Seldom does a movie fail on so many levels and in so many genres.
As a Coming of Age Story it's unrealistic. Anyone whose entire family had been shot dead, and was on the run from both police and the mob (oh sure, Capone just forgave him taking all that money) isn't going to be a faux, philosophical boy-man. They're going to be an emotional basket case.
As a Depression Era Gangster Movie it's shallow. We learn nothing about Chicago, the gangs, the Depression (everybody looks plenty rich in this movie) or even Sullivan himself. Everyone and everything is a complete cipher. This movie could have taken place in any decade of the 1900s and wouldn't have been a bit different.
As a Revenge Flick it's hokey. One well-known guy and his punk son take on the Capone Mob and the "Rooneys"? Yeah, sure.
As a Father and Son Caper movie it's unintentionally hilarious. "Gee Dad, let's rob a bank today. C'mon, let's shoot some guys. Dad, Dad, I wanna go ambush the Capone Mob!!" "No, son. You must not grow up to be a gangster like me. You should let creepy Jude Law kill you because it's better to be a dead innocent youth than a stone cold killa like your old man."
And so on. Some parts are just ridiculous beyond belief. Jude Law is after Tom Hanks and Son under orders to kill them. He sees them making a telephone call, and oh-so-cleverly picks up the phone after they've left and pretends to have been disconnected. He finds out where they're going. Why the hell does he even care? Why doesn't he just *kill them right there and then?!?*
The boy is doing a voiceover (in the same voice he used during the movie) about how "that was the last time I touched a gun." Last time since when, boyo? A few weeks ago? If this is supposed to be Grown Up Gangster's Son, why is he reminescing in a kid's voice?
Speaking of winter, boy Chicago sure has some mild ones, huh?
Tom Hanks ambushes the "Rooneys" (what a dumb name for a gangster clan) from the shadows and starts blasting them with a tommie gun that has about a 1000 round clip. In classic Hollywood style, nobody dives for cover. They just stand there and get shot. Paul Newman never goes for his gun. He stands there and waits for Hanks to come up and shoot him point blank. Yep.
Jude Law, dead guy photographer. I guess the police are so corrupt that they never ask questions about why Law is killing off people himself. Creepy Jude Law is becoming a fixture, the next Crispin Glover. When you see his name, you can be almost certain there will be some "psycho" character in the film. Oh, he's a brilliant hitman too. Instead of waiting outside the diner and plugging Hanks when he's finished eating, and killing the sleeping boy in the car, Law goes in there and sits right down and starts talking to him, setting the scene for Hanks to escape. Brilliantly Stupid.
But the worse part of the whole mess is the director's inability to decide what story he wants to tell. He does 30mins of Gangster film, 30 of Father/Son bonding, 25 of chase across the Midwest, etc. Even the title isn't immune from this kind of inability to focus. Road to Perdition has a clever, and draining, double-meaning since that's where the Aunt lives, in someplace called "Perdition." Uh-huh. God, that's dumb. Lame "symbolic" names are the nadir of poor writing.
And the message in this whole mess? "Admire me, son, but don't grow up to be like me." That kid would have needed a whole lotta therapy to even be able to grow up at all.
There's no reason to give this piece of ill-conceived garbage more than 2 stars. It looks pretty and it has a great soundtrack. Apparently, that's all you need these days to have critics talking about "Oscars". Hah! Road to Bogus City didn't get more than a few token nominations. It didn't deserve anything more.
Hm, maybe the Academy isn't as blind as I thought it was.
RstJ Salem, Oregon
As a Coming of Age Story it's unrealistic. Anyone whose entire family had been shot dead, and was on the run from both police and the mob (oh sure, Capone just forgave him taking all that money) isn't going to be a faux, philosophical boy-man. They're going to be an emotional basket case.
As a Depression Era Gangster Movie it's shallow. We learn nothing about Chicago, the gangs, the Depression (everybody looks plenty rich in this movie) or even Sullivan himself. Everyone and everything is a complete cipher. This movie could have taken place in any decade of the 1900s and wouldn't have been a bit different.
As a Revenge Flick it's hokey. One well-known guy and his punk son take on the Capone Mob and the "Rooneys"? Yeah, sure.
As a Father and Son Caper movie it's unintentionally hilarious. "Gee Dad, let's rob a bank today. C'mon, let's shoot some guys. Dad, Dad, I wanna go ambush the Capone Mob!!" "No, son. You must not grow up to be a gangster like me. You should let creepy Jude Law kill you because it's better to be a dead innocent youth than a stone cold killa like your old man."
And so on. Some parts are just ridiculous beyond belief. Jude Law is after Tom Hanks and Son under orders to kill them. He sees them making a telephone call, and oh-so-cleverly picks up the phone after they've left and pretends to have been disconnected. He finds out where they're going. Why the hell does he even care? Why doesn't he just *kill them right there and then?!?*
The boy is doing a voiceover (in the same voice he used during the movie) about how "that was the last time I touched a gun." Last time since when, boyo? A few weeks ago? If this is supposed to be Grown Up Gangster's Son, why is he reminescing in a kid's voice?
Speaking of winter, boy Chicago sure has some mild ones, huh?
Tom Hanks ambushes the "Rooneys" (what a dumb name for a gangster clan) from the shadows and starts blasting them with a tommie gun that has about a 1000 round clip. In classic Hollywood style, nobody dives for cover. They just stand there and get shot. Paul Newman never goes for his gun. He stands there and waits for Hanks to come up and shoot him point blank. Yep.
Jude Law, dead guy photographer. I guess the police are so corrupt that they never ask questions about why Law is killing off people himself. Creepy Jude Law is becoming a fixture, the next Crispin Glover. When you see his name, you can be almost certain there will be some "psycho" character in the film. Oh, he's a brilliant hitman too. Instead of waiting outside the diner and plugging Hanks when he's finished eating, and killing the sleeping boy in the car, Law goes in there and sits right down and starts talking to him, setting the scene for Hanks to escape. Brilliantly Stupid.
But the worse part of the whole mess is the director's inability to decide what story he wants to tell. He does 30mins of Gangster film, 30 of Father/Son bonding, 25 of chase across the Midwest, etc. Even the title isn't immune from this kind of inability to focus. Road to Perdition has a clever, and draining, double-meaning since that's where the Aunt lives, in someplace called "Perdition." Uh-huh. God, that's dumb. Lame "symbolic" names are the nadir of poor writing.
And the message in this whole mess? "Admire me, son, but don't grow up to be like me." That kid would have needed a whole lotta therapy to even be able to grow up at all.
There's no reason to give this piece of ill-conceived garbage more than 2 stars. It looks pretty and it has a great soundtrack. Apparently, that's all you need these days to have critics talking about "Oscars". Hah! Road to Bogus City didn't get more than a few token nominations. It didn't deserve anything more.
Hm, maybe the Academy isn't as blind as I thought it was.
RstJ Salem, Oregon