BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Road to Perdition

 
 
SMS
01:02 / 13.07.02
A haunting film about fathers and sons.
I liked each seen as individually, but, taken together, the film was a bit too somber. As a consequence, it is better to have seen the film, and to recall it than to be sitting in the theatre watching it.

A prohibition gangster film.
The death-count was high, but not one gunshot felt like it was for our entertainment.
 
 
Hieronymus
17:41 / 15.07.02
Saw this on Saturday and enjoyed every last shot of it, especially the ending. With all the Spielberg-like crap glossing over families and their saccharine sweet veneers, I'm glad Mendes takes a raw and honest touch with his characters and their lives. Can't recommend this enough if you've had your fill of shallow popcorn movies.
 
 
Margin Walker
02:48 / 18.07.02
I've not seen this yet, but this Onion review seems to catch the gist of the film pretty well. Especially the bit about the comparisons between Kazuo Koike's "Lone Wolf & Cub" & "Road To Perdition". The film even opens with a Koike quote: "You must choose a road for yourself." Given the long history of Japanese samurai films that have been adapted into Westerns or Gangster films ("For a Few Dollars More" & "Last Man Standing" for starters), it doesn't really surprise me at all. Anyways, here's the review:

"Road To Perdition
An evergreen need for vice allows criminal enterprises to sprout wherever civilization spreads, but it takes discipline and order for such enterprises to thrive. In The Road To Perdition, feared mobster Tom Hanks wears an expression that suggests he abandoned his capacity for pleasure years ago. A father to two sons and the keeper of a large but modest house, he speaks as little as possible—his voice reveals him as among the first generation to lose its Irish brogue. He's a working-stiff enforcer, serving at the pleasure of Paul Newman, the unchallenged overlord of a remote Illinois kingdom, itself an unofficial outpost of the empire built by Al Capone. The film opens in the winter of 1931, when internal dissent has begun to stir, the Depression continues to rage, and Capone sits in jail. Though never directly mentioned, that last item seems to be on everyone's mind, as a reminder of how quickly autumn can arrive for a patriarch and one era can turn into another. For the affable, powerful Newman, aging would be reminder enough, and the process is made no easier by an heir apparent (Daniel Craig) unlikely to carry on the family tradition with honor. Hanks, on the other hand, wants a more respectable life for his children, and he keeps them at a distance from his job. Their two approaches to parenting meet an unexpected juncture one night when Hanks' older son, 12-year-old Tyler Hoechlin, witnesses a briefing with an insubordinate business associate that Craig brings to a bloody end. Fearing the worst from the young witness, Craig makes a startling choice that sends Hanks and Hoechlin on the road to revenge. Virtually nothing of what follows comes as a surprise—up through a finale that may as well announce itself with the credits, à la director Sam Mendes' last film, American Beauty—but that's not really the point. Adapting Max Allan Collins' unapologetically pulpy Lone Wolf And Cub-inspired 1998 graphic novel, Mendes' second effort plays like a familiar song transposed to a minor key, a gangland fable soaked in portent and fatalism until its familiarity ceases to be an issue. The properties around the story, the characters and the style, are what matter and what make the film so engrossing and ultimately moving. As Hanks gathers his resources, circumstances force him to bring Hoechlin into the world he'd worked to hide. His heartbreaking justification of his parental distance is as much the climax of the film as the shootouts that slow-boil throughout. Meanwhile, from a distance, another kind of family drama plays out in the strained father-and-son-like relationship between Hanks and Newman. In the plot's solid through-line, Mendes benefits from the talents seen in his occasionally unfocused debut. Working again with photographic supreme capo Conrad L. Hall, Mendes displays a visual imagination of stark beauty and operatic scope, and at times, it can be a bit much. The outright villainy of Jude Law, in a great supporting performance, helps relieve the sometimes overwhelming family matters, while welcome humor undercuts the ominous tone too occasionally, and a final voiceover threatens to tip the tone from high seriousness to high obviousness. Yet, as with American Beauty, Mendes offers two virtues for each of his film's faults, here wrapping an elegiac tale of generational shifts and altruistic damnation around a ripping adventure story in which virtually every participant waits for the bullet with his name. —Keith Phipps"
 
 
grant
15:22 / 02.08.02
Something I didn't know about the film - it's based on a comic book.
Writer Max Allan Collins penned the graphic novel Road To Perdition. It was later adapted into the movie of the same name.... Audio interview, links, and some more info at the link.
 
 
sleazenation
15:27 / 02.08.02
And oddly enough - the ccomic it is based on has just been reprinted by paradox press as a lovely trade.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
14:51 / 23.10.02
Bump.

I saw this today and was very impressed. I'm a sucker for attention to detail, and the set dressing was superb, so it made me rather happy. There was something very - involving, I guess - about the film, and I despise Tom Hanks like nobody else on this earth; it didn't seem too twee or overplayed... just felt right. As a whole, the cast were grrrreat: particularly Jude Law's shooting snapper -eesh.

Paul Newman was a bit underused, though, I thought. But hey.

So yes - not as bad as many of the critics have painted it...
 
 
The Strobe
15:05 / 23.10.02
I saw it a while back. And hated it.

It looks beautiful; what Roth says about attention to detail is bang on. Fantastic set design, fantastic period detail. And superb cinematography - the final shoot-out's not bad, but I really also enjoyed the first sequence of violence, through Hanks' legs, the shells falling between them.

But Hanks wasn't exactly as powerful as I'd hoped - shooting people in the face doth not a "dark character" make. The kid was great, and Jude Law was suitably manic... but Hanks just didn't convince me.

And I found the plot tiresome. And pointless. The best comment I heard was from Mark Kermode: "it tells us every five minutes it's about fathers and sons, but it isn't. That's the last thing it's about". And I agree: it's about a moral character (Michael jr) in an immoral world.

I don't know. I just felt so empty watching it. Yes, it was showy, but part of that was the budget - the opening tracking shot is wonderful, but not exactly cheap to find that many extras and that much snow. I just found it disappointing that one of the greatest theatre directors of his generation makes such average films. Oh well.
 
 
doglikesparky
11:57 / 25.10.02
I loved this film. I read the graphic and then saw the film all within about a week of each other. As is nearly always the case the book was far superior but that's not to take anything from the movie.

My only concern was (as the review points out above) the voiceover at the end was completely unnecessary. I couldn't help feeling a little insulted that they felt the need to add it.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:53 / 25.10.02
Haven't seen the film yet: but the constant "voice-over" narration was a weakness of the comic, as well. It was necessary, I suppose, to justify the comic's final scene--but it just seemed forced. Would've been better, I think, to emulate the source material more closely and give us pages of silent mayhem à la Lone Wolf and Cub.
 
  
Add Your Reply