(OT) Road to Perdition

[Furn_Darkside]

More spoilers- you should not even be reading anymore if you are afraid of spoilers, heh.

Law. The guy is mesmerizing to watch. Every creepy scene.

We agree on this.

Why were the events leading up to the final meeting bad or unlikely? I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

Hanks had not only killed a mob boss and a bunch of his minions, but he had stole (and as far as the mob knew still had) the mob's money.

Yet, they are willing to let him go kill Newman's son.

Err.. why not grab him and pound the crap out of him to get their money back?

Yeah, yeah.. "mafia honor". These people are killers and thieves- and money would override any illusion of honor. That concept has never flown with me.

Or even if it did.. fine, let hanks kill the pug they hate. Then grab him.

Or follow him...

Or something beyond the just allowing Jude to kill him. The mob is shown as a sophisticated organization, then they act like buffoons.

And then hanks STILL going to the aunt's house- what the? Did he think the mob was going to forget all his actions?

That was Hank's darkest role. He was vengeance personified.

I have always thought hanks had poor facial expressions- he looks little different here then he did in Private Ryan or Cast Away. He has a few looks and that is about it.

Oh well.

FD

 

[BadMojo]

[BAnd then hanks STILL going to the aunt's house- what the? Did he think the mob was going to forget all his actions?
[/B]

Actually, I think the bosses in Chicago weren't going to pursue Hanks near the end of the movie. I got the impression Jude Law's character was doing one of two things:

1) Just finishing out a job he was contracted to do. Even if the Chicago bosses were satisfied that Hanks' rampage was over, it's possible that they didn't get word to Law in time to call off the hit.

OR (more likely)

2) Law's character was just paying Hanks back for those nasty scars inflicted earlier in the movie.

 

[Droogie]

A great film. But was it the best mobster movie since Godfather? No, thats going to far. A better mobster film: Goodfellas. A better mobster film featuring the irish mafia: Miller's Crossing.

I like Tom Hanks in all his movies, but I agree he wasn't really stretching too far on this one. Kinda the same, sullen, mysterious figure from Saving Private Ryan.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Hanks had not only killed a mob boss and a bunch of his minions, but he had stole (and as far as the mob knew still had) the mob's money.FD

How do you know Hanks still had Capone's money. Although they never showed him giving it back, I assumed he had given it back. Why? Because that was his plan all along -- take the money to use as a bargaining chip to get to Newman's son. Since they let him get to Newman's son, logic would lead you believe that Hanks gave the money back.

I liked the fact that this movie treated the audience as if it had some intelligence, that it could figure out small details like this by itself without having to have every little thing shown to it or spelled out.

Also, it wasn't just a matter of the Chicago mob bosses hating Newman's son. He had stolen from his father, and ultimately from them. They didn't want him to take over his father's piece of the business, because they already knew they couldn't trust him.

There's no "mob honor" in all of this -- it's just good business sense. They were willing to let Hanks have his vengeance, since it got them their money back and eliminated a big headache for them. Hanks, by killing the guy now, was just saving the Chicago bosses from having to do the job later.

And I strongly disagree with your assessment of Hanks' acting skills. He's not playing the same person he's played in the last few movies. This character is very different. The thing about Hanks is that most of his acting is subtle -- he's not real flashy or over-the-top in his roles as some actors are. Cast Away is a good example. The character he is playing at the end of the movie is very different from the one he was playing at the start of the movie. Because his character underwent some fundamental changes. And his performance reflects that.

His character in Perdition also undergoes some changes. He is very detached from his sons at the beginning of the movie. But while he and Michael are on the run, he begins to open up and get closer to him. But he does this in subtle ways, which is usually the hallmark of a good actor. Just about anyone can ham it up and be real over-the-top in their acting. It takes a real artist to be subtle in their craft.

And I agree with the person who said Newman dominated his scenes. He is such a strong screen presence, even when he isn't doing anything. That's good acting, too.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I liked the fact that this movie treated the audience as if it had some intelligence, that it could figure out small details like this by itself without having to have every little thing shown to it or spelled out.

Err.. it is a shame this does not along with the quote:

How do you know Hanks still had Capone's money. Although they never showed him giving it back, I assumed he had given it back. Why? Because that was his plan all along -- take the money to use as a bargaining chip to get to Newman's son. Since they let him get to Newman's son, logic would lead you believe that Hanks gave the money back.

Well, we saw him leave a lot of money with the farm family.

You can assume that Hank's character gave the money back, but there is no logic to back that up.

And even if we shoehorn your theory in- do you really think the mob is going to shrug their shoulders when someone steals from them and gives it back? No, they are going to kill them. Why?

1) So they don't do it again
2) So they don't go babbling all the data that was in the books

FD

 

[Lady Dragon]

This was without a doubt the best movie so far this year,you can expect multiple Oscar nominations Hanks(Best Actor),Newman(Best Supporting actor)Mendes(Best Director) as well as Best picture,Best Adapted Screenplay and best Cinemetography,probably others as well. Jude Law could also be nominated for Best supporting actor.

Spoilers....

This movie was much deeper than just a simple gangster film,It was about the unconditional love that a father has for his son.

The irony that two men Sullivan(Hanks) and Rooney(Newman) could have devoted their lives to a life of crime,yet both were willing to sacrifice it all even their own lives to protect their Sons even though there sons had brought this pain upon them with their foolish actions.

The Acting By Hanks,Newman and Law is unbelievable.Hanks play Sullivan as a calm cool professional who handles the Revenge for his wife and young child in the same cool professional manner that had earned him the respect of his peers.Newman plays the old ganster torn between the love of his natural son and his foster son with a charisma that told you why all of these men followed and why Sullivan loved him so much.As for Law what can I say he personified creep.Whereas the Hanks character killed because it was his job Law's character killed because it was a form of art,a way to express himself.

After a summer of Average films,we finally have a masterpiece.

As for why the deal was struck to allow Sullivan to kill Connor Rooney.It was done out of respect for a man who had earned there respect to right an injustice they knew had been perpertrated on him.(and it didn't hurt that it was a job they needed to do anyhow.)

 

[dagger]

This movie was based off a graphic novel wasnt it?

 

[Shadowdancer]

Yes it was.