Rating: 
Summary: I don't buy the plot...
Review: The movie is beautifully shot, and, were I judging it based on the merits of its cinematography, would be inclined to give it five stars.Yet the movie fails utterly in its plot. The movie is not intentionally trying to be Shakespearean, but it alludes to tragic failings anyway. (Note: if you have not seen the movie, stop reading the review). The movie ends with Tom Hanks' character (Paul Newman's killer-for-hire) being killed by Jude Law's character (another killer-for-hire). Earlier in the film there was a shootout betwee these two, and, apaprently, Jude Law's character was not quite finished. This does not ring true. I think the intent of the movie was to convey the idea that Tom Hanks' character was past his prime and did not attend to the simple detail of making sure that a target was really dead. Or something like that. In any event, this is not made clear, and it seems to me highly unlikely that a professionally trained assassin could be so careless as to shoot a target and then escape without making sure that the target was really dead. I left the theater with the feeling that a 'deep' message was supposed to be conveyed about the tragic failings of our hero (a la Lear or Hamlet). But the effect was overwrought and not convincing. This plot development was entirely too coincidental and typical of Hollywood's obsession with the simple and immediately accessible that the more interesting aspects of the film (its cinematography, especially) do not receive the attention they deserve.
Rating:
Summary: A big disappointment
Review: This film starts out interestingly enough, with Tom Hanks seemingly taking on a different, harder-edged role, only to completely fall apart within an hour. I thought that Hanks as a hit man was a deliberate attempt on his part to stretch himself, only to find that his evident interest in this script was the paternal drama that was lurking in the second act. This is the point at which the film turns on itself, and not only fails, but becomes silly, predictable, and cliched. The grim elements created in the first forty-five minutes should have been allowed to drive the film. Instead, it settles into formulaic moments that ruin the originality. Newman gives a good performance as a crime lord, but his role is subservient to the primary movement, and can't make the story. His character should have been given more room. Jude Law, as a quirky contract killer, could have been a jewel. Instead, another interesting character is not allowed to reach its potential because Mendes has decided midway to do "The Courtship of Eddie's Father". And by the way Sam, I don't really want to hear "American Beauty" music in every movie you do. I fault Tom Hanks, who I like very much, for knee jerking to the sappiness of this script. And Sam Mendes has undone the goodwill garnered from his previous outing. He's 1-1 at bat.
Rating:
Summary: Rambo in a trenchcoat
Review: Film is obviously a great seducer with the ability to create dramatic effect with all the great cinematic effects and music, not to mention the faces we've all come to love. This movie has plenty of all that. Some of the scenes are really gorgeous to look at. But the film ultimately rings hollow, offering no deeper insights into the violent nature of man as its' effects are continually smeared across the screen. Paul Newman's character, at one point, says, "These are the lives we choose" but rather than using this as a stepping stone into meditations on this potentially profound theme, it comes at the end, and in the next scene machines guns are being cocked. Trying to mimic reality a little more than a film treading similar ground, Rambo, here our protaganist dies. (Shucks, no part II.)
Rating: 
Summary: Beautiful Film
Review: The first thing I noticed while watching this movie in the theaters was the score. It is a beautiful and memorable score which I will never forget. The cinematograpghy is amazing, there is one shot in the rain that was absolutely stunning, haunting. Tom Hanks is incredible as per usual, and Paul Newman has never been better. But it is Tyler Hoechlin who, I believe, stole the show. He is handsome, extremely charismatic onscreen, and perfect to play oppisite Tom Hanks. Just rent or buy this movie, and I guarantee you won't be sorry!
Rating: 
Summary: Well-made, but vaguely lacking in emotion
Review: For some reason I was really looking forward to "Road to Perdition." Perhaps it was because I liked Sam Mendes' first film, "American Beauty," so much. Or maybe it was the fact that Thomas Newman, one of my new favorite composers, wrote the score for the film. It could have been that Tom Hanks doesn't usually play this sort of role, or that it's a film based on a pretty good graphic novel, a fact which seemed played down in many circles.
One thing I can say is don't go seeing this movie expecting anything like "American Beauty." "Road to Perdition" is a completely different sort of story, and as a smart director Mendes abandons the directorial tricks that made "American Beauty" so unique in favor of telling this story the way it needed to be told. And it is actually a very good story. In one sense, it's a "mob movie," since it involves American organized crime in the early 20th century. However, it's not a mob film like Coppola's Godfather series or Scorcese's "Goodfellas," which are great in their own right. Where those movies are ensemble films about a whole family, "Road to Perdition" is a much more personal story, about one man who discovers that it is too late for him to be redeemed and live a good life, but it may not be too late for his son. After his younger son and wife are killed, he sets out with his eldest son to find a new life for them both. Though it was hard to picture him as a gangster when I first heard about this film, Tom Hanks was ideally suited to this role, and I can see why he was cast. I think he's a fine actor in many of his movies, but in "Road to Perdition" he really stretched himself. His character early on seems almost to lead a double life: a relatively normal life with his family, and his business life as an enforcer for his mafia associates. And yet he plays both sides well. At home he is obviously a loving father, though unsure and hesitant about how to reach his older son. He's far from perfect, but he plays a plausible man struggling with the realities of raising children. In his work, he is businesslike and professional. He is not brutal by nature, but he can be when the work calls for it. In the end, he's simply good at what he does. However, when the elder son hides away and witnesses his father at work, that all falls apart. The rest of the film shows Hanks' character trying to reconcile the two halves of his psyche, even as he's trying to find a safe place for his son, and maybe for himself. His struggles are real, and they are palpable. Hanks played it up just right, but not too much. I was impressed and pleased by his performance. When I mentioned earlier that Sam Mendes abandoned his previous visual tricks for "Road to Perdition," that's not to say that it doesn't have its own visual style. Rather, what he did was to create a new style for this film, one which addresses its own needs more efficiently. Where "American Beauty" was a story told with flourishes and idiosyncrasies, as befit the theme of the film, "Road to Perdition" adopts a much simpler, more straightforward tone. There are moments of beauty and moments of brutality, to be sure, but only as much as fits the events of the story. The scene in which Hanks guns down a number of his old associates is strikingly graceful, handled with a light but serious touch. Without giving the end away, I can say that the final scenes were among the most perfect in the film, and leave the audience thinking about the conclusion long after the credits have rolled. All this sounds like I really enjoyed the movie, and basically, I guess I did. I certainly don't regret spending time and money to see it, and I definitely enjoyed it while I was there. Technically, it's a strong story, skillfully put together. The acting was good all around. There were no major flaws in it that I noticed. And yet, emotionally, it left me sort of flat. I think that in the end, it wanted to be a movie that moved the audience in some way, that made them feel. For me, it just didn't. It's funny, because I had the same problem with "American Beauty," and the only difference there is that I don't think "American Beauty" was trying to make you feel - it was trying to make you think. In that sense, it was a success. Which is not to say that "Road to Perdition" is a failure at all. I wouldn't say the movie failed, but I wouldn't say it completely succeeded either. When I think about it now, it just sort of... exists, neither a success nor a failure. I admire many things about it, from a technical perspective and a storytelling perspective. But, if indeed it was trying to make me feel something beyond the surface for the characters, then I can't say it did that for me. Perhaps Mendes is a director who prefers to leave the audience's feelings to the audience. Rather than manipulating them with music or powerful visuals as other directors tend to do, he leaves the emotional side of the story to what the audience chooses to invest in it. "The audience makes the film," Peter Weir has said in the past, and perhaps this is Sam Mendes' theory as well. Regardless of the theory behind his style, his methods seems sound. "Road to Perdition" is a good film, and worth seeing. Perhaps any other judgments on it are best reserved for the audience to decide for themselves.
Rating:
Summary: Tom Hanks - the best actor of his generation!
Review: I was eager to see this movie when it came out a year ago; it was the first movie Sam Mendes did after "American Beauty", the storyline seemed very appealing, Paul Newman and Jude Law both were in it. But I have to admit, the main reason was Tom Hanks's presence in this movie that made me look forward to it. He's always been one of the actors I have adored the most during the nineties; I had seen him play the wistful widower in "Sleepless in Seattle", the slowwitted Forest Gump, the lawyer afflicted with aids in "Philadelphia", captain Miller in "Saving Private Ryan", the astronaut Jim Lovell in "Apollo 13", big boss Joe Fox in "You've got mail", Chuck the cast away, and many other remarkable characters throughout his career. So I was really curious to see Tom the bad guy, the henchman, as this could be a completely different role from all those he had been playing up to this point. Mike Sullivan is not the kind of bad guy De Niro and Pacino used to play during the seventies and eighties, but kind of respectable, gracious (can I say this?) murder, and I have to admit, he plays it with grace.
When I look back to the nineties, I can't find another actor who has made so many movies varying from very good to excellent artistic quality as Hanks has made. And one of the best things about him is that while other actors submit to the "one for the purse and one for the heart" rule, he's one of the few actors who does movies that are both excellent artistically and make big bucks at the box office. He's both a great actor and a movie star. Nicholson is a great actor, Pacino is a great actor, De Niro, Duvall, Hoffman, Spacey, these guys are great actors. Tom Cruise is a movie star, Bruce Willis is a movie star, Roberts, Ryan, Sandler, Schwarzeneger, these are movie stars. Tom Hanks is both, and right now I can't think of someone else who is. He has an enormous screen presence and an extremely spontaneous acting style: he can play melodrama without resorting to melodramatics; he acts with his eyes and the slightest alterings of expression speak volumes on the large screen, a gentle smile, a grin, a lifting of eyebrows, a slight downturn of the mouth and other subtle things make this guy an extraordinary actor. It suddenly dawned on me that I actually wrote a review about Hanks and not about "Road to Perdition", but frankly, Tom's play was the best thing this movie brought to my attention.
Rating:
Summary: One of Tom Hank' best
Review: The movie is not your standard, "Save the boy!" type of flick. The plot is new. There is alot happening, mostly a gangster\hitman(Tom Hanks) who is supposedly a hit for another hitman. He decides to take his son along, who we find out has a bad relationship with his father in the long run. The best thing about this movie is the acting. Tom Hanks plays his part well, and we come to like him as a solemn, not so much stoic, but humble man. His son is the farmer type, as seen in the movie. His son is also a bit, well he is naive. I can't describe him in one paragraph. The action is good. There are plenty of gun fights, some cars, and the occasional shoot em up action scene. But then theres the end. The movie rolls straight up a hill, and stays that way. I loved the ending as much as the middle of the movie. The beggining is good, but don't stop watching the movie till' the end.
Overall--->5 Stars
___Pê®f멆___
Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: Finally a film that can stand to let the camera sit and watch events unfolding. The music was a minimal but suited the film perfectly. It's a slow journey but a worthwhile one.
Rating: 
Summary: Solid acting, but no chemistry
Review: Tom Hanks is an excellent actor, and he portrays with uttermost skill the complex inner world of a gangster who must protect his son. The production set is very nice, and the pace of the movie, while deliberately slow, manages to engage the audience well. The problem is the lack of on-screen chemistry: nobody in the film really feels like a real gangster. Newman is just too benign to be taken seriously. He's more like an evil CEO than an Irish mobster. (And, Hollywood, please stop trashing the Irish... or the Italians.) Hanks is certainly not a gangster at all. He's got way too much conscience. He also seems like a philosophy professor at times. The kid is ok; lots of acting but not a character you'd detest. Each scene has details that one can enjoy, but Godfather this is not.
Rating:
Summary: Expected But Keeps Attention
Review: Although you may already guess the ending, the actors keep you paying attention. There are many resemblances to emotions in "Saving Private Ryan", "The Green Mile" and "Big", so it is not at all surprising that Tom Hanks fits the lead role perfectly. Tyler Hoechlin does an exactly job in his first big role and we should be seeing more of him. The violence is not too gory and the sound is not too loud. Some of scenery is a 1930s combination of "Miami Vice", "Fargo", "The Matrix" (if you can imagine that). Yes, you feel sorry for a man that has done some cold-blooded deeds, but that is good to feel compassion. Still, it leaves you will an uneasy feel of ... well, you will have to see it yourself.
|
