← Back to Reviews
in
18th Hall of Fame
Road to Perdition
2002
’Road to Perdition’ is somewhat of a road to participation in Sam Mendes’ glossier and more polished gangster drama, which does indeed seem to shoot straight out the pages of the graphic novels. I had no problem accepting the world that Sam Mendes creates here, yet the criminal underworld does feel overly formal and comes off as too fine of a company at times, though perhaps intentional in places – especially considering the obvious modern noir vibe and the coming of age story of the son, who view this vile world from the sidelines. A different take on the genre is definitely welcomed and as stated I accepted it from the start…
I liked all the actors present, though no one really made me feel their presence outside of maybe Hanks and Law. Craig was good at being a slimy bastard and Newman as the old man and up-top organization leader did equally well, though both remained impressive only in their abilities as an actor, rather than with the, admittedly, restricted characters, which is perhaps the reason they don’t really resonate with me. However, I can’t necessarily blame them. Though it could be the directing, I suspect it is the writing that is to blame. I guess the limitations of the feel-good gangster drama takes the wheel here, though the motor running it is clearly the boy – who also opens and ends this story – which would explain the intention of the film and the lesser focus on the surrounding players.
Anyways, I do like this film even so and together with the opening and ending monologue everything ties nicely together in this little tragic tale of man raised in crime, who doesn’t want his own son to go down the same road. There are interesting things going on, either under the surface or hinted at in certain scenes, but for this to be a hit it should have dived deeper into the conflicts and fleshed out the characters. The story and characters aren’t quite captivating enough throughout and when Hanks tells his son about his regrets and inner conflicts it makes me miss more of such scenes through the entire film. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this movie even the second time around, despite its problems…
Road to Perdition
2002
’Road to Perdition’ is somewhat of a road to participation in Sam Mendes’ glossier and more polished gangster drama, which does indeed seem to shoot straight out the pages of the graphic novels. I had no problem accepting the world that Sam Mendes creates here, yet the criminal underworld does feel overly formal and comes off as too fine of a company at times, though perhaps intentional in places – especially considering the obvious modern noir vibe and the coming of age story of the son, who view this vile world from the sidelines. A different take on the genre is definitely welcomed and as stated I accepted it from the start…
I liked all the actors present, though no one really made me feel their presence outside of maybe Hanks and Law. Craig was good at being a slimy bastard and Newman as the old man and up-top organization leader did equally well, though both remained impressive only in their abilities as an actor, rather than with the, admittedly, restricted characters, which is perhaps the reason they don’t really resonate with me. However, I can’t necessarily blame them. Though it could be the directing, I suspect it is the writing that is to blame. I guess the limitations of the feel-good gangster drama takes the wheel here, though the motor running it is clearly the boy – who also opens and ends this story – which would explain the intention of the film and the lesser focus on the surrounding players.
WARNING: "ending" spoilers below
I feel like the story is mostly pretty straight forward, but I do like the arc of Hanks’ character, who seems distanced to his family but deeply dedicated to his job; these two things slowly change sides throughout the story, ending in his own death. While I’m fine with the ending being nicely folded together by a sentimental voice-over, I’m not necessarily a fan of the predictable and rather perplexing ending at the beach house. While my comments on the character’s arc above could be one way of explaining either his sudden unawareness or his purposely “necessary” sacrifice to the criminal world, I still think it to be weird that Hanks would just “forget” about the killer hunting him earlier. Again, it could be one of the two previously mentioned reasons, as to why he ended up dead and thereby didn’t “forget”. But honestly, I doubt it. The film isn’t exactly subtle throughout, so why should it suddenly become so? Therefore, I feel it is completely out of character for Hanks to suddenly “forget” about the killer or think it is all over because he killed almost everybody, including the man that had him on contract.
Anyways, I do like this film even so and together with the opening and ending monologue everything ties nicely together in this little tragic tale of man raised in crime, who doesn’t want his own son to go down the same road. There are interesting things going on, either under the surface or hinted at in certain scenes, but for this to be a hit it should have dived deeper into the conflicts and fleshed out the characters. The story and characters aren’t quite captivating enough throughout and when Hanks tells his son about his regrets and inner conflicts it makes me miss more of such scenes through the entire film. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this movie even the second time around, despite its problems…