MovieChat Forums > Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion > Arguably the *worst* movie in cinema his...

Arguably the *worst* movie in cinema history


Three of Hollywood's softest actors are thrown together into one of the dullest stories in cinema history, playing pseudo-subtle maffiosi. Mob man's family gets killed by his own clan, and the man takes revenge! It's quite fantastic to see Tommy Soft & Serious Hanks playing a tormented maffioso who has to choose between mob loyalty and family (you feel the tension). Add teddy bear Jude Law as a nasty assassin (I couldn't stop laughing), and Paul Newman as the Godfather (can you imagine?), and we have the perfect ingredients for a laugh-kick. Since there is no plot, we must stick to discussing the merits of using perfect-son-in-law actors as gangsters. No workie.

I often wondered whether this movie was intended as a comedy, but the more moralistic the story got, the more I understood that Tom Hanks (the moralist of all moralists) must have had the brilliant idea of using himself to prove that maffiosi do have feelings too.

Besides deserving an Oscar for worst cast in history, I urge technically minded individuals to investigate whether my DVD laserhead simply spinned too sloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwly, or whether Mendes was actually serious about this wicked tempo. Awful movies often have a reason to be called awful. This one is too empty to have reasons.

reply

dont know if this was anwsered but here you go
"The film's title, Road to Perdition, is both the destination town of Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) and his son and also an euphemism for Hell, a road that Sullivan desires to keep his son from traveling. The character Sullivan, who chooses his violent path early on in life, considers himself irredeemable and seeks to save his son from a similar fate. Asked director Sam Mendes, "[Sullivan] is in a battle for the soul of his son. Can a man who has led a bad life achieve redemption through his child?"[18] Hanks described his character as a man who achieved a comfortable status through violent means, of which he had ignored the likely repercussions. When Sullivan is faced with the consequences, Hanks says, "At the moment we're dropped into the story, it is literally the last day of that false perspective."[1] To keep Hanks' character from justifying his violent actions in the film, Mendes left out scenes in the final cut that had Sullivan explaining to his son about his background.[2]"

to the poster you really did miss the point and it i pretty sure that qualifies you as a tard! this was exactly that complicated.

reply

Your opinion and you are completely entilted to it. But you obviously don't have a fantastic attention span. The movie was rich in plot, the characters deep and tormented, the acting superb, the direction amazing, the photography doubly amazing... the scenery, props, costumes. Definately one of my favorite movies of all time. Sorry you don't see it that way, dude. What is the BEST movie of all time in your opinion? "Beach Blanket Bingo"? "Plan 9 from Outer Space"?

reply

This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life.

I support you, pal. you're entitled to your opinion.

reply

good photography, decent acting but painfully dull and pretentious plot, reminded me alot of millers crossing only much much worse. 4/10.

reply

dont think abt the cast and how they were before, JUST LOOK HOW THEY DONE THEIR PART PERFECTLY..

reply

I thought the first part of the movie (up to where Sullivan gets to Chicago) was brilliant, beautiful, and set up the rest of the movie very well. The whole Chicago part of the film let it down; I didn't really like the idea of Sullivan taking all Capone's money with the younger Michael acting as a getaway driver; it seemed a little bit silly for some reason and didn't stay faithful to the beginning of the film.

Then the film got better again when they stopped off at the old couple's house, and then of course the rain scene, Connor's death, the scene with the beach house in Perdition, and the ending.

I'd give the film an A-. It would be a straight A if it hadn't been let down partway through. Still, a very good film visually, and good performances all round.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

^^That's what I thought at first but I'm going to give it a second chance after reading these comments. Why don't you??

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

reply

You went ahead and fed the troll. Jesus, there is this same "worst movie ever" post on every movie listed on IMDB. Boring!!!!!!

reply

What are you on? I want it.

I'm Lana's number 1 enemy

reply

Read the OP again, and tell me this guy is not the most blatant troll you've ever seen on IMDB. And you all bought into it: hook, line, and sinker.. for 8 pages, no less!!!!

reply

8 pages and 4 years

reply

What beautiful theme music.

One of my 10 favorite cuts of all time!!!

reply

Obviously taking the piss to call this the *worst* movie etc....

However I would go as far as saying that, whilst looking good, it was tediously slow and had a 20min plot. I had high hopes for it but found myself willing it to get to the end - an ending that was outlined within the first lines and signposted further from halfway thru.

Artistically great but very limited entertainment value. With the stellar cast involved, the director, the cinematographer etc personally I think that its quite an achievement to make a film this boring. A real disappointment.

reply

One of my IMDB pet peeves is coming to every single board for every single movie and seeing some dork write "the worst movie ever!" making the worst overstatement ever.

I agree that Tom Hanks was miscast, but everyone else, especially Paul Newman and Jude Law were good.

"They're all gonna laugh at you!"
"Because of my dirty pillows,ma?"

reply