MovieChat Forums > Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion > Your problems with this film. Seriously.

Your problems with this film. Seriously.

posted 11 years ago by clearAlex
30 replies | jump to latest

I'm starting this topic just to know what you guys think about this movie in terms of its flaws because honestly I don't see that many.

I'm just curious because for me it will go down as either one of the most underrated movies ever, or one of the best 'unknown' movies ever. A lot of people seem to ignore this movie either they never heard of it or because they think it's not that great a I want to know why! Personally I think it's one of the most 'complete' movie I've ever seen: from it's script, pace, cinematography, performances (top 5 all time from Hanks, Newman and Jude Law) and score.

Let me know what you think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCnlTi9O1NA

[–] Ehheesel 9 years ago

First time when I watched it, I had no expectations. It was Sam Mendes' movie with great cast, but that was all. I liked it, but it felt kind off sappy. At second viewing years later it was as sappy as first time, but I noticed more subtlety under that and I started to appreciate the film more. This is personally my favorite Tom Hanks performance. And the rest of the cast is also magnificent. One of the best performed film overall by the whole cast. This is truly masterfully paced and stylish film that hides little more underneath it's shiny surface.

He came into town with his cock in hand, and what he did with it was illegal in 49 states.

[–] Naughty-God 8 years ago

From a narrative, framing, photography, and plot device standpoint the movie is well produced. From a the standpoint of trying to get DEEPER than say The Godfather 1 & 2, Once Upon a Time in America, or Goodfellas, I'd say that this film left me feeling unemotional about all of the characters save the young boy who serves as our observer. I haven't seen many other posts in this message board about that coldness and lack of empathy for the major characters, particularly the relationship between Michael and Rooney. It felt like Mendes was shooting for a Shakespearian story about jealousy creating chaos, thus resulting in the destruction of all; a sort of King Lear meets The Godfather.

Throughout the movie there's this overabundant aura of morose lighting and detached characters you kind of forget that you're watching a film about gangsters and their penchant for all things vice. It probably would have worked better if this movie was about the Chicago police where Michael and Rooney would have been ranked Officers who find conflict in their own ranks, as well as turmoil from being corrupt police in cahoots with Capone's organization?

I always wondered how this movie would have turned out if The Coen Bros decided to adapt the novel?

[–] Vicenzo-VV 8 years ago

- Although this is a movie I revisit once in a while mostly because of the technical aspects, I find myself annoyed by the kid's voice over and the overall romanticized way it tells an extremely gritty and violent story from the youngster's point of view.

- Personally I'm not a big fan of movies which use the murder of women and children as a story motive.

- I feel Newman delivers an amazing performance and Hanks an okay one, but they would have been better suited for another movie. Newman lacks a sort of ruthlessness that is necessairy for him to be okay with the murder of Sullivan's family, and seeing Hanks as a gangster is a stretch from minute one.

- Basically the biggest mistake Mendes made is to have all three of his stars play against type. Hanks, Newman and Law. In Once Upon a Time in the West Sergio Leone pulled a great villain out of Henry Fonda. Mendes, in my opinion, only really succeeded with the character of Jude Law.

- Still rate the movie 7/10 though.

"Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

[–] old-skool101 8 years ago

After seeing Carlitos Way and Layer Cake, I had a hunch that the young protagonist (J.Law) was going to get his surprise vengeance against hanks in the end.