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.
um....nobody...Tom Hanks is the greatest actor who ever lived...and this movie would have been *beep* without him.
sharejust watched it again and realised how much Tom Hanks brings to the role. you get the feeling the scriptwriters took it easy because 'hey, ***ing Tom Hanks is playing him'. the first half hour or so he has little to do character wise but because it's Tom you can't help but connect and sympathise with the man.
if it was an unknown for example I'm not sure the movie would be anywhere near as effective. it's a very understated performance and having sure an easily likable actor in the role is crucial.
I thought Tom Hanks nailed the part. But I do think Ray Liotta would have been really good in it as well.
There is no good or evil, only different opinions
I've gotta agree with the OP, Hanks was hopelessly miscast in this. I have nothing but admiration for the man but for my money his particular set of qualities let you sympathize with him way too easily. I never really felt the cold, gruff distant aspect of his role as a father that I believe the movie was trying to convey at the start and thus the father-son arc just doesn't carry the same weight when they finally bond.
I'm fascinated by the idea of an alternative version of this movie where Hanks and Craig have switched parts.
Tom Hanks was great in this role.
sharei agree to a point about the cold, gruff and distant aspect of hanks as father not shining through (although i'm not convinced michael sullivan was any of these to significant degree) - hanks just seems too likable as a real person. but as an actor, he surmounts any perceived lack, and he renders himself all the more, and ironically soothingly less, sinister for it. what makes hanks so right for this role is his gentle maternal quality, which he calls upon to pitch perfection, and his disarming naivete that makes michael sullivan, the efficient killer, so rich a character and not so hard to like ~
share[deleted]
I think this is the only movie he is good in besides Big. I really don't like Hanks or his puck ass son either. Forest gump over Pulp Fiction? I've hated him ever sense, and no, I haven't watched forest gumb and I never f&%king will.
Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking
This is my favorite move of all time. I think Tom was perfect for the role. I can't imagine anyone else. Who else would have made a better gump
A heart isn't judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others~The Wizard of oz
I think one of the main points of the film is that Tom Hanks is a decent guy who in different circumstances would have held down a steady middle management job and spent his life saving to send the kids to college. If you see this film as just a shoot-em-up revenge saga then perhaps Hanks would be miscast but that ain't what they were trying to do IMHO. On the other hand, try to imagine Ray Liotta playing the everyman role !
shareI'm watching it right now for the first time-- it's a few minutes away from ending.
It's the film's main flaw imo
He was badly cast in this film and The Green Mile.
They both call for guys who can play the roles slightly more sadistically. Hanks can't do that.
by M_Exchange
I'm watching it right now for the first time-- it's a few minutes away from ending.
It's the film's main flaw imo
He was badly cast in this film and The Green Mile.
They both call for guys who can play the roles slightly more sadistically. Hanks can't do that.
Didnt read the entire thread,but i do have to Lol at the Al Pacino suggestions.
There isn't alot of dialogue with the Hanks character...anyone see "Cast Away?"
Of course you did,just a couple years prior to "Perdition." I cant think of anyone better than Hanks at this time to simply act the character with mostly expression and body language. Hanks was very good.