MovieChat Forums > Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion > Why cast Tom Hanks for this role?

Why cast Tom Hanks for this role?


Answer is obvious - too many academy awards.
It's a great movie - but it could have been better.
Lets start a poll - who would have been better as Michael Sullivan?
I like Ray Liotta.

reply

Because Tom Hanks was great in this movie and hes a great actor!

reply

RAY LIOTTA??????..........................LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!


TOM WAS PERFECT FOR THIS ROLE AND WAS OUTSTANDING AS ALWAYS.

They picked the right guy for the job.................Ray Liotta???

reply

my choice Liam Neeson or Russell Crowe. Hanks gives too much emotion away on his pained face. A cold blooded killer should be able to conceal his many masks to his friends, family, foes. I also thought Tucci as Nitti was miscast.

reply

I liked Tom Hanks in this a lot, but Liam Neeson would have been uncredible in this. Wow.. great idea.

reply

Oh Christ, Liam Neeson would not have been better than Tom Hanks in this role.

Tom Hanks was a great choice because the character has such a dangerous and brutal job that you need to cast someone likeable to offset all that. If they'd just casted some tough thug type, I don't think the character would have been likeable at all, and I don't think I would have been rooting for him as much as I did.

Casting Tom Hanks humanized the character.

reply

You're absolutely right. I'm not a Tom Hanks fan but he made you feel for his character. He was a family man that happened to kill for a living. I was hoping he and his son could be free after killing Rooney. My little sister said he was a killer but he was a good killer. Same thing for Mr. Newman. I've always loved him. I don't like him as a bad guy but he made me feel for him too. That's good acting ;making us care for people who should repulse us.

Now did you all hear what Mama said?

reply

Well said, well said...

reply

I thought Hanks was fine, but I'd have rather seen a more ordinary looking guy in the role - like Paul Giamatti (who was too young at the time). Stephen Lang would have been great, but he wasn't big enough at the time.

reply

that's what made Tom Hanks perfect for the role. Michael Sullivan WASN'T a cold-blooded killer. He just happened to kill people for a living. He was a family man first and foremost...

reply

I think Tom Hanks was perfect for the role.

http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2533227/ratings
www.kittysafe.net

reply

I don't know why u people feel like that.. i saw this movie before his other great works like Forrest Gump , Cast Away, etc. He just blew me off with his vulnerability and versatility in that character. I cannot imagine anyone else in this movie than Tom Hanks.
This was a totally underrated movie and one of the most underrated roles of Tom Hanks

reply

[deleted]

Hanks was great. One of his best performances.

reply

Why cast Tom Hanks for this role?
The next question would be,why no?
I think he did a good job.

reply

He was cast in this role because he was at a point in his career where he could pick and choose his roles. Quite literally, he wanted it, so he got it. He was box office. Period.

reply

Ray Liotta is fantastic, but Hanks made the role. He was effective, strong and very, very human. Him being the "muscle" is such a small part of who the character was (as was expressed in Mike Jr's VO), Hanks sold that stuff reasonably well, but shone when he was struggling to make conversation with his son. I thought he was remarkable. Not to say no one else could have done it justice, I was just very happy with his performance.

reply