It's a genteel film with a gun in its pocket, but it's also a film with a universal chord of feeling that keeps welling up from the dark surfaces and violent byways of the plot-and a final confession that both warms the heart and chills the blood.
I like that movie. They created a convincing world of the early 30s. But the best part of the movie are the characters: many of them are convincing, only Daniel Craig as Connor is clearly a bad guy. The music is unforgettable.
There's much that's simplistically grand, worthy, and fine in Perdition. If I yearn for less measured filmmaking that cries out with more reckless despair, it's because I think hell on earth is a meaner, much more interesting, and far less tidy cinematic place than Mendes trusts his audience to handle.
Visually more coherent than "American Beauty," but despite the burnished mahogany of Conrad Hall's cinematography, Mendes still doesn't quite know how to fill a frame. Like the Hanks character, he's a slow study: The action is stilted and the tabloid energy embalmed.
Incredible film. Intense, methodical and extremely underrated, Road to Perdition is much more than a 1930s era gangster movie. Its incredibly well shot and you get to see a much colder side of Tom Hanks in this as he is a ruthless enforcer for the mob. It covers alot of interesting themes, most notably morality, redemption and the relationship between a cold 30s era gangster and his young son.
Hanks was great, Thomas Newman score was beautiful, the story was interesting, but the movie never really improve, it's like a drum who played the same beat over and over again, causing me personally bored, once it improve, only couple of time works but the rest is not, overall Road To Perdition was surprisingly not a really good movie.
I've made clear in previous reviews that I'm not really interested in "mob" or "mafia" movies, especially the ones by Martin Scorsese. This movie hits along those lines, but is more interesting and less boring.
I generally like the 30s America aesthetic, fitting, because the movie actually takes place in that period. I just felt let-down by the last half-hour, where what is exactly done must've gone over my head. Also the photographer has, like, three appearances, but still seems extremely underused. Coming to think of it, I'd have rather wanted to see a movie about that guy than the guy Tom Hanks portrays. Both of them aren't even the protagonists, though, that role belongs to Tom Hanks' in-movie son, who is actually likeable and not annoying all the time. The wonders of modern technology.
If you want to indulge in some prohibition-era movie aesthetic, with gangsters, drama, and road trips, this movie is something for you, if you want to see a movie that's actually challenging and interesting, I'd recommend something else. though.