the front to make a point about them.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-14-2002).]

dellamorte dellamore

07-14-2002, 07:43 AM

Point well taken,but i still feel it was'nt the masterpiece some people were claiming it to be.

It probably is a stretch but i see AB as a combo of the aforementioned Criminal and Henry Fool.Watch both films and you will see exactly what i mean,Criminal even opens with a crane shot overlooking the bleak suburban landscape with the main character's monotone narration of how depressing his life is,Sound familiar?

Oh and he has a job he hates,and instead of blackmailing his boss,he embezzles money from his company.Sound even more familiar?His wife cheats on him with her boss to advance her career.Getting warmer?In Henry Fool the lead is tempted by an underage lassie,but he has a bout of conscience.

I guess Mendes figured if he lifted elements from a couple low budget films that the mainstream has never heard of,he can get away with it.Just tweak it a bit,and all is fine.

The Heart Collector

07-14-2002, 11:53 AM

Mendes didn't even write the script.

gyro_44

07-14-2002, 12:23 PM

I would say "American Beauty" is a masterpiece. It moves me every time I watch it - it's funny, bittersweet, powerful and enlightening. An extraordinary film.

I found "Road to Perdition" to be one of the most beautifully-shot films I've ever seen. The sequence with Hanks firing his tommy gun through the rain was amazing. One of the most beautifully-realized sequences I've ever seen. The whole movie is solid, but I agree with Joblo to a certain degree when he says he felt emotionally detatched from the film. The drama sometimes feels static, and there ain't much to cozy up to. But the performances are grand and the film is a visual masterwork. I'd give it 8/10.

Oh, and Del - I'd have to completey disagree with you about Hanks. I understand that he has a few detractors, or, people who are sick of seeing him fall back into Oscar-mode. I think he is the most consistent actor working today, and if other actors get to a point in their career where Hanks is, doing the caliber of work that he is, I hope people don't dimiss them as "a joke". Please have some respect for the work.

[This message has been edited by gyro_44 (edited 07-14-2002).]

max

07-14-2002, 02:49 PM

I read both the reviews for RTP and AB. I'm sorry Max, but that critic is in my opinion the worst kind of critic. His reviews are snobby, pretentious and out of touch. He has the "I have studied film theory" written all over him. Pretty sentences with little content. It's always worrisome when a critic spends his entire review to ponder his own (often misguided) take on the themes of the film (AB). And sweeping statementes like "Mendes makes movies as if he hates them."... Something that he never backs up in any way. So Mendes hates movies because he likes to do visually sophisticated ones? Because he pays a lot of attention to little visual details? That's basicly what the review said.

I thought he backed up his statements pretty well. Or maybe it was just me reading between the lines since I felt the same way about both AB and RTP and knew exactly what he was talking about.

"Road to Perdition" is graphically meticulous to the point of absurd deliberateness -- when a gangster takes a drag on a cigarette, the plumes of smoke that wreath his head look as if they'd been called in from central casting. ("We want something round, not too wispy, with a little curlicue at the end.")"

A critic who considers that kind of detail as important negative point doesn't have my respect.

It *is* an important negative point. The movie was Oscar-mongering at its most shameless. If you look closer, all you'll see is Sam Mendes masturbating.

Tuukka

07-14-2002, 02:55 PM

Could you explain IN DETAIl how he backed up his argument "Mendes makes movies as if he hates them."?

"It *is* an important negative point. The movie was Oscar-mongering at its most shameless. If you look closer, all you'll see is Sam Mendes masturbating."

RE: So let's see... A film is oscar-mongering at it's most shameless when it has a carefully crafted picture where there is tobacco smoke? Could you explain this IN DETAIL? Because I just don't get it.

In my opinion his review DEMANDS you to read between lines, because his opinions are so badly argumented in themselves. They make no sense, so the reader has to make the substance to them by himself, because the substance doesn't exist.

Tuukka

07-14-2002, 03:32 PM

Here are some quotes I have taken fron the Salon.com review:

"The opening credits tell us that the picture was based "upon" a graphic novel, and it's clear the simpler preposition "on" wouldn't have sufficed -- it's too colloquial, too much like the way people actually talk. "Upon" aspires, and every frame of "Road to Perdition" strives to live up to the word's phony superiority."

RE: So the film is worse because in the credits it reads "upon" instead of "on". What an incredibly stupid comment.

""Road to Perdition," like his "American Beauty" before it, feels like a movie that keeps wishing it were something else: an award-winning play, a grand novel, an epic poem, anything but that populist thing we call a movie.Mendes makes movies as if he hates them."

RE: It's interesting how this critic assumes that Mendes hates movies and doesn't want RTP to be a movie. He never backs up this comment in any way. Surely Mendes could have made the original comic book as a stage play, if he really hates movies so much. Another moronic comment.

"There's much shedding of blood in "Road to Perdition," but almost all of it is off-camera, neatly represented by the blam of a gun and a sudden carmine-toned spray. (I'm afraid I couldn't identify the exact shade, as I didn't have my Pantone book handy.) This is responsible bloodshed, presented not for our delectation, but for our esthetic consideration; that distinction makes it all perfectly OK."

RE: So movies that make violence aesthetic are automatically worse because of it? I wonder is this critic ALWAYS thinks so. I doubt it. I know that you liked Miller's Crossing a lot, Max. A film that has beautiful violence intended only to please the eye.

"There's no mess in "Road to Perdition," either visually or morally. Mendes clearly wants to tangle with a complicated theme -- Can a killer be a decent human being? -- but he doesn't want to get himself worked over in the process. He also struggles, like a gentleman wrestler in tights and an ear guard, with complex family conflicts, most notably the stress cracks between fathers and sons that start out small and grow to world-shattering proportions. Mendes seems to be under the impression that his story is more morally complex than it is; even so, he never adequately addresses the crucial moral questions the story raises."

RE: I haven't seen the film yet, but I already know that the flick is a tragedy in the tradition of the ancient greek tragedies. It's simple and predictable, and that's exatly the point. Ebert nailed it in his review.

"But then actors represent the last thing that Mendes would allow to stand in his way. He's more concerned with the movie's look and, more important, its monotonously orchestrated tone. "Road to Perdition" is graphically meticulous to the point of absurd deliberateness -- when a gangster takes a drag on a cigarette, the plumes of smoke that wreath his head look as if they'd been called in from central casting. ("We want something round, not too wispy, with a little curlicue at the end.")

"Road to Perdition" was, of course, based on a graphic novel (it was written by Max Allan Collins and illustrated by Richard Piers Rayner), and so Mendes frames his shots, most of them composed to the point of being embalmed, with the telegraphed shorthand of comic book panels. We're always acutely aware of the artfulness of those shots: When we see that "Diner" sign shining in the left background, while a shadowy character stands menacingly in the right foreground, it's our signal to genuflect at Mendes' marvelous use of American pop-culture iconography. Shot by Conrad L. Hall, the whole movie is done up in the hushed, grayed tones of comic-book ink: All dark mahogany and slanting sheets of rain, the movie's look definitely sets a mood, but it also announces its presence, scene by scene, as a heavily conscientious choice. Its deliberateness becomes oppressive."

RE: So films that are visually artificial and worked-up are automatically worse because of it? What about the works of Coen's, Lynch, Fincher, etc... What about them, Max? I wonder if this critic is consistent with this claim. I doubt it.

"I can't find any love in Mendes' movies: no love for the characters"

RE: Here he is contradicting himself. He said "movies" which means that he means AB as well. In his review of AB he say "he is capable of subtlety -- the budding love affair between Jane and Ricky (Wes Bentley), the loner/voyeur who lives next door, is handled with great tenderness". How can Mendes handle his characters with great tenderness and at the same time he shows no love to his characters. This comment makes no sense.

"no love for the art form"

RE: Erm... What? If Mendes has no love for movies, why is he making them? Is film not a visual medium? Why does Mendes care so much for the visuals in his films if he doesn't love film as an art form? Why isn't he simply continuing his stage work?

"and certainly no love for the audience."

RE: Hello? Both AB and RTP have excellent responses from exit-polls, they have superb grades at IMDB and are highly praised by critics. If the AUDIENCE loves the films of Mendes, how can this obnoxious moron claim that Mendes has no love for the audience? Oh yes, I know. Because the cricic himself doesn't like AB or RTP. Apparenly he means that Mendes doesn't have love for HIM, and he likes to refer himself as the "audience".

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-14-2002).]

Tuukka

07-14-2002, 03:48 PM

Max, you said earlier on that you give RTP 6/10. I might give it the same grade after I have seen it. Joblo also gave it 6/10, but his review was logical and well argumented. I can't find any flaws in it, and it's not even slightly snobby and pretentious. To me the Salon review is presenting almost the exact opposite of critical field when compared to Joblo.

dellamorte dellamore

07-14-2002, 08:27 PM

I like this guy at Salon.Com even if i don't really care for the website.

I think to simplify what he was trying to say,is that RTP is a cold calculated by the numbers cinematic creation,that only exists to garner Oscars.It does'nt break new ground,it merely treads over the same ground that former oscar winners and contenders have treaded.

That's why some people say it's detached,and that they did'nt feel emotionally involved.There is no way you could with a film that screams please nominate me.Look at how nice my cinematography is,look at the touching relationship between the hitman and the young boy,look at how "effectively Tom Hanks can brood,look at how dramatic he fires a tommygun(in the rain no doubt,what a cliche.Do they even work when wet?),look at Paul(Newman's Own)Newman chewing up scenery desperately trying to win an oscar so late in life(wow look how believable and moving he is when he gets mad and slams his hand on the table),look at how MR Bosom Buddie can make a cold blooded killer sympathetic,and look at the "brilliant direction(not exactly too hard when you lift elements from other films).

Mendes is just a Hollywood golden boy,he does everything to please the gunkheads in Holliswood,he will never do anything thought provoking,intriguing,or even original.He's servicable,and he knows how to make a film,but really he's nothing special.

He's nothing close to a visionary,just a guy that can slap out a film every couple of years that the academy wets themselves over,and entertain some people.

max

07-15-2002, 09:24 AM

Tuukka says: I haven't seen the film yet, but I already know that the flick is a tragedy in the tradition of the ancient greek tragedies. It's simple and predictable, and that's exatly the point. Ebert nailed it in his review.

What the f*#*?! Go see the movie, then we'll talk. Btw, Ebert only gave it a marginal thumbs up. Although he admired it, he didn't really like it.

max

07-15-2002, 09:30 AM

[quote][b]Max, you said earlier on that you give RTP 6/10. I might give it the same grade after I have seen it. Joblo also gave it 6/10, but his review was logical and well argumented. I can't find any flaws in it, and it's not even slightly snobby and pretentious. To me the Salon review is presenting almost the exact opposite of critical field when compared to Joblo.[b][quote]

Now we're talking. I'm glad we agree on RTP. As far as the Salon review, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I liked JoBlo's review, too, and I always enjoy Ebert's reviews even though I don't always agree with him.

max

07-15-2002, 04:29 PM

RE: So let's see... A film is oscar-mongering at it's most shameless when it has a carefully crafted picture where there is tobacco smoke? Could you explain this IN DETAIL? Because I just don't get it.

There's a difference between "carefully crafted" and showoff-ish. As for the beautifully backlit tobacco smoke, what exactly is the point of that? Is it symbolic? Is it essential to the plot? Does it develop the character who's smoking it? The hours that Conrad Hall took to satisfy Mendes's egotistical desire to make that one shot look so picture-perfect could've been better spent establishing Dad's relationship with his wife and kids so we'd care more when the nasty things happen to them. The most developed characters in the movie are the rain and snow.

dellamorte dellamore

07-15-2002, 07:00 PM

Why is it that if a person is disappointed with a film,but they fail to intricately explain why to everyones liking,somehow their opinion is moot.

Talk about pretentious,that's pretentious,dismissing someones viewpoint because you don't feel they effectively described what it was they did'nt particulary enjoy.

I know this is going to be somewhat of a revelation to people that always demand explanations for reviews or whatever,but sometimes a just plain O'l Sucks,devoid of any redeeming qualities,groan inducing,manipulative,derivative,cliched,and not at all entertaining.

So to sum up my thought on this film,It truly does Suck,it blows chunks,it reeks something fierce.

Ignore my comments if you will,i'm sorry i did'nt deconstruct every scene for your pleasure(why do critics do that anyway,those damn fools give away almost the entire film and major plot points).

Really what it comes down is that critics suck,and only an individual truly knows what they like,and what's entertaining.But for some reason,they still have a cetain amount of influence,i thought they would be extinct by now.

Scarface98.9

07-16-2002, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by max:
There's a difference between "carefully crafted" and showoff-ish. As for the beautifully backlit tobacco smoke, what exactly is the point of that? Is it symbolic? Is it essential to the plot? Does it develop the character who's smoking it? The hours that Conrad Hall took to satisfy Mendes's egotistical desire to make that one shot look so picture-perfect could've been better spent establishing Dad's relationship with his wife and kids so we'd care more when the nasty things happen to them. The most developed characters in the movie are the rain and snow. 
so if a person is eating a sandwich in a movie, should it be symbolic, or develop the person more? no, it's just something u notice and disregard. it's called perfectionism, where Mendes wanted to make every frame perfect, which is not showing off. someting like copying Scorsese camera moves, is showing off, but this case isn't

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by max:
There's a difference between "carefully crafted" and showoff-ish. As for the beautifully backlit tobacco smoke, what exactly is the point of that? Is it symbolic? Is it essential to the plot? Does it develop the character who's smoking it? The hours that Conrad Hall took to satisfy Mendes's egotistical desire to make that one shot look so picture-perfect could've been better spent establishing Dad's relationship with his wife and kids so we'd care more when the nasty things happen to them. The most developed characters in the movie are the rain and snow. 

Visual beauty is an artistical achievement in it's own right. When you see a beautiful painting, do you claim that the painting is bad because it's aims to be perfectionist in it's beauty? You are basicly saying that a film that has shots that simply aim to be beautiful because of aesthetic pleasure is bad because of it. Do you ALWAYS think this way, Max? Let's check some films from your top 100:

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
SCHINDLER'S LIST
SONATINE
BRAZIL
BLUE VELVET
APOCALYPSE NOW

...Movies that were in love with self-conscious, often highly artificial visuals. I do agree that they are all great films, but they are guilty of the EXACTLY SAME THING as RTP.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-16-2002).]

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 05:09 AM

"Why is it that if a person is disappointed with a film,but they fail to intricately explain why to everyones liking,somehow their opinion is moot."

RE: The guy is a PROFESSIONAL CRITIC. He actually get's PAID for what he does. If he can't back up his opinions with logical arguments, then he is a BAD critic.

"Talk about pretentious,that's pretentious,dismissing someones viewpoint because you don't feel they effectively described what it was they did'nt particulary enjoy."

RE: Pretentious means that I PRETEND to be something I am not. So when I say that the critic in question didn't back up his opinions well, you are saying that I don't really think so, I'm just PRETENDING to think so. You are not making sense.

"I know this is going to be somewhat of a revelation to people that always demand explanations for reviews or whatever,but sometimes a just plain O'l Sucks,devoid of any redeeming qualities,groan inducing,manipulative,derivative,cliched,and not at all entertaining."

RE: Like I already said, a definition of a GOOD critic is the ability to back up his opinions. Maybe the definition of a good critic is for you someone who just rants on and on without making any sense. To each his own.

"So to sum up my thought on this film,It truly does Suck,it blows chunks,it reeks something fierce.

Ignore my comments if you will,i'm sorry i did'nt deconstruct every scene for your pleasure(why do critics do that anyway,those damn fools give away almost the entire film and major plot points)."

RE: You can EASILY give analytical and intelligent criticism without giving anything away. Joblo does it all the time.

"Really what it comes down is that critics suck,and only an individual truly knows what they like,and what's entertaining.But for some reason,they still have a cetain amount of influence,i thought they would be extinct by now."

RE: Hopefully bad critics WILL come extinct and the good ones wil gain more popularity.

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by max:
Tuukka says: What the f*#*?! Go see the movie, then we'll talk. Btw, Ebert only gave it a marginal thumbs up. Although he admired it, he didn't really like it.



Granted, here I might be talking out of my ass since I haven't seen the film yet (it hasn't arrived to Finland). But quite a few reviewers have pointed out that RTP consciously aims to be very simple and old-fashioned film storywise. A sort of mix between ancient tragedies and old pulp gangster films. So when I go to see the film, I don't expect it to be anything more realistic, deeper and more intellectual than that. I'm also aware of the fact that it's based on a pulpy comic book.

BTW, I would re-introduce an earlier quote from the Salon review:

"There's no mess in "Road to Perdition," either visually or morally. Mendes clearly wants to tangle with a complicated theme -- Can a killer be a decent human being? -- but he doesn't want to get himself worked over in the process. He also struggles, like a gentleman wrestler in tights and an ear guard, with complex family conflicts, most notably the stress cracks between fathers and sons that start out small and grow to world-shattering proportions. Mendes seems to be under the impression that his story is more morally complex than it is; even so, he never adequately addresses the crucial moral questions the story raises."

...For some reason the critic is under the impression that Mendes wrote the film, while in fact it was written by David Self from a comic book by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. So he is basicly talking out of his ass (again).

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-16-2002).]

dellamorte dellamore

07-16-2002, 08:08 AM

I already pointd out why i did'nt enjoy this in previous posts,but i know it did'nt pass muster.

Who cares,go blow your money on this garbage if you have the money to burn,everyone else i would recommend renting it,and using your money for Signs,something that is compelling,from what i've seen so far.Plus there's no Hanks to ruin the proceedings.I always felt Gibson had a much more powerful and intriguing screen presence than him anyway.

I just have to say it one more time,we don't need critics,they're purposeless,wannabe filmmakers.They never have made a difference,and they never will make a difference.If all of them ceased to exist tommorow,only a handful of people would actually miss them.

And they get paid for this,that's another joke.

When some critic gets off their hemmorhoidal rump long enough to actually make a film a film,then i'll listen to what those pontificators have to say.

Until then i'll listen to what the general movie going public has to say,not someone who is getting paid to see a film,but someone who is paying to see it.

When someone gets paid to write a review,i can imagine conflicts of interests will most definitely arrive,kinda like insider trading.

max

07-16-2002, 10:06 AM

You are basicly saying that a film that has shots that simply aim to be beautiful because of aesthetic pleasure is bad because of it.

No. What I'm saying and have been saying all along is that ROAD TO PERDITION is a great looking piece of nothing much. RTP, like AMERICAN BEAUTY, pretends to be something more than Mendes showing off and everybody seems to be buying it.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
SCHINDLER'S LIST
SONATINE
BRAZIL
BLUE VELVET
APOCALYPSE NOW

...Movies that were in love with self-conscious, often highly artificial visuals. I do agree that they are all great films, but they are guilty of the EXACTLY SAME THING as RTP.

No, they're not exactly the same. They are more than narcicisstic exercises in style. The great visuals are at the service of something insightful and meaningful. And, in the case of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the visuals are just as important as the subject matter. AMERICAN BEAUTY says nothing new or profound and yet Mendes treats each scene as if it were some kind of profound revelation. ROAD TO PERDITION is nothing more than a hodgepodge of gangster cliches and visual styles borrowed from other films. So it pretends to be something more: Tom Hanks playing a bad guy, Paul Newman playing a bad guy and Jude Law playing an ugly guy. But it's really just Oscar bait. Hanks is not really a bad guy. Paul Newman is not really a bad guy. And Jude Law is just Jude Law with thinning hair and yellow teeth.

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by max:
No, they're not exactly the same. They are more than narcicisstic exercises in style. The great visuals are at the service of something insightful and meaningful. And, in the case of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, the visuals are just as important as the subject matter.


I have to disagree with you here. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is about nothing at all. The film it TOTALLY lacking in substance. I love the flick, but it's empty. Some aspects of it are open for interpretation (At least if you haven't read the novel. I have), but it's not meaningful. If it is, could you exaplain the meaning? I've seen it four times and I don't see it.

SONATINE is empty as well. In fact it has strinking similarities to RTP storywise. What was Sonatine about? Great film, but a triumph of gorgeous, self-conscious style over substance.

BRAZIL indeed has a lot of substance, but often the visuals are distracting. They are screaming "Look at me!" instead of telling the story in the most effective manner. BLUE VELVET and APOCALYPSE NOW have some substance to them as well, but they share the same problem with Brazil. Why is war and violence so gorgeously beautiful and pleasing to the eye in Apocalypse Now? Does it make the story better? Of course it doesn't. It's just Coppola and Storato jerking off in a highly impressive manner. The visuals of the film are CONTRADICTING the content of the story. Apocalypse Now is about the horrors of the war and it wants to make those horrors as visually pretty as possible. Blue Velvet has the same contradictionary fascination on the "beauty" of everything horrible. Can you REALLY claim that Lynch isn't constantly masturbating with Blue Velvet?

SCHINDLER'S LIST shares some of these problems as well (althought less). Things like the girl in the red dress are only intended to make people notice the "cleverness" and "artistry" of the film. Instead of being disgusted about the death of the girl, people just admire how visually interesting her death was. The film has also a striking, very beautiful picture of Neeson holding a cigarette in his hand, with art-directed smoke rising from it. You might know the picture, it was used for promotional purposes. The picture screams loudly "Look how beautiful I am!". Which is worse, to use that kind of picture in a fictional pulp movie (RTP), or in a real-life based holocaust movie?

Additionally, which is worse: A) A film that has no substance (RTP) has overblown visuals that distract from a story. b) A film that is about important issues diminishes the power of those issues with overblown, distracting visuals?

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 10:51 AM

"No. What I'm saying and have been saying all along is that ROAD TO PERDITION is a great looking piece of nothing much. RTP, like AMERICAN BEAUTY, pretends to be something more than Mendes showing off and everybody seems to be buying it."

RE: What actually do you MEAN by this? RTP pretends to be something more than it is, because it is visually overblown? How does visual artificiality make a film to think it is more than it is? I don't get it. I don't find this idea logical at all. Could you explain more?

max

07-16-2002, 11:54 AM

so if a person is eating a sandwich in a movie, should it be symbolic, or develop the person more? no, it's just something u notice and disregard. it's called perfectionism, where Mendes wanted to make every frame perfect, which is not showing off. someting like copying Scorsese camera moves, is showing off, but this case isn't

If the scene is shot like some kind of sandwich commercial, then it's showing off. The best kind of film direction doesn't call attention to itself. A good director would show you a person eating a sandwich and you know what the person is thinking or feeling. Mendes would show you a person eating a sandwich and you know what he (Mendes) is thinking or feeling. The worst kind of director, of course, would show you a person eating a sandwich and all you could think about is eating a sandwich.

Movie Hunter

07-16-2002, 12:29 PM

dellmorte is back to his good ol habit of BASHING ALL MOVIES ...wooooooohoooo , always fun to see him catching flaws from reviews NOT from the movies itself ..

Dellmorte : Goodluck in your quest http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

max

07-16-2002, 01:04 PM

I have to disagree with you here. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is about nothing at all. The film it TOTALLY lacking in substance. I love the flick, but it's empty. Some aspects of it are open for interpretation (At least if you haven't read the novel. I have), but it's not meaningful. If it is, could you exaplain the meaning? I've seen it four times and I don't see it.[quote]

If you've seen it four times and saw nothing, then there's nothing I could say to you that would change all that because the movie's all about self-reflection. By giving us sequences of man's evolution from ape to man to half-man/half-machine, he inspires us to reflect on our own humanity. If nothing else, it's an experience, and that's something.

[quote]SONATINE is empty as well. In fact it has strinking similarities to RTP storywise. What was Sonatine about? Great film, but a triumph of gorgeous, self-conscious style over substance.

Yes, it's style over substance, but Kitano mixes styles and genres in a novel and compelling way. He uses images to explore their emotional aftermath. And, unlike Sam Mendes, he conjures images with uncommon depth of feeling.

As for the other films, I never said they were perfect. But they worked for me. I may have occasionally noticed the director masturbating but at least he didn't spray his cum all over me. I understand that film is a director's medium and that it's the director's vision the film is predicated on. But I believe that the director should try to remain invisible for the two hours that I'm watching his film. I just want the story to unfold with as little "direction" from the director as possible. I don't want the director to tell me what to watch or what to listen to or what to feel and think. I want to see his vision through my own eyes and not through the eye of his camera.

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 01:29 PM

Half man/half machine? I didn't see any of those in 2001.

What exactly does the film reflect? It shows that man is an offspring of half-apes. Hardly revealing. The "message" that 2001 has is that the first important step of intellectual evolution of the man was caused by alien creatures (the half-apes in the beginning are being manipulated by the monolith). The second big step in evolution in the film (starchild) is being caused by aliens as well.

So 2001 is "meaningful" because it claims that the big steps in human evolution are caused by aliens?

Erm...

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 01:35 PM

"Yes, it's style over substance, but Kitano mixes styles and genres in a novel and compelling way. He uses images to explore their emotional aftermath."

RE: Emotional aftermath? So when Kitano shows the final confrontation in darkness with only flashing lights, he is not trying to look cool, but he is "exploring the emotional aftermath" of those images? Erm... WHAT????? What aftermath? What are you talking about? The emotional aftermath the scene raised from me was "Cool!".

Or the cute wrestling scene on the beach... What aftermath was that image exploring? What??????

"And, unlike Sam Mendes, he conjures images with uncommon depth of feeling."

RE: Well, Sonatine wasn't certainly a emotional experience for me. I didn't grow any attachement to any of the characters, because they were distant and cold. Could you EXPLAIN IN DETAIL what you mean? Examples? It seems to me that you are just playing with words, refusing to give REAL reasons.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-16-2002).]

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 01:46 PM

"As for the other films, I never said they were perfect. But they worked for me. I may have occasionally noticed the director masturbating but at least he didn't spray his cum all over me. I understand that film is a director's medium and that it's the director's vision the film is predicated on. But I believe that the director should try to remain invisible for the two hours that I'm watching his film."

RE: Well, many of the films mentioned are spreading cum all over you, so to speak. Some of them, like 2001, don't have anything to offer besides the cum.

"I just want the story to unfold with as little "direction" from the director as possible. I don't want the director to tell me what to watch or what to listen"

RE: Impossibility. The nature of medium requires that the director tells you what you are supposed to watch and listen. Otherwise there is no drama, or more precicely, no movie.

"or what to feel and think."

RE: Interestingly many have bashed RTP because it doesn't manipulate the feelings of the audience enough. Would you like me to pick movies from your top 100 that tell the audience exactly what they are supposed to feel? For example:

REAR WINDOW
SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
SCHINDLER'S LIST
E.T.

"I want to see his vision through my own eyes and not through the eye of his camera."

RE: Again, impossible. All you can see is the director's vision. Nothing less, nothing more. Cinema is an art of manipulation.

Dumb-Fokker-**

07-16-2002, 02:20 PM

Dont mean to interrupt, but I found 2001 to be much more than its visuals. I guess it depends on the person. Much like it does with every other film. ...catching my hidden meaning guys? My depth? Ok,...good.

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 03:22 PM

I think that 2001 is a great film. It belongs to my top 40. But I can't see anything deeply meaningful about it at all. It doesn't say anything important about humans, our life, universe, well, about anything. It's a fairly simple, non-substantial story that works because it makes you curious, because it's brilliantly executed and offers some true sense of wonder.

*** 2001 SPOILERS! ***

The story of 2001 is this: An alien race put's a monolith to earth. The monolith manipulates and makes the half-apes around it more intelligent. The alien race has planted another monolith at moon. They have logically figured out that half-apes will eventually find it when they are advanced enough. When the half-apes (who have evolved into humans) find the monolith at moon, it gives a hint about the teleport to humans. Humans go to the teleport. Teleport takes one of the humans and takes him to the aliens. They mess with him for a while, "evolve" him even further and then send him back to earth. The end. Welcome the sequel.

What was the deep meaning? I don't get it. Can someone explain? The fact that 2001 is a pseudo-philosophical scifi movie doesn't make it more meaningful than a pulpy gangster movie. Choosing a certain genre doesn't make a film more deep and meaningful.

Michael Corleone

07-16-2002, 03:39 PM

I hate getting involved in disscussions because no matter what you say the other guy/girl isn't going too change their opinion. Anyway, when I saw the 9th best film ever made appear in this I just had too say something.

2001 is just as magical as it is thought provoking. It isn't just a film you watch, it's one you experience.

- What I just said has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, if it did I would of explained in more detail what the film is supposed to be. I was just stating my general thoughts of it. So, please don't reply and say something "that has nothing to do with what we're disscussing" or "that doesn't tell me anything about anything" because it's almost pointless to tell me something I already know.

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 03:56 PM

Actually the deeper meaning of 2001 is very closely related to RTP discussion. It has been said that 2001 is better than RTP because while it is just as masturbatory film visually, it offers deep and meaningful messages, while RTP doesn't. But if 2001 doesn't have any deep and meaningful message, the argument in question falls flat on it's face.

max

07-16-2002, 04:09 PM

RE: Well, many of the films mentioned are spreading cum all over you, so to speak. Some of them, like 2001, don't have anything to offer besides the cum.

That's your opinion and many would disagree with you. I disagree with you and that's all that really matters to me.

RE: Impossibility. The nature of medium requires that the director tells you what you are supposed to watch and listen. Otherwise there is no drama, or more precicely, no movie.

The nature of the medium does not require the director to insult the viewer's intelligence. Otherwise there is no drama, only a bad movie.

RE: Interestingly many have bashed RTP because it doesn't manipulate the feelings of the audience enough. Would you like me to pick movies from your top 100 that tell the audience exactly what they are supposed to feel?

I was bashing RTP because it was Oscarbaiting. It's a more ruthless kind of manipulation. And pick whatever movies you want. As far as I'm concerned, those movies didn't insult my intelligence the way RTP did. But of course you haven't seen RTP, so how would you know? Why don't you check it out for yourself and stop relying on what other people, including myself, feel about it? Then, maybe, we'll talk.

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 04:28 PM

Max, I'm not arguing whether RTP is a good film or not. I haven't seen it, so I can't form an opinion. I'm only pointing out that you are not backing up your opinions in a logical manner. You are being inconsistent. You make big statements and you don't back them up.

So RTP insulted your intelligence. How? If you think that you are more intelligent than the film, then you can surely give a good argument to back up your opinion.

You are referring the film as it's primary goal is to get Oscars. How do you back it up? So far you haven't given any reasonable answers.

Most of the time I give you a counter-argument, you refuse to answer it.

I'm not arguing whether RTP is a good film. I'm arguing whether your arguments, or the arguments of the Salon critic are making any sense. To do that I have to only read your arguments. They are in this topic, I know what they are, so I'm perfectly cabable to comment on them.

Like I already stated, I don't have any problems with Joblo's 6/10 review. He didn't embrace the film because he didn't feel connection to the characters and felt that the story was uninvolving. These are perfectly reasonable reasons. I don't have any problems with them.

But you and the Salon critic have given reasons that are illogical, inconsistent and badly thought out.

If you want to shy away from the argument, feel free to do so. But don't try to find any dishonest excuses. If you find a flaw in my arguments, point it out and give a counter-argument. I will surely give an answer.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-16-2002).]

max

07-16-2002, 04:59 PM

Tuukka, I believe I've backed up my arguments as well as I could without giving away spoilers. I was just looking out for you since you haven't seen the film. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

Tuukka

07-16-2002, 05:12 PM

I'm not particularly afraid of spoilers, unless they deal with surprise twists or the very ending of the movie.

*** SPOILERS ***

I've already understood that Hank's character dies by Jude Law in the end after he has killed the character of Newman. The kid lives on...

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-16-2002).]

max

07-16-2002, 06:36 PM

Ok, ok, ok, I'm short on time so I'll be brief. Take it or leave it. Like Joblo I didn't connect to the characters. Let me start with Hanks. He's miscast. The role requires an interior performance but he doesn't have the presence or depth to pull it off. I haven't read the novel it's based "upon" but the character seems to have been softened quite a bit to suit Hanks's persona. He's more a hero to his son than a cold-blooded killer. And since his relationship to his family isn't clearly established in the beginning of the film, we don't really care what happens after the wife and another son are killed. And what does happen after is predictable father/son stuff borrowed from other movies. The tonal shift from dark to something lighter in the middle section (father & son rob banks), especially, seems forced, and the buddy/road sequence tacked on to make sure that fans hoping to see a likable Hanks aren't totally alienated. With a weak performance and a cliched relationship at the movie's core, the movie doesn't have much to go on. But Mendes tries anyway. Boy, does he try hard! The slow line readings filled with pauses, the deliberate pacing, the slo-mo, rain-soaked violence, the homage-filled sequences, the perfectly lit scenes, the heavy-handed symbolisms, etc. - all give the appearance that there's something really important going on. And just in case we didn't "get" it, the ending explains it all to us. The movie has its moments but they don't add up to a satisfying whole. Newman has enough gravitas to overcome a derivative role. Jennifer Jason Leigh is in only a few scenes. That's always a plus (I think she's the most mannered actress working today). If you don't believe me, check out her busy performance in GEORGIA. She was so fucking annoying! And you can't fault Conrad Hall for his scene-stealing cinematography. He was only doing what Mendes told him to do. Unfortunately, as we've mentioned. movies are a director's medium. ROAD TO PERDITION is an art director's triumph and not much of a movie.

blankpage

07-16-2002, 07:29 PM

ROAD TO PERDITION
starring:Tom Hanks,Paul Newman,Jude Law,Jennifer Jason Liegh
Directed by:Sam Mendas
R

Something I have noticed with a lot of directors,is that there second films aren’t as good as their first one’s.With expeptions to Speilberg,Fincher,Nolan,and Hitchcok.There are some others though.So I guess you know what I am leading up to.Road to Perdition is Sam Mendas’ second film(I think).His first film was American Beauty,which I really enjoyed.Road to Perdition is a film that I might take the Road again,but probably not. With a all star cast,and a really good director I thought I was in paradise.Damn Harry when did I turn over.Perdition is entertaing but I must say I found it very slow.

Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan.A man who doesn’t talk much.He has a family and all,but he is also a mobster.He works for Mr.Rooney played by Paul Newman.After a freak accident Rooney’s son sets out to kill Sullivan and his family.The son gets Sullivans wife and son.The only two surviviors where Sullivan and his son.Thus Michael has to flea and protect his son.Rooney’s son gets a guy who kills people and takes the photo to kill Sullivan.But Michael has other plan.This goes on to be a life changing expirence for Michael and his son.

I might have been expecting too much from this film.It was one of the most anticipated and was getting rave reviews.But this film seemed slow and just was missing things.The drama wasn’t there for me,and I didn’t believe the father son relashionship.Tom Hank’s,my favourite actor didn’t do anything for me.He was supposed to play a dark character,but barley spoke any lines.Tom just wasn’t all there for me.Paul Newman was something I did enjoy about the film though.Even though he didn’t have as much of a screen time as I wanted him too.Everytime he spoke something it would feel so commanding.A solid performance by him.I can’t really give a review for Jude Law because there just was about 6 minutes.

I tried to like the film,I really did.It was very entertaining.But not as good as I thought it would be.It had it’s excellent parts,and it’s slow parts.It did start off very slow I must say.The score in this film was amazing.It really sets the mood for the film.Just like the Godfather.The scene where Newman,and Hanks to a piano duet was just great.The action scene’s did some good for me.Very realy.The directing was decent enough but I thought that Menda couldn’t get the bad guy out of Hanks.

All in all Road to Perdition was entertaining,hey I didn’t look at my watch.But at times I found it to be slow,well only the first half.After the killings the film showed things for me.Hanks was pretty good,but as a bad guy I don’t know.The film was missing a few things.It’s hard not to hate this movie,that’s why it will get a nice grade.

*** 1/2 (out of 5)

----blankpage----
http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

darkface

07-17-2002, 12:07 AM

Just saw this flick today, it was great. I haven't seen a movie like it for a while, especially since its the summer, and there's usually only action flicks now. But it was a great change of pace. Superb acting, great directing. I love how Mendes plays with the focus, and the way he transitions things, its great.

Spoilers**
One of the money shots for this year i think was when Hanks was killing off the mob around Newman. The way the camera was focused on Newman, and you can see the men falling ripping holes in the umbrellas etc, and the rain falling in slow-motion, It was perfect.

max

07-17-2002, 09:51 AM

Spoilers**
One of the money shots for this year i think was when Hanks was killing off the mob around Newman. The way the camera was focused on Newman, and you can see the men falling ripping holes in the umbrellas etc, and the rain falling in slow-motion, It was perfect.

One of the many showy shots I was talking about. You sit there admiring the way the scene was shot instead of getting involved in the action.

Tuukka

07-17-2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by max:
Ok, ok, ok, I'm short on time so I'll be brief. Take it or leave it. Like Joblo I didn't connect to the characters. Let me start with Hanks. He's miscast. The role requires an interior performance but he doesn't have the presence or depth to pull it off. I haven't read the novel it's based "upon" but the character seems to have been softened quite a bit to suit Hanks's persona. He's more a hero to his son than a cold-blooded killer. And since his relationship to his family isn't clearly established in the beginning of the film, we don't really care what happens after the wife and another son are killed. And what does happen after is predictable father/son stuff borrowed from other movies. The tonal shift from dark to something lighter in the middle section (father & son rob banks), especially, seems forced, and the buddy/road sequence tacked on to make sure that fans hoping to see a likable Hanks aren't totally alienated. With a weak performance and a cliched relationship at the movie's core, the movie doesn't have much to go on. But Mendes tries anyway. Boy, does he try hard! The slow line readings filled with pauses, the deliberate pacing, the slo-mo, rain-soaked violence, the homage-filled sequences, the perfectly lit scenes, the heavy-handed symbolisms, etc. - all give the appearance that there's something really important going on. And just in case we didn't "get" it, the ending explains it all to us. The movie has its moments but they don't add up to a satisfying whole. Newman has enough gravitas to overcome a derivative role. Jennifer Jason Leigh is in only a few scenes. That's always a plus (I think she's the most mannered actress working today). If you don't believe me, check out her busy performance in GEORGIA. She was so fucking annoying! And you can't fault Conrad Hall for his scene-stealing cinematography. He was only doing what Mendes told him to do. Unfortunately, as we've mentioned. movies are a director's medium. ROAD TO PERDITION is an art director's triumph and not much of a movie. 

That was much better! Thanks! Now I can understand you better http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

I think that if the film would have a more intriguing emotional core and story, and a better lead actor/character, you would be willing to forgive much of it's OTT visuals. After all you did like Miller's Crossing and Sonatine. While those films have self-conscious OTT visuals, they are also unpredictable, very well written and feature interesting characters. If RTP misses those things (and you are not the only one to claim so), it might well miss it's mark as a movie.

Personally, I LOVE gorgeus eye candy, and if a film fails with script and acting, it's good if it at least gives some pleasure to the eye. I recall you have said that the cinematography was the only thing that kept you awake.

Looking forward to it...

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 07-17-2002).]

Scarface98.9

07-17-2002, 03:07 PM

max

07-17-2002, 04:01 PM

[quote]sounds like ur insulting his opinion of a scene he/she liked.quote]

No, I was merely stating my own opinion of the scene. It's a great-looking scene, no doubt, but too gorgeous for its own good. You're too conscious of its artfulness. As one critic put it, instead of the scene being "galvanizing," it's merely "grandiose."

dellamorte dellamore

07-18-2002, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Movie Hunter:
dellmorte is back to his good ol habit of BASHING ALL MOVIES ...wooooooohoooo , always fun to see him catching flaws from reviews NOT from the movies itself ..

Dellmorte : Goodluck in your quest http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

The Quest,the Quest for the Ring.

A shadow rises in the East,a nameless fear,unfortunately it's another groan inducer from Hanks and company.

I agree,Hanks does not have the intestinal fortitude or internal motivation or all that other film school stuff required for this role.They should have gone with Clive Owen,but the film still would have blew Jose Cuervo 1800 Gold chunks either way.

A ganster film set in the 30's or any other era just does'nt appeal to me anymore,the material is inherently boring from the start.

You want great acting,direction,cinematography,music,and brilliant set design in a period piece film without gangster cliches,then you need to check out Gosford Park.

There is no stars in that one,just terrific performances by thespians who aren't self concious.

ScottTheScooter

07-18-2002, 01:29 PM

i really liked this movie. very good and tense. a lot of action during the shootouts and the characters were developed. jude law was great as the wacko hitman. tom hanks was awesome as the protecting father
9/10

The Other

07-20-2002, 11:19 PM

I know why they aren't showing the film here. Because it has the word "Perdition" in the title, which if you don't know, means eternal damnation. I live in a very religious area. I'm not religious at all though.

inglourious basterd

07-21-2002, 01:04 AM

I just saw the movie last night and I have to say that I agree with much of the written points from Max, JoBlo, Berardinelli, and even Ebert. Mendes flaunts his love for quality cinematography by overusing the use of smoke, by having it conveniently rain when something bad/suspenseful happens, and by filming the "beauty" (pun intended) of brains on a wall. The only thing that had any hint of depth in it were the relationships that Sullivan (Hanks) had with his boss and his son. We never have an attachment to any of the characters and many of them are ill-developed (they can be labelled simply as "good guys" and "bad guys" even though they are all in the underworld). There was definitely lots of style, but little substance.

If you want to see "better" movies with similar themes, you should check out PANIC (it has a better father/son storyline), The Godfather (it has a better depth with realistically portraying characters in the underworld), and/or L.A. Confidential (which only shares the simple mini-theme of redemption). Road to Perdition did not impress me. 5/10 (the score is only this high because of the quality of Mendes' direction. The story by itself was, to me, no better than a 4/10).

[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 07-21-2002).]

inglourious basterd

07-21-2002, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by max:
One of the many showy shots I was talking about. You sit there admiring the way the scene was shot instead of getting involved in the action.



I have to agree with max on this point. The film was all about visuals. Like I said earlier, one of Mendes goals was to make this film a visual feast. He flaunts his skill of direction by having extreme closeups of a cigarette blowing out (for no reason), of people dying slowly, and of rain conveniently falling during dramatic scenes. Not only did it add predictability, but it was also meaningless. To me, its worth was similar to the glorified violence in the lobby shootout scene of the matrix.

I called my friend on this idea. She had previously said that this was a "sureshot for an Academy Award". After seeing the film, I asked her why she thought so. I told her about my problems with the characters and the basic plot and she agreed with me. Her reason for loving it was mainly because of the quality filming.

I love quality filming when it has a point. Unfortunately, like Max, I saw little meaningful connection between the visuals and the basic plotline.

Scarface98.9

07-21-2002, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore:
You want great acting,direction,cinematography,music,and brilliant set design in a period piece film without gangster cliches,then you need to check out Gosford Park.

There is no stars in that one,just terrific performances by thespians who aren't self concious.


but do u want a boring as hell, overlong, English movie made by Americans that always thinks it's being witty? then see Gosford Park. it fits the bill

Hypothermia

07-23-2002, 12:50 AM

Hypo Loved ROAD TO PERDITION!

Sweet Jesus! What a fantastic film in all respects. Acting, directing, SCORE - Thomas Newman, bless you - photography, writing - ROAD TO PERDITION exceeded my expectations in a variety of fields.

Sam Mendes threw himself w/ this picture. Where the comparisons to THE GODFATHER come from escapes me, as it's neither as epic nor as heart-rending, but a fantastic crime-drama nonetheless.

Very good costumes, too. How cool did Jude Law look dressed as prohbition-era gangster? The clothes, the steel and the mood even wore well on Tom Hanks.

I was mildly disappointed that Law's role wasn't meatier, and that Paul Newman wasn't Oscar-nod worthy either. If there's any supporting performance that stands out, it's Tyler Hoechlin as Hanks' son. Yet, the only nod-worthy performance I find in the entire picture is Hanks himself who - cast against type - proves once again a superior talent who slips in and out of roles w/ the greatest of ease.

I know there are a bundle of snobs here who love to hate Tom Hanks solely for the sake of going against the grain. Well, that's well and good - just keep it out of my hair, I just washed it.

I'm not saying this is the best performance of the year, as the year isn't over and many promising films are yet to come. I intensely disagree w/ a comment on the IMDB that wishes to argue of ROAD being the greatest gangster film ever made, for it is not, IMO. I WILL venture to say that - if Tom Hanks & the technical merits of Mendes' film - including cinematography, costume design, directing, score and film editing - make it to the Oscars, the nominations would be very well deserved.

max

07-23-2002, 09:32 AM

Well, that's well and good - just keep it out of my hair, I just washed it.

Well, you missed a spot.

Sweet Jesus! What a fantastic film in all respects. Acting, directing, SCORE - Thomas Newman, bless you - photography, writing - ROAD TO PERDITION exceeded my expectations in a variety of fields.

You must've gone in with low expectations. Like I said, the acting was merely adequate. Much ado about Hanks taking a bad guy role, but the film literally bends over backwards to keep him as sympathetic as possible. He's essentially a good guy in bad circumstances. The direction? Way too precious, signifying nothing. Mendes confuses visual shadow for profundity, lengthy closeups for emotional depth, deliberate pacing for solemnity and cheap shock effects for true horror. The score? It ranges from great to obnoxious and everywhere in between. Like I said, the photography was superb, but very few of Conrad Hall's beautiful images, those few I could link up thematically to the rest of the picture, have any emotional resonance. As for the writing, let's see. Travails of a middle-aged working man. Misunderstood by his children. Loses his wife. Ambushed by a looney tune. Sound familiar? Hell, we even have the exact same shot of a dining room table! Just as AMERICAN BEAUTY rehashed instead of reinvigorated the cliches of suburban angst, ROAD does the same for the gangster picture.

if Tom Hanks & the technical merits of Mendes' film - including cinematography, costume design, directing, score and film editing - make it to the Oscars, the nominations would be very well deserved.

They may very well deserve them. I've never seen a crew work so hard to win Oscars.

inglourious basterd

07-23-2002, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Hypothermia:
I know there are a bundle of snobs here who love to hate Tom Hanks solely for the sake of going against the grain. Well, that's well and good - just keep it out of my hair, I just washed it..

I don't think that it is fair to redefine the word "snob" as someone who has an opinion contrary to yours. Also, for your information, I disliked this movie and loved Cast Away, Philadelphia and his role in Forrest Gump, although I thought that that movie was simply passable.

If anyone here can logically explain its "depth", then I would be in your favor. The reason is because I saw very little in that area. This movie may get an award for cinematography, but it is my opinion that if it gets an award for any of the big three, it is undeserved.

Hypothermia

07-23-2002, 11:12 AM

Well, my use of the word snob was a mess-up. I didn't mean to say "snobs here". I meant in general really, and I think I have that right, cause it is true sometimes.

And max, if you think they worked hard for Oscars in "ROAD" then just wait, cause it's going to annoy ya even more when the Oscar-bait films come out in the fall.

max

07-23-2002, 11:27 AM

[quote]And max, if you think they worked hard for Oscars in "ROAD" then just wait, cause it's going to annoy ya even more when the Oscar-bait films come out in the fall.[quote]

Don't worry. Mendes has prepared me well for more facials.

Hypothermia

07-23-2002, 11:33 AM

The sad thing is that the Academy falls for them EVERY time. True, I do like some of the so-called "Oscar-bait" films, most recently I liked A Beautiful Mind, but it is pathetic how they are always awarding the films that want the Oscar so bad. Maybe they're just like "Here take it already if you want it so bad". Who knows?

dellamorte dellamore

07-23-2002, 06:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hypothermia:
[B]Hypo Loved ROAD TO PERDITION!

I know there are a bundle of snobs here who love to hate Tom Hanks solely for the sake of going against the grain. Well, that's well and good - just keep it out of my hair, I just washed it.

Sort of like the people that fawn all over everything he does,so they can come across as sophisticated cinephiles.

I recommend using a mild conditioner.It's good for split ends,and they hold up well against environmental toxins.

DizzyMoo3

07-23-2002, 06:33 PM

LOL

This apparently proves that dellamorte dellamore, max and psudoazn consider themselves film snobs or else they wouldn't have taken offense to the comment.

[This message has been edited by DizzyMoo3 (edited 07-23-2002).]

max

07-23-2002, 06:44 PM

This apparently proves that dellamorte dellamore, max and psudoazn consider themselves film snobs or else they wouldn't have taken offense to the comment.

If we're offended at all (I know I'm not), we're offended not because we consider ourselves film snobs but because we DON'T consider ourselves film snobs.

Hypothermia

07-23-2002, 07:43 PM

Okay, let me clear some things up about the stupid fuckin post that I shouldn't even have posted in the first place.

I originally posted it in another message board that I go to and just copied and pasted the review in this board. I apparently didn't proofread it to take out the things that don't apply to this board and yes calling them film snobs is necessary because some of them don't like anything. So my mistake there.

And yes, I know this is a message board and we are all entitled to our own opinions but damn, you three just all over me cause I apparently liked the film and you three apparently didn't.

Oh well, I'm done.

notchreturns

07-23-2002, 09:09 PM

I for one enjoyed The Road To Perdition. I found the story to be nothing special or diffrent, but it held my attention throughout and in the end I was happy with what I saw. While, the acting wasn't brillant, or as great as it could have been, I cared for the characters and what happened to them. I must say Paul Newman was very good in his role. The photography, showy or not, was brillant. Conrad Hall did a great job at re-creating the era. Many of the camera shots and movemtnts were also very interesting and some even jaw-dropping. I smell a Best Cinematography award for this one. The script was good, but not great. Jennifer Jason Leigh, a talented actress, wasn't given much to work with, and thus her role was under-written.

In the end, a story that was good, but not great, solid acting on all parts, especially by Paul Newman, great cinematography and art direction, and another great score by Thomas Newman.

8/10

inglourious basterd

07-23-2002, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by DizzyMoo3:

This apparently proves that dellamorte dellamore, max and psudoazn consider themselves film snobs or else they wouldn't have taken offense to the comment.



Nope...not really.

I just think that the label is used too easily. I dont think that people are "snobs" because they know why they are upset with/dislike something.

I would be similarly protective if someone was ranting about how stupid fans of Adam Sandler/Jim Carrey are.

[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 07-23-2002).]

dellamorte dellamore

07-24-2002, 07:42 AM

No hard feelings then Hypo,and i would be lying if i said i did'nt throw in some general derogatory statements about people who enjoy certain films.

If anyone has seen my post patterns,there are times i will tear apart a certain film,then start raving about it when it funally sinks in and the hype dies down.

Now,i'm being totally honest this time,i really don't like this film.It did'nt do anything for me,i'm not enthusiastic about gangster film,i really don't like Hanks(and i'm not just saying that to rebel.I think he's a gentleman,a family man, a class act,but i just never enjoyed his films,and this one has'nt changed my mind),i think the narrative is cliched and derivative,the performances(although competent)underwhelming,almost lethargic and lazy.But in the end it's guilty of the most unforgivable cinematic sin,it bored me.

Technically excellent,but bereft of any entertainment value,in my opinion.

Now,if anyone thinks i am a snob,if you see some of the films i do like,i doubt i would fit that label.

From Zombie 3 to Gosford Park.From Demons 1/2 to Beautiful Mind.From Dead next Door to Croupier.From Wild Zero to The Tate of Others(not a porno,even though it sounds like one).

I love Argento,but also Fellini.Mattei is one of my favorite directors,but i can't get enough of Tarkovsky.

So,you see,i'm far from a snob(a weisenheimer is probably more accurate),it's just that there are some films that just don't appeal to me,and RTP is one of them.

syxxpac

07-26-2002, 10:42 PM

I just saw this earlier tonight after making a quick decision upon noticing Goldmember being sold out. I thought it was really good, although I do agree with the obsession with the visuals. It certainly was a visual feast with its plethora of rain shots. I would've enjoyed the ending a little more had Muha not spoiled it, as it was totally unexpected and well shot (no pun intended). I really liked the ****SPOILERS**** shootout in the street with Hanks and Newman's henchmen.****END SPOILERS**** Extremely cool. Although his character wasn't really fleshed out, I still liked it everytime Jude Law appeared onscreen. His character was charming and sadistic at the same time. The film really surprised me, since I was expecting a pure drama with a few gunfights. What I got was a drama with a lot of violence (which is always good) and a bad ass Tom Hanks. I'd say go see it if you're a fan of Hanks or gangster movies in general. Now to Goldmember on Sunday...

bskutle

07-27-2002, 11:31 AM

Here's my little review on "Perdition"-

"Road to Perdition"- A
Based on a graphic novel, with rich musical and visual palletes (composer Thomas Newman and cinematographer Conrad L. Hall's work ranks up with the year's best), and exceptional turns by Tom Hanks and Paul Newman, director Sam Mendes crafts another American beauty as hitman Hanks tries to protect his son from his world both literally (fellow hitman Jude Law is after them) and figuratively (like Brando's Godfather, he has plans on the right side of the law for his son). Haunting and delicate visual and performance poetry from professionals. It'll linger long.

actressgirl_05

08-07-2002, 07:06 AM

I just saw Road to Perdition last night and I thought it was pretty good. It's one of my favorites for all the year and I REALLY hope Tom Hanks doesn't get cheated out of an Oscar.

I never thought I would see the day that Tom Hanks would be in a movie where he would blow peoples brains out, but I just saw it last night. It was amazing and I really thought it was good. 10/10

Benny

08-12-2002, 04:09 PM

I liked Road to Perdition, a lot, but I have to say that in the end it was disappointing. Some reviewers claimed the the movie was "style over substance" and a "road to pretention", and I'd have to agree with both of those.

Still there were many things I liked about this movie. The movie itself is beautiful. The scenery is great and there is a shot of Chicago about midway through the movie which is absolutely gorgeous. The cars, houses, and buildings are great and makes one feel like he/she is actually there witnessing the movie take place. Also the acting is very good, especially Paul Newman as the family patriarch. Tom Hanks also does very well in a role which is very atypical from most of his other movies, yet he still comes of as the good guy in the end. Hanks' son in the movie, played by Tyler Hoechlin (sp?), also is great. Unfortunately, some characters are wasted, like Jennifer Jason Leigh's and Stanley Tucci's.

Now for what I didn't like. The story was very cliched and one-dimensional. Based on a graphic novel, "Perdition" is about Michael Sullivan, a man who was adopted by and does work for John Rooney, a man who runs the town's Irish mafia. After Sullivan's wife and younger son get killed, he goes away from the house for 6 weeks with his elder son Michael to avenge his family's death. It may sound like a good premise, but unfortunately the story is highly predictable. I was able to figure out everything that would happen as the movie goes on. Also the whole movie was very slow-moving and there were many pretentious parts.

Overall, I liked it, yet it had many flaws. As mafia movies go, it is pretty good but doesn't hold a candle to the Godafther parts 1-2, GoodFellas or Mean Streets.

7/10