Arguably the *worst* movie in cinema history

I loved the movie but didn't think it was the best they could've done. I REALLY didn't like Jude Law's character. The whole yellow teeth, long finger nails, I'm a sick killer rat thing was so Hollywood. Done done done. And that clown hat. He didn't look like he came from that period at all. I thought the first half of the moie wwas VERY strong and that it went down hill after Hanks gets to Chicago. I did not like that Hanks died in the end. I saw that coming a mile off. In Hollywood evil people use guns and so must die.

The cinematography was excellent. The scene where Sullivan mows down Rooney's men, then Rooney, in the rain was one of the best I've seen in a while. Even though the film was criticized by some for having a strong anti-gun message, "Guns are evil, people who use guns are evil, blah, blah..", I don't think ordinary, honest gun owners were the target. Rather, I saw it as a parable based on the Biblical, "He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword", concept. It was, afterall, a story about gangsters fighting against other gangsters. That's never been a vocation noted for longevity nor integrity and virtue.

The story had some slow spots. I think there was too much emphasis on the too-little-too-late bonding between Father and Son and less on the suspense of the escape from Rooney. It seemed awkward that Tom Hanks' Sullivan could suddenly be such a nice, likeable guy when he obviously was Rooney's top Torpedo, a man capable of heinous and ghastly violent crime. I'm afraid I must agree that he was seriously miscast. The murder of Sullivan's wife was an obvious but effective "Hate Them" ploy. Jude Law's character could have been just slightly less visually striking as a weird looking, rodent-like freak. He was supposed to be a vicious killer-for-hire but just didn't throw that kind of weight. He came off more as a serial killing loose-cannon than a reliable professional. Paul Newman seemed more cold-blooded and calculating than him. He seemed someone who was hard and hardened by years of bootlegging and other criminal enterprises and lived to be his age because of it. Come to think of it, Sullivan shouldn't have been that different a character from Rooney and that would have made an interesting spin - perhaps confusing for some but interesting. But then, Sullivan would have been a more flawed Hero trying to save his own son. And for a movie dependant on commerical success I guess that would have been too deep.

Definitely not the worst film of all time, but I give this a A-. Largely on the quality of the cinematography.

No, I refered to the post above me, which has now (justly) been removed by an administrator.

I do respect everyones opinions, but it would be nice if everyone came with solid arguments, like you do, instead of puking out a couple of obscenities.