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

[Andrew_Sch]

Yeah, there was at least one large, not-so-wholesome looking character standing behind him in that elevator. Apparently Sullivan had seen "The Untouchables."

 

[Greg Br]

Nitti told Silliven that they were already protecting Rooney and that there was nothing he could do for him, so Sullivan knew he was in trouble, he just did not now it was going to start so soon until he saw the guy in the elevator.

 

[Richard WWW]

they could have had tobey maguire do the narration. Did that guy's voice EVER change?

 

[Quentin]

I was not impressed much beyond the look of the film.

I'd rather watch "Ghost Dog" again...

 

[Matt Pasant]

Back in the 1950s my Grandfather lived next door to a man who did some cleaning up for the mafia in Chicago and he said he was the person you would least suspect was in that kind of work.

-- Matt

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Most gangsters (hitmen or not) have families. It's one of the main dichotomies of that life that intrigues people so much.

 

[Anne M]

Man, this is why I love this forum so much. I work at a movie theater, so I hear a lot of discussion about movies, but until I read this thread, I hadn't come across anyone who shared my opinion of this movie.
As I have yet to see American Beauty, I was absolutely blown away by the direction of this film. I was not prepared for such high quality. Something about the movie, though, didn't quite work for me. I walked out of the theater, and I just felt like something was missing. Still, it's definitely one of the best films I've seen this year.

 

[LennyP]

I really liked it a lot, after crap like MiB2 this one was very thorough and well acted, with much needed quiet moments that were at the same time very powerful.
Paul Newman's John Rooney was so awesome and believable he blew me away more than anyone.
Music by Thomas Newman just totally reeks of American Beauty, I felt like I was watching a prequel of some strange sort, but I liked it.

Now spoilers regarding the ending:





Ok, so Sullivan resolved the issue by killing Connor's father and now there was no one to protect him and Tucci's Nitti didn't like him either and it was coming to them so he could finally kill him, but then, like it's all great and over he carelessly goes to that house in Perdition like he forgot about the hitman on his ass. He either came for him out of revenge or he had not communicated with Nitti that the job is no longer required, or both, but still Sullivan should have been careful, I just SAW that ending coming 10 mins before the shot, and I wasn't alone, in the theater I was at, numerous people went "puff, puff" as he was standing at the window minutes before. That was just a bad ending, does Mendes just has to kill his main character off now in every movie? It wasn't called for, if he had only been more careful, he'd drawn his gun and shot that sucker Harlen.

 

[Billy Fogerty]

It's not quite the caliber of American Beauty but going in I wasn't expecting it to be. That is one hard film to follow up.

I totally disagree. American Beauty doesn't hold a candle to Road to Perdition. I was very bored when I saw Beauty. Perdition is an Oscar contender, for sure. The acting,cinematography,sound,music,were outstanding.
On another note. Originally scenes were shot with Anthony Lapaglia as Al Capone. All of them were cut from the film. In the end credits you will see a thank you to Anthony Lapaglia.
:star: :star: :star: :star: :star: out of 5:star:

 

[Mike Kelly]

I would agree that Jude Law's character went after Sullivan strictly for revenge, based on what was shown in the film. However, even though Al Capone is never seen (he's on the cutting room floor as played by Anthony LaPaglia), he still calls the shots. From what I've read about Capone, he never would have let Sullivan live, regardless of Sullivan's motives, because Sulliven stole the Capone mob's money and killed several key people.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

For the most part, I enjoyed the film. I am a huge fan of Conrad Hall, and I'll take advantage of any chance I get to see his great work on a big screen.

The first hour or so really held me, and then during the bank sequence I felt that the film started to meander, and didn't really pull itself back together until the final twenty minutes or so.

I loved the billiard club sequence...the look, the sound, the lampshade bouncing with the beat of the music, and the tension that built up. Wow. What a knockout piece of filmmaking.

I'm tempted to say that this film was Conrad Hall's best work in a decade, at least, and it would be a crime if he didn't get the Oscar for it. I'd rank it right up there with his work on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I think even Sullivan knew he had to go. You can't take out all those made men (even if the cause was just) and expect to walk away.

 

[Greg Br]

I agree Sullivan new he was never going to get away, but he fought the whole movie to save his life, the way he was so easily killed was like suicide, and that just did not fit for me.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, it's quite obvious that Sullivan realized a long time ago that he wasn't going to die in bed, but how did he know that Law's character was a sociopath that wouldn't stop until he's dead?





Crawdaddy

 

[Tino]

I thought Road To Perdition was a competent, well made film, albeit very lightweight one with underdeveloped characters and a familiar story.
Technically, it was first rate from the cinematography, set design, music all adding to great atmosphere.
The story however was a disappointing retread of gangster revenge films with a very subdued performance from Tom Hanks. The film had the potential to be a great, emotionally involving, moving film. Instead it shortchanges the audience with somewhat dull stretches,
stock villains and of course, predictability, which didn't bother me since, as has been noted, the opening scene sort of gives you the lowdown early.
One scene that really bothered me was the first shootout between Hanks and Jude Law. We are supposed to believe that Sullivan is an extremely intelligent person, always one step ahead of those out to kill him. BUT, when he shoots Jude Law in the face and has a chance to finish him off, you know, the guy who is trying to KILL him and his son, he just goes into the next room and rummages through the papers until he finds the ones he is looking for. Obviously it's a plot device setting up the ending, but damn, that was a sloppy choice by the filmmakers and, IMO betrays Hank's character!
Still though, I liked the film. It had good performances, especially by Jude Law and Paul Newman, both underused btw, and had a great atmosphere. Even with my above observations, I would recommend it to others. :star::star::star:

 

[Derek Bang]

:star: :star: :star: out of 4
If it were not for the beautiful cinematography, I'd call this one a rental. I really felt nothing for these characters as they came and went. Since this isn't a plot driven movie, as Edwin pointed out, the lack of character development made this one fall short. Something was missing. Minority Report is still the tops for me thus far.
The trailer for Gangs of New York sure did look interesting, though...

 

[Vickie_M]

Quote:

I can't give a cite URL, but I can guarantee that those types of switchboards were being used then (I've seen them before).
Since the official RTP web site is a jerk must-have-Flash-and-therefore-is-probably-a-content-free piece of crap, I can't find out if there's anything specific said about the set decoration, but once again, the rest of the movie seemed so well-researched and dressed by Nancy Haigh that I can't believe no thought went into that deliberate shot of the telephone system.
Great movie, by the way. I have the feeling that it will not only hold up for me on repeated viewings, but that it will become even deeper and richer and a more emotional experience. I've seen criticisms that the film is cold and distant, but I don't think it is under the surface. The movie isn't really about the father, it's about the son and his feelings and reactions to his father. While both characters are taciturn, I think, for me, subsequent viewings will bring a better knowing and understanding of the characters, especially the son, and therefore I'll feel more emotion for them. That happens a lot with me, the better I know the characters, which almost always means the more times I see the movie, the harder I cry, or laugh, or just plain feel for them.
Hmmm, that might not make any sense, maybe I'm just a sap. For instance though, the more times I saw Lord of the Rings:TFOTR, the more scenes I cried during, for Gandalf, sure, but especially for Frodo (such as at "What must I do" and "I will take the ring, though I do not know the way"). Unlike Gandalf's fall, those parts aren't particularly emotional, but they resonated more because I knew the character better, and knew what he was in for, and how brave but naive he was being. I cried harder at Satine's death in Moulin Rouge the 3rd time I saw it than the 1st, because I knew the character better, but more, because I knew Ewan McGregor's character Christian better, and HIS reaction causes the tears to flow. I blubber every single time now. I felt sadder for Mac at the end of Local Hero after seeing it a few times than I did the first or second time I saw the movie, because I got past his cocky exterior to better see his deep loneliness. I could name dozens (hundreds!) of other examples. I don't know why or how to explain it, but it happens a lot, and I feel it will happen with Road to Perdition.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

One scene that really bothered me was the first shootout between Hanks and Jude Law. We are supposed to believe that Sullivan is an extremely intelligent person, always one step ahead of those out to kill him. BUT, when he shoots Jude Law in the face and has a chance to finish him off, you know, the guy who is trying to KILL him and his son, he just goes into the next room and rummages through the papers until he finds the ones he is looking for. Obviously it's a plot device setting up the ending, but damn, that was a sloppy choice by the filmmakers and, IMO betrays Hank's character!

Does a character always have to act in a particular manner ALL the time? I can certainly excuse the behavior. He acted at the heat and confusion of the moment. (i.e. Do you always put your right sock on before left even though you're in a hurry?)

Hanks character did not know how many others, if any, there might be that was after him and his son. His first instinct was to get whatever he came in there to begin with AND go back to his son ASAP. I wouldn't call this a sloppy choice nor a betrayal at all.

~Edwin

 

[Patrick Sun]

I'm weird like that, I always put on my right sock, left sock, right shoe, left shoe. I feel weird, off-kilter if that routine is broken. But I digress...

 

[Rich Malloy]

Bleh. More superficial crap all gussied-up real arty-like... just like American Beauty.

Personal pet peeve: people who proclaim this or that to be "pretentious", only because this or that goes deeper or is more complex than the average flick (or deeper/more complex than the viewer is willing to go). But that's not pretension. Pretension is something that aspires to or presumes more than it delivers, for example, a film which presumes it carries a depth and complexity that it doesn't truly achieve. "Road to Perdition" suffers from an extreme case of pretension.

Just consider something as simple as the title of the film. I guess "Highway to Hell" was already taken, but my god, road to perdition? Outside of theological conferences, does anybody even still use that term?

You may say, well big deal.. it's an archaic, overly formal term probably intended to alienate middle-class housewives who don't know what it means, but is it really wrong to get a little poetic around the edges? Well, no. But I think it's emblematic of exactly where Sam Mendes goes wrong - he sets out to "create art" (or, more accurately, to "create Oscar-bait"). He's already off on the wrong foot, so it's no surprise that we end up with a piece of wood that fails to capture anything remotely resembling a living, breathing, sustaining work... it's already got dust and mold all over it. That's the result of pretension at work.