MovieChat Forums > Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion > Something missing

Something missing

posted 13 years ago by mizkex
6 replies | jump to latest

I'm not sure what, but something seems missing from this film. I think it's a little over-hyped (but not overrated), but i do like it a lot, because it is a great film. Something just doesn't click right with me, I felt like I was expecting more. Perhaps I've just been spoiled by having better expectations. I'm also not really into the mob scene either. I definitely think that Conrad Hall deserved the Oscar, but I think his death influenced the Academy. Had he not died they would have given it to someone else. Perhaps the problem I ask is my own. That being said, what is it about the film that you personally find it to be so astounding? Maybe it's about father and son relationships, and the consequences that our choices and lifestyles make. It is an amazing film, but I'm just no so attached to it as some people. So I would just like to know what particularly makes them fall in love with it.

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

<< I'm not sure what, but something seems missing from this film...Something just doesn't click right with me, I felt like I was expecting more. >>

I feel the same way.

Some of the reasons I find the film non-engaging are:

(SPOILERS)

The child actor who plays the son who lives isn't that great.

Tom Hank's character is never shown to be that scary, so the whole crime world the film takes place in seems on the mild side.

Tom Hanks is naturally mild-mannered, himself, so there's little sense of urgency in his scenes. He seems like an actor who was simply hired to play a role, rather than one who's cast because they're particularly well suited to it.

[–] mizkex 13 years ago

Tyler Hoechlin did not do the most amazing job in the world. And his career has subsequently gotten worse. In a recent interview he revealed that Sam Mendes told him "you better keep playing ball (Tyler is/was a professional baseball player) because you have no where to go but downhill from here" Actually, he's developed into a very handsome young man. But that's not why I saw this film, I only developed an obsession with him after I saw what he looks like today. But seriously, he's not that great of an actor. and I think you're right, the ending isn;t very satisfying, for the reasons you provided. I don;t think it's overrated but I still don;t think it's underrated either. I also think it's hard to pin down exactly what kind of movie this is. A lot of mobster fans like it, but I would not call it a mobster flick perse. Maybe that;s a weakness in that it sometimes seems can;t decide if it's a domestic drama or a mobster film. However, there are great films that don;t exactly adhere to one genre, and are marketed as different genres in different times and places. For example the Blu-ray release of "Heavenly Creatures" in Europe is portrayed as a tragic gay drama, whereas in North America it is a thriller. And Titanic was marketed as a disaster flick in 97 but as a romance film in 2012 for the 3-D re-release. IMO, a film like Titanic is multilayered in that it's, a drama, romance, disaster, and historical/period piece. As for RTP, for some reason the final outcome seems very rushed for some reason. And I don;t know why, but the silent shoot out did not make me fall head over heels. I think this movie like Vanilla Sky is very well executed and under-appreciated and forgotten but problematic and sometimes misunderstood by audience and improperly judged and/or praised.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cookiela2001 13 years ago

Some posters here have pointed out that the character Hank's plays is just an ordinary guy who started working for organized crime in order to support his family...so he doesn't have to be a typical, hardened gangster. Which I agree would be fine...except you don't see Hanks really struggle with doing his "hired gun" job at all. It's not like he feels one way or the other about it....which means the whole situation is kind of BORING.

[–] ellandroad_allstars 12 years ago

I think he has become immune to the violence his line of work requires. I think, if not from the start, at some point his character realises his sins are beyond redemption but he will kill anyone who gets in the way of his son and the positive life he could lead if he protects him long enough.

Hanks' character is also supposed to be ageing and not as young and single mindedly determined as for example the Jude Law character. He is more thoughtful and feeling guilty because he is more aware his son knows what he is now and it suddenly is real.

Who says he has to be menacing anyway? Newman's character isn't and the two leads are the more tragic/interesting characters because of it. How can family men be so cold is a key theme. Also Hanks at the start in particular is intimidating and a little sinister. See the scene when Michael jr tells him to come for dinner

[–] Chiscully 12 years ago

That's it exactly.