MovieChat Forums > Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion > From masterpiece to meh [spoilers galore...

From masterpiece to meh [spoilers galore]

posted 10 years ago by frankzappayay
7 replies | jump to latest

Overall I thought it was a good film, but the ending disappointed me. The first half is an absolute masterpiece, the costumes and sets and the way it is all shot is really amazing. And they build up the backstory and introduce all the various characters at a really good pace. I loved it. The bit where Daniel Craig looks at the kid but only see his own reflection so the kid gets to dive behind the door... love that. In fact I'll probably remember that scene forever now.

But the second half was a big let down for me. There was some really great chemistry between Law and Hanks and I would have liked to see more cat n mouse between them, but there wasn't any. They had a brief meeting at the diner which was very good but very short. Then 1 weird and anticlimatic shootout at the accountant's office (which didn't make much sense) and then that was it until the end.

The way he deals with Daniel Craig's character was a total let down as well... I suppose it should get bonus points for realism, but this is a movie... entertain me! The guy killed his wife and kid, I'd like to have seen some kind of big confrontation between them. Shooting him in the bath was very weak, why even write a story if that's your approach... May as well say, "Bad guy did bad things, good guy kills him, the end." It just felt so amateurish or lazy. In fact, that entire character was very under-developed. It was such an interesting character and Craig plays it amazingly well, very creepy, but he probably has about 2 minutes screen time total... what a waste!

And then the ending, after all they had been through, he didn't think to check the freaking house and see if the aunt ever got tracked down by the hitman? It was so predictable. He knew the guy knew about them heading to the aunt's house, he explained that earlier on. But they still decide to go to that house in the end and yet don't even bother to check it out first? Just weak. Especially considering they are supposed to be filthy rich successful bank robbers now! They could have gone abroad or something and just invited the aunt. Madness.

Good film overall but all these things are what make it a 7.x rather than an 8.x I suppose. It makes me appreciate films like Goodfellas, Godfather, Casino, etc. which really don't drop the ball on any aspect and every scene is generous.

[–] soonerpike697 10 years ago

A showdown with Connor would have been ridiculous, Connor was a coward and a weakling he deserved to die like one. Also Hanks paid an ENORMOUS cost in butchering his surrogate father to get his revenge. This was much more realistic than doing a "prohibition era Face/Off" this just isn't that kind of movie...

You need to rewatch the scene where he gets the ok to murder Connor. Nitti put him under the impression that they were even. Keep in mind that before the mess with Connor began they had been associates so I could understand Michael having a false sense of security...

"I do what I say and I say what I mean"

[–] LangleyA-1 10 years ago

You make good points. This movie is a little more complex than some realize.

[–] TVippy 10 years ago

Yes, it is a second-grade movie, compared to " Goodfellas, Godfather, Casino,".
--------------------------------------------
I own you.

[–] HZ-FcB-97 9 years ago

I actually thought the exact opposite. The 2nd half of the film was far greater than the first half. It was quite dull in the beginning but at the end it became very exciting, beautiful and sad. Great score and cinematography.

[–] redban (6543) 4 years ago

1). They already had the emotional scene with Rooney Sr.'s death. To have another drawn-out death scene with Rooney Jr. would have been repetitive. The silent killing of Rooney Jr. helped convey Hank's disgust towards the man.

2). Why did Hanks go to the beach-house, despite the assassin? Hanks and Nitti made amends. The suggestion is that Nitti called off the hitman. And Hanks assumed the hitman would stop without the contract (why pursue Hanks if you won't get money after the kill?).

[–] spurtle467 (1551) 3 years ago

My problem with the movie is that it doesn't have much depth. It's a good film; lovely to look at with great cinematography and a nice score, but the characters and their relationships don't feel very fleshed out. A case of style over substance. They could have developed the family more at the beginning and Hanks's line of work too. Before much has developed, Hanks and his son are on the run from the mob. Because of this I didn't root for them as much as I felt I should have. It's also lacking in tension where there was opportunity to create more of it.

[–] CaptainCrozier (616) 2 years ago

My problem with the movie is that it doesn't have much depth. It's a good film; lovely to look at with great cinematography and a nice score, but the characters and their relationships don't feel very fleshed out. A case of style over substance. They could have developed the family more at the beginning and Hanks's line of work too. Before much has developed, Hanks and his son are on the run from the mob. Because of this I didn't root for them as much as I felt I should have. It's also lacking in tension where there was opportunity to create more of it.

That has always been exactly my beef with this flick as well!

Beautifully said on all points, spurtle467.