|
Vlad!
|
 |
« on: July 05, 2003, 12:14:33 AM » |
|
Road to Perdition was a very good movie. I was quite impressed with its execution and its plot, and the language wasn't over-the-top the way it could have been. A bit more violence than I like, but I freely admit that it couldn't have been done well with much less. Maybe not one I'd bring the kids to see, but very artfully done.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2003, 08:20:22 AM » |
|
I was most impressed with the cinemetography. To tell you the truth, the setting and the time period were more interesting to me than the actual story, but it was still a gripping film. Well worth seeing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
frommetoyou
Guest
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2003, 11:54:58 AM » |
|
Cinemetography? Geez louise... talk about throwing around your ten-dollars words...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2003, 11:55:16 AM by frommetoyou »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2003, 12:55:55 PM » |
|
It kept me captivated. And the Father-son message was quite different. Not one you see very often on the big-screen. Not sure I liked Jude Law as the bad guy though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2003, 08:07:48 PM » |
|
I think Law pulled off his character pretty well, but the character himself was pretty much a slimeball. Then again, 72% of the people in that movie were slimeballs, so he fit right in.
The prohibition-era, and the crime bosses/political machines that were running then, are an interesting study. But I thought the film pulled a positive message off quite well without being sappy or beating us over the head with it. And it certainly didn't glorify the life of a mob hitman.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
BigBird
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2003, 08:43:03 PM » |
|
Well, my parents rented RTP and disrecommended it. Same with my sis and her boyfriend. So my question is what's good about it? I hear the cinematography is excellent, which alone can make me want to watch a film. Anyways, BLAM!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2003, 10:00:47 PM » |
|
The acting was great, although Tom Hanks definately looks better without the mustache. It keeps you captivated, and is definately not a predictable movie, by any means. There were several times where I thought I could predict the plot and run with it, and then it would go a completely different direction.
I'm not one to look at a movie and be able to point out exactly what is good in a movie... heck, I don't even know what cinematography is... so that's about as good of an answer as you're gonna get from me!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2003, 05:18:52 PM » |
|
Well, my parents rented RTP and disrecommended it. Same with my sis and her boyfriend. So my question is what's good about it? I hear the cinematography is excellent, which alone can make me want to watch a film. Anyways, BLAM! The cinematography (use of camera styles and effects and the general art of moviemaking) was quite good. It did have the feel of a 'graphic novel,' especially at first, but it was quite subtle. The costuming, setting, and ambient atmosphere really did lend a sense that you were watching something filmed in or around the prohibition era. The acting was also superb, and the kids weren't really all that annoying (I'm usually annoyed by kid actors). The violence could turn some people off, but heck: given the subject matter, it was fairly restrained. There were no random sex scenes or unnecessary nudity--something that could esily have been slipped in but wasn't--and the bad characters are generally portrayed as bad, and the morally ambiguous characters aren't totally lauded either. Sin is not swept under the rug, and killing is shown for what it is--a bloody affair that doesn't solve anything. There were some subtle effects, too: on the car Hanks' character drives, one taillight is out. I don't think it really symbolizes anything, but it provides a convenient way to tell which black Ford is his, given the prevalence of black Fords during that period... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 06, 2003, 07:55:32 PM » |
|
Hm. I never noticed that about his Ford. But I guess those kind of things do tend to annoy you more than they do me... and of course things that annoy you always catch your attention
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2003, 11:25:08 AM » |
|
Well, it's didn't really annoy me, although it often does in real life; I was just curious about why it was done that way. I'm actually surprised you didn't notice it...if it's not that easy to pick up on, maybe they just filmed it like that without noticing it...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2003, 04:33:13 PM » |
|
I'm kinda surprised I didn't pick up on it either... so much for me being a good movie watcher!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2003, 06:54:41 PM » |
|
I was dissatisfied with the manipulative nature of the film, especially in regards to Hanks' character. For example, we see other characters killing others, pumping them full of bullets, but when Hanks kills someone, it isn't anywhere near as graphic. It's shot from a different angle, we don't see the body, etc. Why? Well, because the move is screwing us around and trying to make us see Hanks as a good guy. Annoying.
Minor point, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2003, 09:45:53 PM » |
|
That's because it was showing it from the child's view. None of the other killings are like that. We would be mislead to think the child saw what his dad did in full, when he really didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2003, 09:55:50 PM » |
|
It still gets my dander up the way the film tries so hard to tell us who the good guys and the bad guys are.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2003, 08:00:55 AM » |
|
I think the film is fairly honest about Sullivan (Hanks' character)'s failings. We see Connor Rooney reflected through the bathroom mirror, and it's pretty gruesome. He shoots Jude Law's character (the name escapes me) in the face, and that's fairly bloody. It is interesting that most of his other murders are fairly bloodless, but it's not completely surprising: when Rooney shoots Finn in the head, we don't see a huge amount of blood, and then later when Sullivan shoots the club owner and his bodyguard, there's not a whole lot of blood. I guess it's either an attempt by the moviemakers to cut down on the gore or even something that has no significance: the focus of the scene isn't on those particular killings, so making them excessively bloody would take attention away from what's really going on.
In the end, when young Mike is talking about his father, he doesn't excuse his life or his actions. He doesn't rationalize away the killing. But he does point out that there was something in him that made him able to see that his way of life was wrong and his son should not follow in his footsteps. And that was what I found admirable about the movie.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2003, 09:06:17 AM » |
|
Agreed. Maybe the director could have done a better job with Hank's character in what he does, but the whole point of the movie is showing that he actually is a "good-guy" because he cares for his son.
Vlad! I just read your review of the movie today. Very well done. Bravo! I like that kind of review.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2003, 10:09:01 AM » |
|
Thanks, I'm glad you liked it. I thought it was the kind of movie that the Base should promote, so I added that review to our stash.
I thought the ending was a really good touch. Don't want to say too much, though I suspect most of you pholk have seen it, but it really goes against the values traditionally pushed by violent action/drama movies (or movies based on comic boocs/graphic novels, for that matter).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2003, 10:19:21 AM » |
|
That reminds me... I think Road to Perdition is an example of a movie that uses "questionable" elements in an appropriate manner. There is violence and bloodshed in the film, and it's not for children, but it's all in good taste. It's not a story that can be told effectively without fighting. There aren't any instances of violence just for the sake of spectacle in the movie; it's all crucial to the story. And that's praiseworthy.
I liked the review, too, Vlad!, though I had to correct a few typos for you. =)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2003, 11:43:27 AM » |
|
Yeah, I was annoyed by that: I type my reviews in Word, and sometimes the program mangles my special characters (example: it converts the -- into a special symbol that makes Homestead run my words together). Other times it's my own fault, of course, but I like to blame Word instead  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2003, 11:45:09 AM » |
|
The only typos I caught were missing ellipses and dashes, so you can probably pin this one on Word. =)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rebel546
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2003, 09:25:31 PM » |
|
I hate that with Word! Proof-reading is a must with Homestead, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 20, 2003, 02:37:01 PM » |
|
Actually, it's Homestead's fault: those special characters are the real typesetting characters that should be used, but Homestead doesn't recognize them when I paste my review in. You can turn that feature off, and I actually WOULD except that I like having the real character when I'm printing a paper for class or something. I just need to remember to proofread and "correct" those symbols back to their manual equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
