Road to Perdition (Widescreen)

He's too good for the role of Sullivan, a family hit man who works for "Mr. Rooney", the latter played with great depth by an appropriately wizened Paul Newman. Picture Gabriel Byrne, dressed for "Miller's Crossing", in Tom's place, and you have the needed twist. And yet, such is the lovability factor of Hanks, he'd be sadly missed.

The "Perdition" story's undertow goes essentially like this: Your puppy is fine - he's been sent, along with a Gladstone bag of money, to live on a particularly desirable and believable, midwestern pre-vinyl farm.

Man, gotta tell ya - throw in a "beloved" actor (Hanks), an aging hollywood icon (Newman), a "hot director" coming off a success (American Beauty), and millions of dollars worth of hype and a film will be given a degree of latitude not afforded to films that don't have these elements. The film will likely become an "acclaimed" critical success no matter how badly it sucks. And there seems almost an obligation to like or praise a stinker like this, and it's given a reverence it far from deserves. It's truly a case of "the halo effect". Critics and movie-goers seem to fall for it every time. And that's the case here. I applaude the minority of critics who said, "Ya know what? I don't care if it has Paul Neuman, (a laughable) Tom Hanks, the director's track record, or if it's artsy/moody/"noir", who the cinematographer is, or its zillion dollar ad campaign heaping on the self-congratulation. This film STINKS!"

Boring, vapid, uninvolving, over-long, pretentious, unmoving, and slow as cat sh**t art-gangster flick. This is the most overrated film in recent memory. Even Conrad "two stops too dark" Hall's work in this is overrated. (Sorry, you can't do "noir" in color. It always ends up looking too dreary, dark, and underexposed. The origins of "Noir" films were of low budget filmmakers who shot on location because they didn't have access to sets, or the required lighting equipment to shoot high key, high depth of field. The so called "noir" style was >almost< a happy accident, if not a brilliant work around to these constraints. Film Noir is a product of a particular era in filmmaking. Like "Art Deco" we might love the style but attempts to revive it always look unauthentic, as such revolutions in style are a product of, and exclusive to, there era. You can't "remake" a vintage wine no matter how hard you try. Same applies here.) Even it terrible score is uninspired, though I suppose some would call it "minimalist". And enough of Tom Hanks already! Why he's considered a "great actor" I'll never understand. Popular? yes. Great? That's another matter. He's the acting equivalent of Britney Spears or something... popular - sure. But "great"? His popularity (read box office draw) allows him to pick and choose the projects he wants to work on. That's it, and that's the case here.

This is the most dull uninspired gangster film ever made. Instead of renting this, rent Goodfellas again, or check out Mean Streets if you've never seen it. I wish this director had.