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

[Rain]

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

Sorry, but there's no point in reading your post beyond that point. I personally think A.I. and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon would both be much more apt examples of the "fake art" phenomenon you are referring to.
_____
While I don't think Road to Perdition is quite up to Mendes' previous film, you have to give him credit for trying something different here. With the exception of a bit of the musical score, there is absolutely nothing here which brings American Beauty to mind.
Perhaps the story is a bit predictable, but this is one of those movies where the journey is far more important than how it all ends or how everything fits together.
My first thought when the film ended was that I need to see it again. That's usually a good sign. I think there is much to admire here, though perhaps not all of it is immediately evident after one viewing.
_____
As to the ending, I don't necessarily think that Sullivan would have assumed that the hit man was still after him. As far as he knew, he had Capone's word that once Mooney's son was killed, it would be all over. Relying on "honour among theives," he would naturally have assumed that the hit would be called off.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

No. Last Year At Marienbad is an "extreme case of pretension".
~Edwin

 

[Tino]

Sorry Edwin, but I don't buy your explanation for Sullivan's failure to follow up on finishing off Molly Maguire. Sloppy..plain and simple. He had already encountered him in the diner so why not finish him off when he had the chance. Like I said, he didn't immediately leave the hotel room after shooting him, something he may have done if he had thought there was more than one hitman after him. Instead he delays his departure, potentially risking his son's life if there WAS another hitman on the street below. Regardless, he had time to kill him and he didn't. Sloppy.
Funny thing is I could have sworn that you told me on the phone that this was a very good point and it should be brought up!

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Funny thing is I could have sworn that you told me on the phone that this was a very good point and it should be brought up!

True, but that was before I had thought about the entire scene. After further reflection, I came to the conclusion (scenario) where I am now.

~Edwin

 

[Robert Crawford]

Pretension is what I see in certain posts from individuals that take themselves a little too seriously.
Crawdaddy

 

[Rich Malloy]

Road To Perdition comes up very short to being a character piece. It’s fairly lightweight material with a very big budget to make everything else in the film look good. And it shows. It’s pretty to look at but not much to ponder upon at its core. When you peel away its production values, there is a certain emptiness at its heart that is revealed. -Edwin Pereyra

Pretty accurate, I think. If you add that it's basically a Bronson-style vigilante flick with a last minute bit of anti-violence moralizing, you'd have nailed it. And everything you say applies equally to "American Beauty".

It's obvious that Mendes is trying to fulfill the same template for "Academy acceptable art" that led him to lop off Alan Ball's original ending to "American Beauty" after it didn't focus-group well. I'm not saying Ball's original ending isn't as stupidly one-dimensional and obvious as the rest of that picture; just saying that Mendes is serving a particular master and it's certainly no secret who that shiny little bald guy is. Paraphrasing David Edelstein's comments, the little bald guy likes nothing better than the same old sentimental cliches pumped up to mythic proportions... you know, just like all of Kevin Costner's vanity projects.

EDIT: Geez, you'd think I called one of you guys names considering the slings and arrows just tossed my way! Ah well, call me what you want - a Marienbad-defender, an A.I.-lover, a pretentious prick - truly I do not care. Unlike Sam Mendes, I don't conform my opinions to what I think you all want to hear. And I hope my many earnest posts in defense of films you all despise have earned me the right to not be considered an unworthy troll when I disagree with you about films you don't.

 

[Brook K]

It's slick, features fine actors, beautifully shot, with droning, manipulative music that fills every second of running time. But completely empty at the core. We aren't allowed to make up our own mind or given anything to think about, the movie does all of that for us. It falls back on conventional behaviors instead of showing us anything that feels genuine.

 

[Rain]

Oh, and of course, a kid isn't allowed to kill, although in the source graphic novel, he racked up his share of bodies.

So that would have made for better cinema?
Though I haven't read the graphic novel, it appears quite evident that the filmmakers were going for something a bit different. Since having the kid rack up a body count would have been contrary to what they were going for, certain liberties are taken. This is almost always the case with any screenplay based on material from another source.

 

[Tino]

I dunno about the kid, but Mike Sullivan was absolutely a criminal. How could anyone think otherwise?
And speaking of preposterous scenes, how about that slow-mo John Woo shootout scene??? Tom Hanks is at the end of the block with a Tommy Gun, not exactly a weapon of precision, especially at such a distance. But we are expected to believe that he could pick off all of Paul Newmans henchman that are in close proximity to Newman who stands STILL with his back to Hanks the whole time. Sure it looked cool but yikes, soooo silly.
Ya know, the more I think about this film, the less I like it. Oh well...:frowning:
Edit: Actually the kid WAS a criminal too. He was an accomplice to bank robbery.

 

[Rain]

Ya know, the more I think about this film, the less I like it.

I'm having the exact opposite reaction.

I definitely need to see this film again. I'm starting to think there is a lot more going on than has been brought up in this thread.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This discussion is starting to sink into a sea of silliness.:frowning:
Crawdaddy

 

[Dome Vongvises]

This discussion is starting to sink into a sea of silliness.

And it reaches the bottom with my comments. :p)
I loved this movie, especially the score.
Judging from the comments in this thread, it would seem that the perfect movie would be extremely minimal (no so-called manipulative score, no stylstic gunshoots, etc, etc.). I have no clue how somebody can enjoy something like that. I think a lot of middle ground hasn't been travelled here. I think that Road to Perdition is the farthest thing from superficial.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Actually, a tommy gun in the hands of someone with enough experience could do a ton of damage like it did in the film. Tommy guns were extremely accurate with little kick, and were the ideal machine gun of their time.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Saw a special on TLC about guns in general, and the tommy gun was brought it. That thing was heavy.

Re: the shoot out scene.

Last I checked, the tommy gun was an automatic. I don't think that Tom Hanks needed to be that accurate.

 

[Zen Butler]

It's obvious that Mendes is trying to fulfill the same template for "Academy acceptable art"

If I may be so bold, I didn't get this from this movie. I felt he was trying something different. I'm really tired of the comparisons to The Godfather. Did I miss something? was he trying for this? (serious, ignorant question)
Rain said it best, "the journey is far more important."
How much of a twist at the end did we need? I loved Tom Hanks moody performance (no, I didn't find it stiff). It wasn't perfect, but damn I appreciate the effort

 

[Tino]

Of course the Tommy Gun is an automatic weapon, and I don't doubt it's short range accuracy. My problem with that scene is the distance between Sullivan and the henchmen. IMO, it's too great a distance for that accuracy to be believable.
And let me say that normally, these little "problems" wouldn't bother me, but considering the amount of talent involved in making this film, they stand out more in my eyes.
And BTW, what's with calling members pretentious when they are expressing their personal views on this film??

 

[FredS]

I came away from the movie disappointed. I really like Tom Hanks, and although I don't fault his acting in this movie, I consider this the worst movie he has made in recent years.

As others have said, the plot was too thin for my tastes, and the characters too gruesome to have my sympathy. The kid was the only one that deserved any sympathy, but they didn't use him well - he seemed almost wooden. (no slam on the actor, just the part)

One question (spoiler!): in the scene where the fellow is shot in a bathtub, does the blood spattered on the wall seem misplaced? It looked way too high on the wall to me, considering the angle at which the gun was fired.

 

[Rain]

...in the scene where the fellow is shot in a bathtub, does the blood spattered on the wall seem misplaced?

I'd agree to that, as I noticed it myself. But that's a minor quibble.

 

[Rich Malloy]

And it didn't splatter in nearly as lovely a pattern as Spacey's head.

The kid was the only one that deserved any sympathy, but they didn't use him well

What about poor Jennifer Jason Leigh? Bar none, that was the flimsiest role I've ever seen her play - woman as decoration only. And she's one of our few actresses who seems always to demand to play complex, fully-formed human beings. Sad to see her in such a one-dimensional role, worse even than Annette Benning's shrill harpie or Allison Janney's whimpering punching bag in American Beauty.

I understand that Mendes' secondary characters, particularly in American Beauty, are all broad strokes, emphasizing only the single trait that most defines their horrid existences. But I'd thought that this was merely Mendes' way of transforming them into ciphers for his simple-minded cultural criticism, but after "Perdition" I wonder whether he's ever met a real woman, much less whether he's capable of portraying one as a full-blooded human being.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Quote:

Where is this personal hostility towards Sam Mendes coming from? The man has only made two feature films in his life and the manner in which he portrayed women in those two films is no more worse than how Stanley Kubrick portrayed them in some of his films - where in some corners he has been called a “misogynist”, nor was it any worse than Neil LaBute’s foul portrayal of modern Americana in Your Friends And Neighbors.
I just don’t understand.
~Edwin