Rating: 
Summary: Not as Good as American Beauty, but...
Review: Whereas American Beauty was a comical and profound look at middle age transitions, Perdition is much more serious in it's view of the relationship between father and son. At the end of the movie, I thought the acting was all good, the music was good, and the period set pieces were good too, BUT Was That It? Hank's character is very low key and we don't see much of the emotional side of him. Newman was excellent, you can really see the savagery of the crime boss, and yet the respect and loyalty he upholds. Hanks Son I thought was the most interesting role, he played a naive and curious young boy forced to witness the death and violence of his father's life. It's is through his innocence that we view all this violence and hatred that only adults can inflict. In the end the son survives the "road to perdition" and lives to avoid the same hellish fate of his father. Unfortunately, too much of the movie details Hanks attempts at revenge for his family's deaths, and less on the Hank/Son relationship. I think if more time was spent here, I would be more "satisfied". I heard this was based on graphic novel instead of a real novel. Perhaps this is the reason it was short on scope and depth. Still a movie to watch, but definitely short of what American Beauty became.
Rating: 
Summary: Superb
Review: This is, by far, the best movie of its type I have ever seen. The acting is superb, the storyline is excellent, and I was totally spellbound throughout the entire movie! This is a movie I will add to my personal collection as soon as possible!!
Rating:
Summary: Perdition means "complete destruction"...
Review: Road to Perdition
"Road to Perdition" is really a story of father and son. It's easy to figure out what the basic story is based on the trailer. Tom Hanks plays the calm and collected enforcer, Michael Sullivan, for mob head John Rooney (Paul Newman). It's his job to collect debts, send messages, and clean up any situation. He has a wife Annie (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and two sons, Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) and Peter (Liam Aiken). Michael Sullivan owes his life to John Rooney, who took him in as a child, raised him and provided for him. Mr. Rooney has his own son Connor (Daniel Craig) who struggles for his father's approval and attention. However, he openly shows his affection for Michael and distate for Connor. Each nod of approval Sullivan gets is if Mr. Rooney were slapping his son in the face saying "Why couldn't you be more like Michael?" The main conflict of the story arises when Michael Jr. begins to wonder about what his father does for Mr. Rooney. All he knows is that he goes on dangerous missions for him, and that he carries a gun. But like any curious adolescent, he decides to find out for himself. That's when he witnesses the murder of one of Mr. Rooney's employees and his father's hand in it. Connor spots the young Michael and that's where the real story begins. How will this story turn out? You'll have to watch the film. :) This story also shows the right of passage for Michael Jr. In the six weeks that he spent with his father, he had to accept the situation they were in and fight to survive. One of the most poignant scenes in the film is when Michael Jr. is left in a reading room to wait while his father took care of some business. It was during this time that the full gravity of his situation hit him (his mom and brother were dead, their lives were in danger), and he breaks down in tears. That was the end of innocence for him. What follows next are carefully crafted moments for the father and son to bond. One of the funniest scenes in the film is Michael Jr. learning how to drive. He wouldn't take any suggestions or criticism even from his dad beyond the basic instructions on how to get the car in motion. He proved to be a quick learner and his skills were soon put to the test as a getaway driver. The plot for this film is easy to follow and action sequences abound. But the real meat of the story comes with the interaction Michael Sr. has with his son Michael Jr, AND that of Michael Sr. with Mr. Rooney. When Michael Jr. asks "Who do you love more?" Michael Sr. has to pause a moment and say "I love you both the same." Young Michael persists "But you treat us different." It's a conversation every child with a sibling eventually has with their parents. Being the eldest child, I could relate to the older Sullivan's reply that he treated Michael Jr. different because he was more like him (but he didn't want his son to end up committing the same mistakes his father did). That was the end of that discussion. Then we have the father-son relationship between Mr. Rooney and Michael Sr. There is no doubt that Mr. Rooney would much rather have Michael Sr. as his son. But blood is blood, and when it comes time to choose blood is thicker than water. I don't think Tom Hanks will get any Best Actor awards for this film. Despite his good acting, Michael Sr. has to be the calm and composed character. As a father he has to do the thinking and be the rock. It leaves little room for Hanks to show his range of emotions. In one of the climactic events in the story, all we hear is his anguished scream. No closeups, no last words or last embraces. This character wasn't written with an award in mind. And maybe that's a good thing. I believe teenagers to adults will enjoy this film. Though I must warn you that it is a "guy" film. LEAP rating (each out of 5): ============================
L (Language) - 4.5 (well written, wonderful cinematography of the 30s)
E (Erotica) - 0 (n/a)
A (Action) - 3.5 (lot's of shooting, no big explosions or fancy special effects)
P (Plot) - 3 (easy to follow, really a father-and-son story)
Rating: 
Summary: Left Me Shell-Shocked
Review: I didn't appreciate being made to care about Michael Sullivan's character only to have him cut down by a psycho. Make no mistake, Sullivan was no saint himself. He was as vicious a human being as any of the other mobsters of that day. But for whatever reason, Michael Sullivan Sr. had been humanized -- he had a family: a son. Of course, Paul Newman's character, Mr. Rooney, also had a son, but the relationship between Rooney and his son was quite different than that between Sullivan and his surviving son or even that between Rooney and Sullivan, Sr., but you can't really care about those relationships, even though you could wonder about them. This last relationship wasn't even reliable, as evidenced by Rooney's willingness to have Sullivan killed. No, this man Sullivan actually cared for his son, and that relationship was strengthened throughout the movie and reaffirmed at the farmhouse. I cared about Michael Sullivan and wanted him to win, and I was VERY disturbed by the way he met his end. If there's any good feeling to come away with at the end of the movie, at least it's the knowledge that Sullivan died knowing that his son was not a killer, and maybe would not be following in his footsteps. Then again, it may be that Sullivan purposely did not give his boy the chance to discover whether or not he was one. When this movie comes up in conversation, I hear things like "what great cinematography, and the skillful use of visual tricks with the rain, the light, and the dark, or even that the violence involved was not "gratuitous" or violence for its own sake. (What?!) But I must say, it's difficult to appreciate all that when you're in a movie theatre with too-loud speakers and a fuzzy screen and you're having to listen to machine gun fire seemingly every ten minutes or looking at someone with their throat slit or with a bullet in their head. I'm at a loss as to why I needed to see that. I'm also at a loss as to why the point-of-view changed from kid to outside observer then back to kid. I can't help but think that if this film -- the story -- had remained in the point of view of the surviving son, then the father/son dynamic might have been observed and appreciated without the distraction of disturbing violence. As far as I'm concerned, something needs to come along between now and February that will take it out of Oscar contention. I'm sure that won't happen, the "cineastes" are raving and they probably vote. As for me, though, I can't possibly consider a movie to be good when at the end of it I'm so shell-shocked by machine gun action ... that I can barely walk out of the screening room.
Rating:
Summary: not terribly pleasing
Review: Tom Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, an enforcer for the Irish Mob in the 40s. Sullivan's boss is John Rooney, Paul Newman, and the two have almost a father/son relationship. Unfortunately this relationship eclipses the relationship between Rooney and his real son which leads to Sullivan's downfall.
After Sullivan's wife and youngest child are murdered by Rooney's son, he finds himself on the run with the child that he has not developed the closest relationship with. The two begin to bond while on their journey and find that they have more in common than they thought. Ultimately Sullivan is gunning for revenge and this leads him well on the road to judgment.
For lack of a better description I would call this an "adult" action movie. There are many things going on, yet that doesn't downplay the fact that this is a violent movie filled with primarily bad characters. Unfortunately, while I say there are many things going on, there are also a lot of times where things are just static and the movie drags. I also found the ending more than a little anti-climactic and can't fully recommend the movie for that reason.
Rating: 
Summary: What's so great about this movie.....
Review: Tom Hanks plays a gangster whose son witnesses a murder, he and his son end up on the run, pursued by a hitman played by Jude Law, who looks unimpressive in the role, and on the way we see a lot of rainy days and gangster funerals in over-crowded cemeteries. The end is bloody and predictable. It's like the Godfather, only with lesser acting.
Rating:
Summary: Perdition¿s Road is Quite the Journey
Review: Even now, I don't really know how to sum up this movie. All I knew before I went to see it was that 1) it featured Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors; 2) people were raving that it was Paul Newman's best performance in years; and 3) that it was an excellent movie, one worth looking into. But now that I have actually seen it, now that I have had the great fortune to sit through two hours of such an engrossing movie, all I can find to say is this: what an incredibly well-done piece of work. Tom Hanks plays the character of Michael Sullivan, a hit-man of sorts of who works for John Rooney (played startlingly well by Paul Newman). The story travels at a very leisurely pace, until Sullivan, along with Rooney's son, silence a man who was speaking out against Rooney. In what should be just another day at the office turns out to be the key turning point in the film. Seconds after Sullivan and his partner-in-crime do their dirty work, it is discovered that Sullivan's son, also named Michael, saw the whole thing. Rooney and his son are doubtful that young Michael will be able to keep this dark secret under wraps, so Rooney orders Sullivan's family to be murdered. This sets the rest of the movie in motion - Sullivan and his son skip town so as to avoid the rest of Rooney's wrath. Tom Hanks, again, serves up another great performance. He is stiffer than a board at first, but as the movie opens up, so does his character, making his transformation from cold-hearted gunman to a guy just trying to protect what little he has left all the more convincing. You've never quite seen Hanks like this before, and I applaud him for stepping out of his familiar "the guy everybody loves" role. Paul Newman is electric - the screen crackles with energy every time he is on screen. His eyes, his barely-controlled rage, his suffering; I can see why people claim that this is his most riveting character portrayal in years. Jude Law, a photographer who likes to "shoot the dead" is also a stand-out. He's just creepy enough, and just weasel-like enough, to make you both fear and hate him. Everyone points out that Hanks and Newman are great, but many also fail to point out just what a talented actor they found in Law. Sam Mendes, who also directed the standout movie "American Beauty," does another fine job behind the camera here. There are a number of shots he took that reminded me of "American Beauty," and that's not necessarily a bad thing, since I really like that movie. The cinematographer is also wonderful - from the gray and black hues that wash over the screen, to the way the rain cascades down windows and reflects onto characters' faces and walls, to the way candles light up a room, this movie is simply gorgeous to look at. And I can't forget Thomas Newman, who impresses me more and more with each score that he produces. He is developing quite a reputation for himself, with such great scores for "American Beauty" and "The Green Mile." The score he produced for this film is terrific, and it has all the trademark Newman aspects in it. I really can't say more about this movie without giving it away. I liked this movie a lot more than I thought I would - there were scary elements, there was humor, there was a heartwarming portrayal of father-son relationships. This is one movie that needs to be seen to be appreciated. Do yourself a favor and check out "Road to Perdition." It is definitely worth your time.
Rating:
Summary: Or, The Road to Pretension
Review: Genuinely awful. A glop of pretentious falderal. Horribly directed, embarrassingly bad acting, a truly uninspired script. Beautiful cinematography does not a great movie make. One of the most overrated films of all time.
Rating:
Summary: A Definite Must See!
Review: This movie moved me in so many ways. The relationships between the characters and how they evolved had me emotionally all over the place. I have not been impacted by a movie in this way since the Titanic. A definite must see!
Rating:
Summary: Wow! Can Tom Hanks Does It Again!
Review: Road to Perdition is THE best movie of the summer. Nothing else even comes close. I left the theater stunned, just like I did after I saw "Private Ryan." This is a seriously un-funny movie with Hanks, again, not being the character you thought you knew. The mood is somber, the 1931 period effects are beautiful. Paul Newman is all too believable, and even sympathetic. The sound track is haunting. The eerie, silent scene where Sullivan takes down Rooney's crew all around him is a masterpiece.
| 
