Rating: 
Summary: #2 Best Movie Ever
Review: Road to Perdition. There is not much I can say about this movie other than it has to be the most well put togtehr movie ever
Rating:
Summary: A film on loyalty, justified or not.
Review: In Road to Perdition, we see a threesome of shallow father/son relationships, the first two dealing with a chief Irish mobster and his two sons, one a blood son and another(Hanks) an adopted son. The third relationship is that between Hanks' character and his son, who, as it turns out, wants nothing more than to earn his father's approval. Hanks' son puts everything in jeopordy when he witnesses three gangland murders at the hands of his father and his twisted uncle. His uncle, who is stirred by envy and contempt for his adopted brother, takes matters into his own hands and murders one of Hanks' sons and his wife, thinking it was the boy who saw the killing. Oddly enough, he kills the wrong boy, leaving the actual witness alive and at the mercy of his father who now must make a life determining decision. As things turn out, Hanks faces a desperate situation, one in which he is forced to choose his own son over his father, his career, and quite possibly his own life. Likewise, Paul Newman's character is forced to choose his own blood over that which is right and justifiable, opting instead to make a dishonorable and unfathomable deed. The course takes Hanks and his son on a road trip in hopes of escaping Newman's wrath and a pyschotic assasin(Jude Law) who is hot on their trail. It is on this road trip that we the line of morality and loyalty that runs deep in every family, however thin it may seem at times. We see a father(Hanks) who doesn't know how to show his son affection and opts instead to demonstrate his love through his protection for the boy. We also get to see the twisted lines of self-reflected morality from some of the key characters; for instance, Newman states at one point to Hanks(referring to those in organized crime), "One thing's certain: none of us will ever see heaven." It's as if both Hanks and Newman's characters are acting like robots, having long since lost any hope of changing their lives and their ways. Perhaps Hanks' valiant road trip with his son is his last chance at redemption? Food for thought. I truly believe this to be one of the best films shown in 2002. It will stir your thoughts, twist at your mind, and ultimately bend your views on morality, loyalty, and a commitment to family, whether they're right or wrong.
Rating:
Summary: A New Gangster Classic - As Good as the GodFather
Review: I am vacationing in Orlando Florida this weekend, and I have just finished watching the Tom Hanks/Paul Newman mob movie. I had planned to see this movie when it was at the theatres this past summer but I was too busy to make to the movie theater. This movie is terrific. It is a classic that can be easily compared to the GodFather, and Good Fellas. The Director - Sam Mendes has crafted a beautifully haunting and visually spectaclar look at a local crime family in 1931.
Paul Newman is the head of the family, and Tom Hanks is the orphan kid that he recruited into the mob. This is one of Hanks's best performances. In the first fifteen minutes of the movie he manages to do a considerable amount of outstanding acting without saying very much. It does it all in his expressions and in his eyes. Paul Newman is wonderful as the family patriach. The script is top notch with a compelling storyline. The movie has an excellent supporting cast that includes Dylan Baker, Stanley Tucci, Jude Law, and Jennifer Jason Lee. The are two other stand out performances by the
actor that portrays Paul Newman's ambicious and jealous(of Tom Hanks)son, and the young actor that portrays Tom Hank's oldest son. If you are a fan of movie cinema. You will love this picture. Tom Hanks nd Paul Newman will be top contenders for the 2003 Oscars.
Rating:
Summary: Non-verbal excellence
Review: To date, this is the best picture of the year (of course, the end of the year's biggies are yet to be released). Combining the awesome power of Conrad Hall's exquisite cinematography, the heart-pumping melodramatic sound of Thomas Newman's score, the top notch acting of Hanks, Newman and Law (as well as the rest of the cast), Director Sam Mendes has provided us with a 2nd consecutive great film. In addition to a great story, one that is simple and easy to follow, Mendes has woven a film that says more with silence, facial expressions, long shots and music than I have seen in a long time. Hanks is one great actor. Newman is a treasure (best supporting actor for 2002?). Law is unimaginably evil. Tyler Hoechlin is very good. And the film has one of the best endings I've ever seen that uplifts your soul after being so down just a few minutes before the end. Go see this movie more than once. You'll be moved and inspired even more the second and third times.
Rating: 
Summary: Top 5 film of the year
Review: Anyone who rates this movie lower than a 4 must have been blindfolded with their hands over their ears for 2 hours. Good story, good directing, good acting, and fantastic scenery. It was great to see Hanks be a badass for once as well.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent film, though flawed in parts
Review: The Road To Perdition is a difficult film to make your mind up about. All through the first half of the film it seems a decent, well-acted film which never quite is excellent. As the film moves on, so do the characters, and it becomes far more gripping, far more interesting and far more emotional. Certainly, parts of the film are cliched - it even starts with "this is our story" - but it brings together very different cliches to create a film that is as eclectic as anything else you'll see this year, and certainly, for what it is, it does it well. It may be about gangsters in the 30's, but this is far more than that - come on, Sam Mendes is directing - it is far more of a thoughtful study of the various characters and their emotional selves. This is brought out well by excellent performances by Tom Hanks, Jude Law, Paul Newman and in particular a brilliant performance by the boy playing the elder son, who is convincing and sophisticated in his reading of the part. One definite flaw is that we have no real need for the boy's monologues at the beginning and end of the film - they are a bit cliched and not really necessary. In particular, the closing one seems a bit like an apology from Mendes for having just made us sad, and an injection of a jaded, but happy, feeling to come out of the story. This feels like a disappointment as no doubt it was meant to make the story all the more moving, but it in fact detracts from the starkly moving would-be ending of Hanks and Law dead, with the boy bent over his father. I feel that would have been a far better ending. Nevertheless, this film is an excellent one which is genuinely emotional and certainly well-acted. 4 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Too beautiful
Review: This is a wonderful looking film, and that's both the best thing and the worst thing about it. The ethereal charm of the visuals plays against the inherent terror of the story - and without that terror feeling real, the tension just drains away. I found it utterly impossible to suspend my disbelief when it's a story about gangsters, but it looks like "Miracle On 34th Street". Of course, it's not just 'a story about gangsters' - it's a story about paternal love, sibling rivalry, generational change, final acts of redemption and, of course, the path to destruction. These are big themes, big issues - and they're consistently over emphasized. The visuals, writing, direction and music are so prescriptive, so emphatic ("FEEL THIS NOW!!!"), that we're never allowed to fall into the story and work anything out for ourselves. In short, it's too self-conscious - too distractingly aware of its own striving for greatness - to ever actually get there. Paul Newman stands out amongst the cast, giving his best performance in years. But the others are less impressive. Superficially, this is Tom Hanks extending his range by playing a bad guy - but he isn't that bad and you don't for an instant forget who's playing him. (Harrison Ford's villainous turn in "What Lies Beneath" was much more convincing - and Harry's no actor.) You can almost see Hanks preparing his third Oscar acceptance speech in every anguished close-up, every stoic grimace. But the only man who should be prepping for a third is Conrad Hall - his cinematography is magnificent, even if misapplied to this material. But such is the peril in adapting graphic novels. It's usually the visual rendering of a story which has caught the director's eye, and everything else in the production gets subjugated to recreating that. "From Hell" (2001) suffered the same fate - it's one of the best looking films in years, but not much else.
Rating: 
Summary: Saw it twenty years ago...
Review: I am a huge fan of Hanks, Law, Newman, Leigh, etc. They were all great in this movie. However, I was very disappointed in the screenplay itself. It was said to be based on a DC comic novel but it was a ripoff of an early seventies Japanese series Lone Wolf and Cub...or maybe DC stole the idea first. Even much the cinematography were taken from Lone Wolf but set in the US. It's not a bad movie but save your money and watch the better version, rent the original.
Rating:
Summary: Majestic, But Too Majestic It Might Be
Review: Let me say first that I didn't like Sam Mendes film "American Beauty," because it is beautiful, well-acted, but not at all original. I hated the way they treated the issue like homosexuality, and still hate it. And now, the acid test to the same director's real talent is done with the release of his second feature.
The film is again slow-moving, but breathtaking beautiful. It offers nothing new and in a sense predictable, but considering the fact that it is based on a graphic novel (by Max Allan Collins of the same title), it should be called substantial. Yes, "Road to Perditon" is a magnificient work of cinema, just the way "American Beauty" is. The story (or situation) focuses on the father-son relationship, between father Michael Sullivan played by Tom Hanks, and his son Michael Sullivan Jr. by Tyler Hoechlin. Deprived of their family by the crime syndicate Michael pere is working for, they travel in the cold, barren countryside of America of the 1930s, going down the road leading to its inevitable end: the revenge. During the course, the son comes to understand the heart of the father tormented by the loss of family and his guilty past. The film is impeccably shot, with its perfect production designs and streets of Chicago, and the photography of Conrad L Hall is perfect (and back in 1970 he was behind the camera when Paul Newman, appearing here as menacing John Rooney, was "Butch" in that classic ... yes, that's it ... with Robert Redford). As far as the visuals go, "Road to Perdition" is exactly "Road to Oscar," and that is no surprise. However, I didn't like the film somehow. Maybe, just maybe, that is because the film is too good. Maybe, the director is too skillful (see the floatingly moving camera during the bank robbery sequences), and he shows it too much. Or, the film looks too emotionally cold, and feels too detached. Surely it is violent at times, but it is not the bloody, gory shooting, but the well-calculated direction of Sam Mendes that really annoyed me. He is clever, and unmistakably talented. But when we see it shown blatantly, some of us feel irritated or perhaps envy. The cast is all good, but I thought Tom Hanks is miscast even though his job as a complicated father/mobster character is nothing we should complain of. But while the film clearly balances between the good side and evil side of Michael Sullivan Sr., we know, unfortunately, that Tom Hanks himself played good-natured fellows since the time of "big." You can keep on counting his "nice guy" roles -- "Forrest Gump" comes first -- and his established image prevents us from looking at his character in the negative light. That's why the film's ending looks a little disappointing, for anyway Michael Sr. would not let his son do THAT at the last moment (do what? you see on the screen, please). Paul Newman is as good as ever, and Jude Law is also effective with a creepy portrayal of photographer, but it is Daniel Craig who is a real revelation. I thought he is the most convincing character in the film, probably because his images on the screen are not yet established like Tom Hanks and Paul Newman. If only they dared to make this film with lesser-known cast, I was thinking, but in that case, this one would not be a sure-fire film, commercially and critically. Well, that is another result of calculation found in the film, though.
Rating:
Summary: Best Film of theYear so far
Review: I will keep this short, because those who already know why this is the best film of the year need not be bored by a redundant review of this brilliant tale of redemption and punishment (although not as some reviewers have interpretated it, in which it justifies Tom Hanks, in fact, he is the most punished).
But for those who found it boring or repulsive I simply am confounded. I don't know if it is because Tom Hanks has more range than you are willing to give him credit for or because you have never experianced darkness in life, but either way the criticism of this film is simpleminded at best. Depravity need be no more exciting than piety, nor need it be easy to digest, and for those those reasons "Road to Predition" shines. It explores the darkeness that exists within conflicted characters in a more subtle and complex manner than the average movie goer obviously can handle.
|
