This film is great, but I hated the shootout scene in the rain. It was beautifully shot, but Rooney's guys just stood there out in the open holding umbrellas while one was taken out after the other. Were these guy's idiots? They had enough time to pull out their guns and fire off 5 to 6 aimed shots each, yet they made no attempt to take cover or whisk Rooney to safety. It was like their legs were cemented to the ground.
shareThey had enough time to pull out their guns and fire off 5 to 6 aimed shots each, yet they made no attempt to take cover or whisk Rooney to safety.
The first one's were falling before the others knew where the firing was coming from- the beauty of an ambush.I wish that was the case, but watch it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZphC0_XpDp4
I just got done watching the whole movie..had only seen bits and pieces before and I was thinking the exact same thing as you dsh1998...still love the movie tho.
shareThat scene was slowed down very much. I don't know exactly what it would look like in real time but imagine they would have had seemingly much less time to react coherently to what was happening.
shareThis was in prohibition era so inbetween the world wars. So these gangsters would not have had any combat experience and so wouldn't know to run to cover asap.
Saying that I find it hard to believe any of them wouldn't have ran for cover even if they had no experience, perhaps they felt invincible perhaps they had been drinking.
But it did look stupid with the whole holding up their umbrellas while getting mowed down like ducks.
The scene overall for me was pretty romantic and that made up for the lack of realism which is quite plentiful in the film in regards to gun fighting. Everyone saw that fight with the shotgun right?
[deleted]
Remember that the scene was shot in slow motion. The whole thing actually happened in about four seconds. There was really nothing they could do.
When you know that your time is close at hand maybe then you'll begin to understand - Iron Maiden
It wasn't slowed down at all. Watch it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZphC0_XpDp4
Look at the rain, it's falling at normal speed, look at the smoke from the handguns, it exits the guns at normal speed, look at how quickly Rooney's guys fall to the ground after being hit, everything is normal. The only thing that was slow was the slow pan of the camera as it sweeps around the group.
I mean, I loved the way it looked, but wish Rooney's guys would've acted more realistically.
Yup, you are correct on all your points.
It was very lame, but the entire second half of this movie is a big letdown, so I had largely lost interest by that point.
With the first half of this movie being so promising, I had expected something more out of the second half than "Tom Hanks kills everybody." Oh well. It's a 5/10.
Tom Hanks was shooting them with a Tommy Gun (a machine gum)which shoot 1200 rounds per minute. He would've mowed them down in seconds and yes it is in slow motion. All the guys fall very slowly to the ground once they are hit and most of them would've been hit with more than one round.
Anyway go ahead and google "Road to Perdition slow motion gunfight in the rain" there tons of quotes about the fact that is a slow motion scene.
"A stand out scene is one of a near-silent slow-motion gunfight in the pouring rain, illuminated by muzzle flashes, and with the main camera focus on a stationary character left standing in the bloodshed."
Well, they probably wanted to kill him instead of hide from him. They are not friggin' super soldiers. Just a bunch of hired mooks. Plus, its a movie. No movie is 100% realistic. This scene didn't ruin the film for me. Didn't bother me at all. Maybe your right, any regular guy would take cover. But that scene would not be as cinematic and frankly, it has no importance to the story or the atmosphere of this movie.
shareRooney knew the gig was up. He ordered the hit on Sullivan, to save his dim-wit son.The one thing about the shootout,I did'nt see this until after Paul Newman's,death.The killing the camera was on Hank's,character Sullivan,we don't want to see Paul Newman being shot down.
share[deleted]
I didn't like it either.
I felt the director was going for pretty visual images rather than a compelling action scene.
I guess the director got what he wanted but it was a letdown for audience expectations. So the big shootout scene that the movie was building to ends up being very anti-climactic.
I thought the same when i first saw it, but I think it was made like that intentionally. I think the scene is great.
shareThe shootout scene was unrealistic more in the sense that Hank's character is firing from about 25/30 yards at least, with a hand-held machine gun that is leaping about in his hands. The spray of bullets would have gone all over the scenery and not left Rooney standing uninjured.
A trained sniper, with a single round rifle can take targets down singly at a rate of, say, one a second, but a machine gun is incapable of that.
As for the reaction of the goons, whilst the first 2 or three could have been surprised by the burst of fire, the others would have at least crouched before seeking to return fire.
The scene takes artistic license, but the dramatic effect is OK.
Best shoot-out scene ever, except for one thing. How did Sullivan shoot everyone and miss Rooney? I know he missed him on purpose, but how do shoot a bunch of guys and miss one standing right there with the rest of them? A bit far fetched in an otherwise flawless film; one of my favorites.
shareI felt the director was going for pretty visual images rather than a compelling action scene.
It's a film. It's meant to be more emotional and poetic than realistic. Look at all the the people who fly backwards and off of their feet when they get shot in movies. That doesn't happen in real life, not even getting shot with 000 shot from a shotgun, yet it is in almost every film. It's just there for emotional effect. Realism is often boring. VERY few films are realistic with anything they do.
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you were built upside down.
First the Chicago Typewriter, AKA Thompson .45 ACP Sub Machinegun is one of the most Stable & Accurate Weapons ever made! It's In Line Design, Air Cooled. Stick or Drum Fed Magazine Fires at a Rate of 550 Rounds Per Minute, or 9 Rounds Per Second. So the 30 Round Sticks He was using would be fired in just under 3 Seconds. So Yes You could shoot down that many thugs from 25 to 30 yards, aka 90 feet. The first three or four would be dead before the others knew there was an attack. The Barrel has a Flash Suppressor so even in the Dark it would be hard to get a Fix on His exact position. Factor in Human Reaction time of 2 Seconds & 3 Seconds to Magazine Change. At 5 Seconds He's Firing again, At 8 He's Empty & All The Body Guards Are Down. At 10 Seconds He Ready with Magazine # 3. All quite possible. Drum Magazines then held 100 Rounds & now feed from both sides for 200 Rounds. After 400 Rounds that Sub Machine Gun will be Red Hot! So the solution is Several Sub Guns & Switch Out as needed.
A 2nd, 3rd, & 4th Gun is the fastest way to Re Load anyway. Although very
reliable all Guns can Jam! The Drum Magazines take Tools, Keys, & Time to Disassemble & Reload. More gimmick that a Stick Mags which go up to 50 Rounds. I.G. 10,20,30,40,50 Rounds each. But You'd have to hold it sideways in a Trench or Foxhole to keep Your Cover! I'd drool to add one of these to My Collection!
Made in America & the Ammo for them can be bought from Cor Bon in South Dakota!
They were very popular in WWII with Rangers, Commando's, Tank Crews, Mounted
Patrol's because of their Compact Size. Their good to about 150 feet.