Rating: 
Summary: Better With Each Viewing
Review: I saw this movie 3 times on the big screen. I fell in love with the soundtrack and how it complemented the beautiful scenery. I thought Tom Hanks did a great job as Michael Sullivan and Paul Newman was his usual outstanding self. This movie will lose some of its visual impact on the small screen but for pure story enjoyment, you can't lose. My only disappointment was that it seemed to gone from the theaters in a flash! Great movie...got better each time I saw it.
Rating: 
Summary: The feel good movie of the year.
Review: This is the heartwarming story of a father and son growing closer together in the face of adversity. Mike Sullivan is a successful hit-man for the Chicago mob when he unexpectedly finds himself the target of his erstwhile employer. Mike's 12 year old son, believing his father to be a secret agent for the government, hid in his father's car to watch him on a secret mission. That mission turned out to be the brutal murder of a mobster suspected of double-crossing the mob boss.The mob boss (played by Paul Newman) decides that it is too risky to have a child as a witness to a mob hit, so orders the murder of Mike and his immediate family. Mike's wife and youngest son are murdered but Mike and oldest son survive. Thus begins their journey of reconciliation and revenge. Mike teaches son how to drive a getaway car and they proceed to steal from the mob by holding up banks known to be depositories of mob cash. Incensed, the mob engage the best hit-man they have (apart from Mike) to kill our heroes. This fellow is a psychopath that likes to photograph his victims as they gasp their last breath. The bulk of the movie documents the ups and downs of Mike and psychopath killing assorted mobsters and bystanders as Mike seeks revenge on the people that murdered his family, and psychopath seeks to stop Mike. The film culminates with the son being given the option of entering manhood by killing the psychopath or staying a child and being killed himself. Truly, the feel good movie of the year.
Rating: 
Summary: How to make a boring gangster movie...
Review: Not unlike many other movie fans who enjoyed American Beauty, I awaited the arrival of this film to theaters with great anticipation. For the hype it was getting (including comparisons to The Godfather!) I was expecting a fast moving, thought provoking gangster epic. Instead, I was subjected to the equivalent of a shot of nyquil. It put me to sleep and never tasted right. There were too many moments that should have been seen in this movie that were left to the imagination (anybody getting gunned down must dance with bullet impact, not be heard only!) Film is a visual medium for crying out loud! To the producers, director, actors, and hell even the authors of the graphic novel: it is not the audience's job to make your film interesting or even enjoyable. For the price of tickets is high, and there are other films to choose from. P.S. The Crow was a fluke, unless you're going to animate the feature. Leave the comics, err, graphic novels alone.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful
Review: Sam Mendes' "Road to Perdition" is for sure the most incredible motion picture of the year. Wonderfully directed by the acclaimed Sam Mendes (Academy Award Winner-Best Director-American Beauty). Don't let that scare you though! This film has no sexual nature to it at all. The R rating is due to pervasive disturbing violent content, and profanity is scarce. Tom Hanks gives the opposite performance than usual, as a killer and bankrobber. Jude Law and Paul Newman gave exceptional performances as well. The feature length was about 2 hours long, and certainly was not an action-packed, special effects thriller, rather a slower moving, yet still very interesting piece of art. Tom Hanks, who usually takes on very emotional characters, gave a rather unemotional performance, but there was a very subtle hint of the normal Hanks. As my closing comment, every aspect of this movie was perfect, and I can't wait until Feb. 25 to purchase the dvd.
Rating: 
Summary: Yee....ah
Review: When Newman last played an Irish-American (Frank Galvin in 'The Verdict') it was done with something close to grace and understatement. This thing is like an Irish version of The Godfather. From the opening 'wake' scene, replete with every Irish cliche possible ("When we lose one of our own, it hurts us all", Newman brogues), one senses that what lies ahead will lack Coppola's particular finesse, as indeed it does. What ensues is an entirely mundane series of events, done before and done to death. I doubt that even the most ardent Hanks fan will buy him as 'Michael Sullivan', which further suggests the question of miscasting. Newman is crisply professional - as Newman always is - but this film was the wrong vehicle for two such towering talents. Jude Law shows up as a necrophiliac photographer. He looked better on the Italian riviera with Matt Damon.
Rating:
Summary: Pacing and Miscasting hurt this film.
Review: I was enthusiastic about seeing this film. The cast and story really held a lot of promise, and reviews I had read up to that point were promising. While it was a text book 'good film,' I just couldn't buy Tom Hanks as an assassin. I certainly don't fault Hanks for this, but the way the character was written, I didn't see much opportunity to develop that aspect of a redemptive-cold blooded killer. If this premise doesn't work for the main character, suspending disbelief for the rest of the film is a little difficult as well. And the pacing. While it's not a lightening-charged piece of entertainment, the pace is slow and methodical. But sometimes it gets so slow that your mind is given ample opportunity to wander. A well-constructed film doesn't give you the chance to do that. I felt this could have easily lost 30 minutes and been better for it. I can't give this a hearty recommendation, but if you insist, it's not a bad film.
Rating:
Summary: Tom Hanks in a different role
Review: Tom Hanks is a wonder actor and it is hard to imagine him playing a part unconvincingly and I don't think that he does so here. He is however somewhat type cast as a good and decent guy and it was hard to picture him as a killer or a gangster. I think that this fact created a good tension in the film, I felt that the other characters were being true in their roles as bad guys, but I felt that the Hanks character was there because he had to be, not because in his heart he was evil. Perhaps that tension made the movie better than it could have been had the leading role gone to a more typical "bad guy" actor. The son played by Tyler Hoechlin did a great job and I found the Jude Law character to be fascinating and well acted. Paul Newman doesn't fail to provide a great performance either and the inner conflict he feels is definitely felt onscreen. All that being said, that the acting was terrific, I should say that this is one of those "thinking and feeling" type movies much more than it is an action, adventure or gangster film. There is action, yes, and bloodshed but it is not an action packed fast paced movie and sometimes the previews of these types of movies lead people to believe they are something that they aren't. While I recommend watching this film, by all means, it may be one you'd like to rent first. It has a few surprises (the kind that are only fun to watch once) and since it is not a Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood shoot 'em up movie it may not have the same "watch it over and over" appeal that some might expect from the previews.
Rating:
Summary: Another Graphic Novel Hits the Screen
Review: I have a little problem with movies based on graphic novels, but then, graphic novels are a bit like storyboards, and since movies are a visual medium, I can see why producers and directors might find them appealing as source material. And yet even the best graphic novel seems superficial compared to the best non-graphic novel, which provides the actors more depth of character and complexity with which to work, even though the finished product is still an abridgement of the original.
"The Road to Perdition" is sensitively directed by Sam Mendes, exquisitely photographed by Conrad Hall, finely acted by everyone in it, with particular cudos for Paul Newman, Jude Law, and Daniel Craig. Costumes and set designs are also superior in recreating Chicago and environs during the early 1930s.
But I had a few problems with plot logistics that I never quite got over. Tom Hanks plays a loyal hitman of many years standing for mob boss Paul Newman. In fact, Newman allegedly regards Hanks as the son he wished he had, rather than the trigger-happy idiot he's stuck with (beautifully portrayed by Daniel Craig). When Hanks's elder son witnesses his father in action, Newman arranges an attempted hit on both Hanks and the boy, an attempted hit that backfires and results in tragedy for the remainder of Hanks's family, setting the rest of this gangland drama into motion. Unless I'm missing something, I don't believe for a moment that the Newman character would arrange for a hit on his well-loved "adopted" son Hanks or the boy, since the boy, though a witness to murder, is hardly going to rat on his own father (or on Newman's own son, also involved, which again would lead back to Hanks). In order for the rest of the movie to work -- in which Hanks has no choice but to seek revenge if he and his son are to survive -- a viewer must have to accept the premise that sets the film into motion, and this viewer cannot.
I also had a problem with a scene in which Jude Law, as a particularly effective psychotic killer on Hanks's tail, seems to know exactly what diner Tom Hanks is going to eat at. What psychic hotline for psychotics does Law subscribe to? True, Law has figured out that Hanks and son are on their way to the small town of Perdition, but are we to assume that this particular diner is the ONLY eating place along the way? Or is the diner just a particular favorite with ALL hitmen? To suspend disbelief, must I suspend logic too? If a viewer can climb over such hurdles as the two mentioned above, there is a great deal to recommend the remainder of the film in every category mentioned above, particularly the growing relationship of Hanks and son as they continue to thwart danger.
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully executed with enjoyable performances
Review: Conrad L. Hall (cinematographer) and Thomas Newman (composer) are the true honorees of this film, as their craft helped most in shaping the film's moods and atmospheres. The film was well-cast, though no performance compares with Spacey's in Mendes's previous work. Still entertaining and slightly funny in parts via Hanks's sarcasm, the haunting Road to Perdition still concludes on an uplifting note far above satisfactory. Additionally, Jude Law is creepier than ever before, especially in his introductory "Vertigo shot." Well executed and worthy of many viewings.
Rating:
Summary: At the Top of Their Games
Review: What a work of confidence we have here! It's so good, people don't realize it. Paul Newman is addressing the issue of father and son in a way more honestly than he ever has in film. He's just so good, so understated. Paul should have been father to us all, yet he still feels inadequate, like he failed. And his fate is telling... What a brave and beautiful role. And Tom Hanks. By now we're so used to him it's hard to judge his performance here. We're so used to liking him that it's hard to view him objectively. The character isn't comepletely unlikeable, yet has few redeeming qualities. If played by somebody like Willem Dafoe, he'd be a much scarier person. It isn't Hanks' fault his character doesn't convince. We simply know that Tom Hanks is a very likeable person. He's shown that to us. He's shown us that's he an emotional sensitive guy. It's that truth about him that taints the character for us. It's not Tom's fault, really. His crime is that he's shown us he's a sensitive guy. I'm not sure he could ever get away with playing a completely unredeemable character. It doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that Hanks knows his range, and he's great here, really great. If anything, he's overshadowed by Sam Mendes uncertainty about the character. Sam seems to really want to wow us with his technique at times. But Paul and Tom have Sam figured out here, and outsmart Sam. They manage to break through Sam's direction and reach more of their human sides than Kevin Spacey and Annette Bening achieved in American Beauty. This is much more epic, yet in some ways, more intimate. Newman, Hanks, Mendes, and much of the supporting cast are so confident, so good, that this film is slightly dismissed. Maybe people wanted this to be a failure for Tom and Sam. Maybe Paul pulled it through on his own. Think whatever you will. This is a film imbued with confidence and sincerity. People at their best. A complete success. Great acting, great directing, great writing. Maybe not quite dark enough to please the independent film crowd, but still great stuff. Flawed, like all of us, but meaning quite well. A very human film in spite of it's gangster theme. Buy it.
| 
