*** Official "ROAD TO PERDITION" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Andrew_Sch]

So...any word on the DVD?

 

[Richard Kim]

Road To Perdition is not a plot driven film and as such comments about its predictability is puzzling. It is supposed to be predictable. The opening shots set the tone for the entire film and gives away its ending.

Sounds alot like the beginning of Mendes' American Beauty as well.

 

[Wes C]

Does anyone know why this movie is not showing at Cinemark theaters?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

The film's score is one of the better aspects of the film. I did not find it to be the same as Mendes' earlier film. In fact, I found a certain creativity to it especially during that one nightclub scene.

~Edwin

 

[Patrick Sun]

I miss the underage cheerleader...

To be fair to this film, I was dog-tired when I saw this film right after Reign of Fire, and after pulling an entire week of doing the early 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. early shift (I can never seem to go to bed early like I should, so I'm dragging big time by the end of the week). Combine that with the pace of the film, I was pretty bored by it.

Here's one scenario: What if Daddy Michael isn't able to shot the Jude Law character in time? Does Michael Jr. die because he can't bring himself to shoot the guy, or does he go for the self preservation angle? Daddy takes away Jr's real choice in the matter (not the lip service that Jr. confesses to his dad) so we really don't really know if Jr. was "better" than his dad.

 

[Adam_S]

this week's entertainment weekly has an article on Perdition (surprise! :-p ), and one phrase popped out that I think might help explain some of the complaints regarding the likeability of Mike Sullivan. It seems they deliberately kept him distant for the first part of the film to put the audience in the kids shoes:

We hold the man at arm's lenght fromt eh audience for the first half hour, explained Mendes. "We put the audience in the shoes of the boy who doesn't understand his father, in a way, the film was assisting Hanks the whole time.

-Entertainment Weekly

 

[Greg Br]

Major Spoilers!!!!!!!!

Put me down as another that thought this was a well made, well acted film. The story though just was not developed enough IMO. I never thought of Rooney as this great gangster and the son even less.

I also was wondering about Law and the deal made on the phone. I thought that was buying Hanks a way out, obliviously it did not. Did Law kill Hanks under orders or out of revenge, Mendes mad a big deal out of Law seeing his own blood after the hotel shootout. I know it was commented on another post about communication but if Hanks kills Conner in Chicago and then has to drive to Perdition, well thats a drive and you would think that Chicago would be in touch with Laws character as need be.

Yes, once we saw them come over the hill the ending was very predictable, but so was the ease in which he was knocking everyone off, no doubt he was doomed then.

Best camera/story piece I saw was in the beginning when the brother was asking Micheal about what their dad does, and you see him reading a book about the Lone Ranger and he has a gun, you knew right then that this boy was going to learn the hard way, and soon.

Solid movie, 3.5/5 for me. Minority Report still tops my years best, the story just had alot more to it than Road to Perdition.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

I think Law did it out of revenge, because after he shot him, they zoomed in real close to his face so we could see the scars from the broken glass.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I thought the movie was alright but I think it needed more kick. The subject matter and storyline seemed to me like it would be more at home with a "The Untouchables" kind of treatment but they went with a more Important Oscar Candidate approach and I don't think it was...vivid enough. But at least now I can feel comfortable with reading the comic book, which I'd been putting off until I'd seen the movie. Always works better that way instead of reading and then seeing the movie

 

[Ernesto Santos]

None of the main characters were interesting. I think they missed a grand opportunity when they didn't include more of Jude Law's character. What's up with Hanks role? It seems very implausable to me that a mob hitman is going to have a stable family and strong feelings for his kids. Not that I personally know any, but I think hitmen are probably mostly sociopaths who certainly could not sustain a long term relationship with anyone, except maybe their employer. In this regard Law's character is much more believable(and interesting as a result).

 

[Mike Kelly]

A somber but satisfying film, with a humorless performance from Hanks, in the mode of Al Pacino's in Godfather II. I didn't think Jude Law's character or performance was anything special.
Spoiler:



Did anyone else find it odd that the narration at the end of the film by was spoken by young Michael even though the words were obviously meant to be spoken as an adult ("I never held a gun again" etc.)?

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I really enjoyed the film. The father/son angle just struck home for me. Having had a distant relationship with my father earlier in life, their dynamic held me.

 

[ScottR]

Movies are first and foremost entertainment, and this movie really delivered for me. It had great performances, beautiful cinematography, suspense, and a moving ending.
***/****

 

[Michael*K]

I agree that Maguire probably killed Sullivan out of revenge. My theory is that Nitti probably pulled the plug on the deal to whack Sullivan, but that Maguire, having been disfigured from the earlier gun battle, decided to kill him on his own.

it was still 1931, not exactly the instant communication era that we have today.

Funny you should say that because I swear during the scene in Nitti's office, the secretary appears to have a multi-line phone with an intercom button that lights up when her boss calls her. I doubt those were out for a few decades after the setting of the film. Another error: in that gorgeous shot looking north on LaSalle Street in Chicago from the Chicago River bridge, you see an El train crossing on the elevated structure...but the train is stainless steel. Those cars came out in the 70's. The ones back in '31 would have been made out of wood.
I loved the cinematography and the score.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yeah, I thought about that and came to the conclusion that the Mendes consciously made the decision to use the boy's narration. Maybe, he thought using the boy's voice would be more effective to the movie audience.



Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Sun]

They should have had Daniel Stern do the narration.

 

[Mike Kelly]

"Yeah, I thought about that and came to the conclusion that the Mendes consciously made the decision to use the boy's narration. Maybe, he thought using the boy's voice would be more effective to the movie audience."

I agree with your assessment and with Mendes' decision - it is more effective than the unknown adult narrator's voice. A rewrite like "I WOULD never hold a gun again" would have been better in my mind.

 

[Zen Butler]

The cinematography was so plush, awesome shadows. I just loved the look of this film. The music was on hit, perfect. I did not mind the pacing, (My daughter found it too slow). Almost a pastel look, this should be acknowledged for its' look . I have always thought of Hanks as an over-rated actor. I thought his low key performance was great. There was something very dark and inward about his character. This film is not perfect IMO, I gave it 4 of 5 in the review thread. Many of those reasons have already been covered in this thread though

 

[EricW]

question: after Tom Hanks goes to see Nitti (Stanley Tucci) and gets rejected, we walks out of the office and goes to the elevator. just as the doors close, he gets out and walks to the stairs. i forget -- did they show where he went? since the next shot was of Nitti and Newman, i assumed that Hanks got out of the elevator because he realized Newman+son would probably be somewhere in the building and went looking for them. or did he just feel like taking the stairs?

 

[Eric Peterson]

question: after Tom Hanks goes to see Nitti (Stanley Tucci) and gets rejected, we walks out of the office and goes to the elevator. just as the doors close, he gets out and walks to the stairs. i forget -- did they show where he went?

If I remember properly, somebody followed him into the elevator and he knew that he was being followed, so he jumped out at the last second and took a different route out of the building. Then it cut to Newman sitting in the building.