Road to Perdition

On the topic of seeing movi4es early, i saw this movie tonight, and it was truly fantastic. Wait Tom Hanks?? Who didnt see that coming?!?

The cinematography is the key to this movie, everything is perfect. When Tom Hanks goes on Jay Leno and says, "It has good coloring" Dont laugh at him folks he means it, this is the third movie i would nominate so far this year for cinematography (MINORITY REPORT, INSOMNIA)

The Actors are amazing. Tom Hanks for best actor, Paul Newman for supporting, they were both stunning. Jude Law had the best character in the entire movie, bt i wont spoil it for you. The Breakthrough had to be with the kid, Tyler Hoechlin, dont forget that name, hes the best since Haley Joel Osment in the 6th sense.

You look at this movie and you think, hmm this doesnt look very much like Sam Mendes, it looks like Kubrick with lots and lots of cinematography, but then you think, "wait a second the only other movie he did was American Beauty, and that won best picture" He will definatly get a Nom if this movie is remembered in Oscar season.

THe music is by Thomas Newman, not only did he do American Beauy, but the Green Mile as well. It had great music, but lacked a memorable SCore like American Beauty's.

All in all this movie was great, but i think this forum will split it two ways, half of us will love it and the other half will just like it. Ohh and remember look of the word perdition before you see this movie, it adds a lot.

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

And heck, if you don't know what the words "road" or "to" mean, look them up too.

I've been looking forward to this one for a while. If Mendes has managed to capture the core and spirit of the story and the always brilliant Connie Hall the amazing look of the graphic novel, it should be a wonderful film. Newman, Jude Law and Stanley Tucci are all dead solid perfect as far as casting the characters from the book, the only question mark in my mind being Tom Hanks. Not that I don't like him or think he's not capable, I'll just be curious to see if he call pull it off as written.

I'll be seeing it Friday, so I'll know soon enough.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Don't know if anyone else has read the graphic novel (or is even aware this movie is based on one), but I thought the way the 'Archangel of Death', the character that Hanks plays, was drawn that he looked more like maybe Montgomery Clift, and if this movie was being made in 1955 that's who I would have probably cast. From today's generation of actors, I'd say more naturally Daniel Day-Lewis, Val Kilmer or a younger Treat Williams, circa Prince of the City (and if he were a tad bit taller and lankier). I just don't visualize Tom Hanks in the part, but we'll see if it works....

this movie could have been taken right out of a graphic novel, the way the colors are used and everything, it looks like a painting, im gonna have to get this book.

Well, while the original graphic novel The Road to Perdition has a terrific visual flair and density to it (drawn by Richard Rayner), it's not in color at all, but black and white exclusively. Great use of shadows and wonderful inking, but no colors. Kind of reminds me of Will Eisner's style quite a bit, if you're familiar with his work (The Spirit most prolifically).

Ugh.

I found The Road to Perdition to be a huge disappontment.

First of all, as an adaptation it gets a grade of 'F'. They changed the plot signifigantly from the framing device on down, added a whole new needless character, dropped others that were interesting/crucial and most criminally they completely altered character motivations. All in all, a horrible adaptation. The original graphic novel is no literary masterwork or anything - it has its flaws, but a really fine film could have been made using it as the source material. Sam Mendes' flick ain't it.

But trying to judge it apart from how wildly far off of the novel it went, there's something very overall uninvolving about it for me. Baisc elements of the stroytelling, like the heirarchy of the organization to the main character's backstory, were muddled at best and nonexistent at worst. The character development is amaturish, and there's just no emotional connection to play upon. The score was obtrusive at times as well.

Thanks to Conrad Hall's talent, the movie has a decent look to it anyway (though not spectacualr), but that isn't nearly enough to save it.

Really disappointed.

Grade: C-

Now you've got me all disappointed too, man. Damn. I was looking forward to the film too [if it ever got released down here]...

How about the performances?
How did Hanks end up doing for you?

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Same here. Road to Perdition will not be playing at all at my theater. Same thing happened with Evolution. I believe it's the same movie company. I have to find out EXACTLY why from my manager as soon as I go back to work. I will report back to you all about it when I find out.

For some reason, it's debuting in less than 1,800 theaters nationwide. A lack of wide release such as this usually means one thing: the studio doesn't particularly think it'd be much of a cash cow, and therefore it's not worth the money to promote and distribute it the way they might a more marketable film.

Cash cows are usually terrible works of crap...

So then you would hate Road to Perditition you're saying?

Um, no.

If you had bothered to read what Yoda wrote, maybe what I said would have made more sense. He's saying that the studio might not think that Perdition [not Perditition as you spelt it] is a cash cow, and I say 'cash cows are usually crap anyway'.

And I said usually too in case anyone even tries to argue.

Are they? Here are the top ten highest grossing films of all-time, domestically:

1. Titanic
2. Star Wars
3. E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial
4. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
5. Spider-Man
6. Jurassic Park
7. Forrest Gump
8. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
9. The Lion King
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

I'd only be comfortable calling mabye one of those a "work of crap." I guess I'd have to ask what you consider to be a "cash cow," then.

Yep, saw that. And I quoted that. I duly noted the use of the word "usually," but I see maybe one film (two, at most) in the top ten there that would qualify. "Usually" implies at least a majority. So, as I said, I have to ask: what's your definition of a "cash cow"?

Obviously different to yours...

That's all I'm gonna get outta you, eh?

No, not really.

My definition of a 'cash cow' is ultimately a film that has been made to do nothing but make money, a film with ultimately no point behind it, except to make more money, even a mediocre and pitiful amount [Scary Movie 2 for example.]

I know the other definition is obviously the film that will make a lot of money and be huge. The other other definition is that a 'cash cow' is going to be a financial and critical and award winning success story.

My definition is just as right as the others, and supports my comment:

Most 'cash cows' [as defined by me] are crap.

Well, when you said "a film that has been made to do nothing but make money," what perspective is being used? I think an argument could be made that, from the studio executive's point of view, basically all movies are made to make money.

From bible bangin to cash "slangin'" You guys are just itchin to bicker tonight aint ya?

you guys need a DEBATE thread...

__________________
it's better to have loved and lost
than to live with the psycho
for the rest of your life