Your problems with this film. Seriously.

It's certainly underrated. The only problems I had were the diner scene (mentioned above), the scene where Sullivan kills Newman's character and his henchmen, coming out completely unscathed himself (though one could argue the cover of dark protected him) and the fact that Sullivan could go around killing poeple in literally every town without law enforcement ever getting involved. However, all this didn't stop me from enjoying the film's many virtues, which far outweigh its flaws.

Honestly, upon seeing this movie, I saw nothing but flaws. It was hammy as all hell, the most clichéd writing I've sat through in a long time, and every turn in the movie was excruciatingly predictable.

Since you asked, the big drawback for me is that we are supposed to feel for young Mikey, but every single thing in the movie is his own fault. Sorry, but I wanted to see that kid punished, not coddled. Sneaking into the car, not shooting Jude Law when he had the chance, bringing dice to the funeral when dad strictly told him not to...etc.

Tom Hanks was a murderous mafia thug, but we loved him and cared for his character. That proves that no matter how "bad" a character is, the audience can still root for him. But the kid was beyond "bad." He was stupid and selfish and caused problems for everyone else.

Great cinematography, great score, etc. I liked the movie, but I thought the second half was less good. Personally I thought the story became less and less interesting. Also, I think Michael's voice-over was cliche. The film should have been more subtle in many spots and the dialogue concerning the father-son relationship was one of those parts. I usually am not one to label things pretentious (Mulholland Drive and Synecdoche New York are two of my favorite films) but that's the word I found myself thinking a lot.

I also would have liked to see less attempt at closure. I would've liked the credits to appear after the assassin/photographer took the picture (or perhaps even before), and have Mendes leave Michael Jr. playing outside to contrast with the murder.

Just my opinion. Good movie overall though.

I'm going to find it and I'm going to destroy it. I don't know how yet. Possibly with dynamite.

David Selfs script is mediocre at best....some great lines but the structure and chain of events is too mechanical or predictable...and many who analyze movies hard,pick them apart react to this and I sort of get it.

The film is so beyond awesome on its technical aspects,production design,sound,score,editing and that breathtaking cinematography...it looks so good that ironically AT TIMES it draws focus from the story. I think Law,Newman and Craig are superb...Hanks might be a bit mistcast. I mean,its the"darkest" role of his career and he turns this coldblooded killer into a saint by mostly being Tom Hanks,even though at times he finds nuance in the character.

I think its a really good film that falls just shy of greatness. Mendes deserved a nom for directing and Law for supporting....it could be longer though....and how could old Rooney be THAT easy to whipe out? Appearently,a dozen henchman with guns stand no chance against one man with a tommy gun.

Not a flawed film at all but its story and characters weren't all that memorable or original to me (something I have with most of Mendes' films), just a tad underwhelming.

I found it very slow and boring. You might think that other things were great but I was not entertained by it. So for me it seemed like a bad movie. To be fair, I didn't judge it on cinematography or acting alone. Some people just like really slow movies, some don't.

[deleted]