I just saw this movie on Saturday night, and let me say that it is perhaps the best movie I’ve seen in the theatres in a long time, and is certainly the best move about fathers and sons I have ever seen.
IMO, excellent direction, excellent cinematography, excellent score, excellent script, and some damn fine acting.
My biggest criticism of the movie is that I had a big problem with the bits of narration at the beginning and the end. It’s done by the same kid who plays Tom Hank’s son, and he says, “… and I never touched a gun again,” or something to that effect. Except it’s the same 10 year old (or however old he is) saying it. It’s like, “and I never touched a gun again, or at least in the last three weeks since this all went down.” They should have had it narrated by a grown-up version of the kid, or perhaps not at all.
Other than that, two thumbs up.
I agree. I liked everything about the movie but the implied morals. Even accepting that this took place at the height of organized crime’s power, I think that Tom Hanks should have gone to the police and tried to bargain info for immunity. And not being able to shoot the man who a) is threatening you and b) has shot your father is not a virtue. Bloody 'ell, if I’m ever in a similar situation and cannot kill someone who fufills either a) or b), then I would make like Arnie from T2.
(that means shoot him/her in the leg, near the kneecap.)
I saw four movies in one day this week, and this was the only one I wouldn’t really bother to see again. It was ponderous and formulaic; mainstream faux noir. I was pretty disappointed; I’d expected more from Mendes. But ultimately it was little more than a Hanks vehicle, if a well constructed one.
I liked it. But as I said to Zappo (with whom I saw it) as we were exiting the theater, “The kid who played Mike Jr. didn’t have to act much. All he had to be able to do was shut his mouth and pout.” There was a lot of grim pouting in that movie.
I didn’t like the implied moral either but I loved the film overall.
Just saw it this weekend, and I’ve got mixed reviews, really.
I thought it was a haiku of a movie; emotionally inexpressive characters, with their interior lives being represented by the lush, brilliant camerawork. The characters were subdued, but the cinematography managed to convey their emotions. The plot was simple, but powerful.
My boyfriend, on the other hand, found the plot and characters overwhelmed by the cinematography, and had a tough time caring about either the characters or the events portrayed because of the emotional distance that the film kept firmly enforced.
Made for some nice discussion. Overall, an interesting film.
I just saw it yesterday and I gotta say I didn’t really like it. It tried too hard and I agree with lissener’s description of it as “mainstream faux noir” Everyone was too busy making faces like Alex from Clockwork Orange (head down, eyes scrunched, and looking up through a furrowed brow.) I also didn’t like he bit where he was teaching the kid to drive. It was as though the mere presence of Tom Hanks was willing the film to at least try to make us feel good.
The other thing that made me insane was that they never shut any doors. I know they never do in movies, apparently it’s too distracting to movie-goers or so goes the Hollywood logic. But for some reason this movie was especially annoying in that regard. He drives out of his garage in the pouring rain and leaves the door wide open, when he visits the club they open all the privacy curtains to get to the back room, but never shut them. The ONLY time doors were ever shut was when Hanks was going inside to see if his family was ok. At that’s the one time I could forgive not shutting the door - when you’re in a mad rush. I guess that shouldn’t be a reason for disliking the film, but maybe the fact that I took such notice of it over the story line may be a good indicator of the movie’s predictability.
Plus I have loved Tom Hanks since Bosom Buddies and I really don’t ever want to see him play a bad guy. I like him too much. It doesn’t work for me. I expect him to shoot someone in the face and say “Sunny, Sunny, Sunnnny . . .”* and make a dopey face.
But kudos to Jude Law for wearing Willem Defoe’s fake teeth from Wild at Heart
*Hanks’ catch phrase (about a girl named Sunny) from Bosom Buddies, in case you care.
I just saw this movie a couple of hours ago and I have a question about who got shot when. I know that Michael Sullivan wanted to kill Connor Rooney to avenge his wife and other son, but when did that happen? Was Connor killed in the car that his father and other men were coming to in the rain? Or did Michael Sullivan shoot Connor while he was in the bathtub? The faces of both men only showed for a second or two and I couldn’t tell.
I thought the movie was okay. For me it didn’t have many true highlights (I liked the silent shootout in the rain beginning with the shredding of the umbrella) and the end was craaaap. It really hurts my opinion of a movie when I can call everything that happens, and this was one of the worst offenders ever.
1)“Okay, here’s the shot where he gets killed.” I think I was the only one in the theater who didn’t jump.
Hanks shoots Law to prevent son from going down wrong path.
Kid stays with oldies.
“…He was my father.”
It’d take a hell of a movie to overcome the bad taste in my mouth that I get from knowing the ending that clearly.
Actually, what’s interesting is that the guy who John Rooney was based off of (gangster John Looney) actually did have a son named Conner. In the 1930’s (or was it 20’s?), my great-aunt witnessed an incident where a bunch of Rock Island businessmen came out with guns blazing in broad daylight. I believe that Conner Looney was killed there in the car, but his father escaped.
Actually, SpaceVampire, I don’t think a single element of the plot was meant to be a surprise. In the manner of a Greek tragedy, the movie was an illustration of fate; the inevitable force that Michael Sullivan set in motion when he took the same path as John Rooney. Everything in the movie was inevitable; the movie’s power, for me, was generated by the irresistible, steady momentum that brought each character to their respective ends.
A plot is not dependent upon plot twists; twists can be an important feature, but they’re not a necessity. The clarity with which we were both able to see the end of the film, even from the beginning, seems to me to have been entirely intentional. Watching the events that led up to it unfold, each inevitable sequence of events that made the ending evolve, was like watching the passage of time ravage the human face. You know it’s going to happen, but seeing it take place is sad and moving.
Throughout this movie, I was wondering something: Where are the cops? I know that this was before SWAT teams, helicopters and cell phones, but the police did have cars and regular phones.
Oh, the cops exist for sure. One scene we see McGuire (Jude Law) bribe his way on to a crime scene, thus showing us how corrupt the police are. In another, we see McGuire again, this time gunning down a lone cop who witnessed the hit man shooting at Sullivan, thus showing us how incompetent the police are.
But do you really mean to tell me that Sullivan, in the middle of a city street, can blast 5(?) people dead with a submachine gun without anyone calling the cops? I assume every person watching from their apartments thought ‘gee, it’s only a heavily armed lunatic going on a murdering spree, I guess I’ll go back to bed’. Maybe I’m being whiny here, but I just have trouble beliving that Sullivan, who in one scene timidly hides his liqour bottle, can just walk into any place and kill anyone he feels like killing. (In all fairness, he usually operates at night in shady places, but still). Was organized crime so bad back then that people were scared to place anonymous phone calls to police after they heard the battle of the Somme being waged in the hotel room down the hall? (also, in fairness, you could say this of about any action movie).
Anyhow, a very good, albeit flawed, movie. Thumbs up.
I liked the movie because the actors were allowed to act and it didn’t have 90 minutes of SFX making up for 90 minutes of story (in a two hour movie). I, too, wondered about the lack of police presence, but I let it slide as it didn’t affect my overall enjoyment of the movie.
I agree with MrVisible’s Greek tragedy explanation; you saw the ending the moment Jude Law was hired (before that, I thought it would end up Connor and Sullivan). It could have gone one of two ways: the son follows in the footsteps (more tragic) or the son escapes his father’s fate.
But I just can’t get over the feeling that I’ve seen it before. I swear I’ve seen other movies where: star is bad guy but conscientious father, father doesn’t want son to follow in footsteps, son manages to avoid father’s path while still retaining respect for father, because father’s last act is to save son.