Road to Perdition (2002)

[Tabitha]

I just saw this film a few days ago - and I can't recommend it enough!

It was adapted from a graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. I haven't read the book myself, but I might keep half an eye out for it now.

I can't find any fault whatsoever with this film, the performances are all absolutely amazing. Tom Hanks ditches the overacting he gave us in Forrest Gump and Castaway and tries this altogether different role - that of a hitman for the Irish mob in Illinois. He doesn't fail. Best role I have seen him in yet.
Paul Newman, as the mob boss is incredible. I think he deserves the Oscar for best supporting actor - his nuanced performance is beautiful, utterly convincing, and he even manages to pull out a pretty good Irish emigre accent, as do many others in the film.

What really struck me about the movie though, beyond the compelling performances and subject matter, was the visual composition. I had visions of the director and DP poring over the graphic novel and striving to make scenes that echo the single-panel action inherent in any comic book. The camera never moves quickly, if at all, as it moves from stunning vista to perfectly set interior shots. Just incredible.

I'll post another short review filched from a reviews website to describe the plot, I am terrible at overviews - I just wanted to pitch in my 2c.... Please join me if you want
Yesterday I read Harry Knowles' review over at www.aintitcool.com and found myself nodding my head again and again.

 

[tokyogirl]

just saw it, as you know, and absolutely loved it. great movie

 

[Dave]

I saw this yesterday (a bit late I guess.) I wouldn't rate it that highly, but it was worth seeing. I'd reiterate what Tabitha said about Paul Newman and Tom Hanks performances, but the cast is even better than that with early roles for Jude Law (in a great character part) and a brooding Daniel Craig. The boy is also well cast.

 

[Ursa major]

I see the reference to the film on that cover. I was wondering if it was a re-drawn after the making of the film, given that the hitman looks a lot like Hanks.


I didn't watch the film's showing yesterday, but saw it on the TV a while back. I didn't realise at that time that it was adapted from a graphic novel, but even I could see that it had a different visual feel from most other films I've seen.

 

[Connavar]

Tom Hanks was horribly miscast in this film, not that he isnt good enough actor but he doesnt look a hardcore hit-man,more a sad,beaten father.....


The graphic novel has great writing,art that the movie while good on its own didnt capture storytelling wise. Also it was based on Lone Wolf and Cub manga,tv series.

 

[Dave]

I thought that's what he was, a sad, beaten, father.

What is a hard-core hit-man: a psychopath without a conscience or any empathy? Do you believe all gangsters are evil men? Don't you think they all could give valid reasons for the choices and decisions they have made in their lives that would see quite credible and logical? Don't you think there is honour among thieves? Wasn't that the point of the film (can't comment on the book)? - Connor Rooney was not honourable, but he was family. Michael Sullivan was honourable and he thought he was just like family, but in the end it counted for absolutely nothing. That's what I took from it.

Certainly Michael had done bad things, and the film, in the son's narration, was trying to say that not everyone can be a murderer, but he wasn't meant to be a psychopath like Connor. I don't think he enjoyed killing, it was just a job, and the bloodbath was to protect his own son, tinged with maybe a little revenge. If gangsters were all psychopaths then they couldn't run a business together as there would be no trust.

 

[Connavar]

I thought that's what he was, a sad, beaten, father.

What is a hard-core hit-man: a psychopath without a conscience or any empathy? Do you believe all gangsters are evil men? Don't you think they all could give valid reasons for the choices and decisions they have made in their lives that would see quite credible and logical? Don't you think there is honour among thieves? Wasn't that the point of the film (can't comment on the book)? - Connor Rooney was not honourable, but he was family. Michael Sullivan was honourable and he thought he was just like family, but in the end it counted for absolutely nothing. That's what I took from it.

Certainly Michael had done bad things, and the film, in the son's narration, was trying to say that not everyone can be a murderer, but he wasn't meant to be a psychopath like Connor. I don't think he enjoyed killing, it was just a job, and the bloodbath was to protect his own son, tinged with maybe a little revenge. If gangsters were all psychopaths then they couldn't run a business together as there would be no trust.

He was suppose to a hitman without a conscience who had change his ways to take care of his son. Thats the original story, that what made the GN a quality,enjoyable story.

I have seen the movie i know what it was saying. I just dont think it was as powerful story as it could have been.

Anyway Tom Hanks was wrong for the role because he could look some parts of the role but you couldnt believe he had a history as a killer. Honour among theifs is a mafia romanticism,clichè. Someone who kills for money isnt honourable.

Go watch Lone Wolf and Cub films. No talk about honour, just taking money,killing so he could afford his vengance. Thats the inspiration for the graphic novel. Max Allan Collins has got Grandmaster award for his lifetime work in hardboiled crime.

A good enough movie but Hollywood had to make sentimental drama where there wasnt any....

 

[Daisy-Boo]

I haven't read the graphic novel but did see the movie.

Having had personal experience with an actual psychopath (thankfully not a killer though) I can say with some degree of certainty that psychopaths don't project a stone-cold image unless they think that's called for in a given situation. Psychopaths can only mimic emotions as they have little or no capacity for real human emotions but the accomplished ones do a very good job of that mimicry. However, sooner or later the facade crumbles and you see their real faces.

Michael Sullivan, as he is portrayed in the film, is a much more complex, nuanced and real person. He genuinely loves his wife and sons and that comes through in Hanks' portrayal. A psychopath sees everything in terms of how he (or she) is affected. Tom Hanks' Michael Sullivan puts the life of his son above his own. A real psychopath wouldn't do that - he would act in a manner that was ultimately to his own advantage, no matter the consequences to his loved ones, or rather, those he professed to love.

Basically what I'm rambling on about is that I think the film's portrayal of a real and very flawed human being is much more interesting than a remorseless killer who looks out for no.1 first.

 

[Dale_M]

I'm with Dave on this -- I enjoyed it but didn't rate it that highly. It is actually a long time since I saw it (I've got it on DVD somewhere), but my abiding memory is that everybody shoots everybody else and it is just a bit silly. I also thought Tom Hanks was out of place, and his under-acting came across as cardboard to me.

 

[Severus]

I'd just like to quickly comment and say that one of the best things about Perdition as a film is its soundtrack. Thomas Newman ftw!

 

[Rackon]

Yes, a great score! It truly adds to the mood and emotional subtext of the film.

I like this film a lot. In fact, I prefer it over the much more hyped American Beauty.

I thought Hanks was fine in this role. He shades it a bit differently from the graphic novel but that's a plus in my estimation.

The point is that to pass in his normal life he shouldn't *look* like a hit man. I've actually seen one (worked for the Jayne brothers in Chicago in the 60s and70s interestingly enough) and they look like regular people - there's no beam emanatating from their foreheads to alert you they're a killer. That's the whole point. They can pass. It's only the cold, dead look in Hank's eyes that clues you in, the baby face is just a mask. The only time he betrays any deeply felt emotion (and that so subtlely his soon doesn't recognize it at first) is around his fmaily.

The supporting cast is great, from newman to Craig. Jude Law is just a hoot, one of my favorite roles of his. It's interesting that law is often more interesting in supporting roles.

 

[Daisy-Boo]

Yes, a great score! It truly adds to the mood and emotional subtext of the film.

I like this film a lot. In fact, I prefer it over the much more hyped American Beauty.

I thought Hanks was fine in this role. He shades it a bit differently from the graphic novel but that's a plus in my estimation.

The point is that to pass in his normal life he shouldn't *look* like a hit man. I've actually seen one (worked for the Jayne brothers in Chicago in the 60s and70s interestingly enough) and they look like regular people - there's no beam emanatating from their foreheads to alert you they're a killer. That's the whole point. They can pass. It's only the cold, dead look in Hank's eyes that clues you in, the baby face is just a mask. The only time he betrays any deeply felt emotion (and that so subtlely his soon doesn't recognize it at first) is around his fmaily.

The supporting cast is great, from newman to Craig. Jude Law is just a hoot, one of my favorite roles of his. It's interesting that law is often more interesting in supporting roles.

Wow Rackon, have you written about that time in your life? I think it would make for fascinating reading.