MovieChat Forums > Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion > Why cast Tom Hanks for this role?

Why cast Tom Hanks for this role?


Answer is obvious - too many academy awards.
It's a great movie - but it could have been better.
Lets start a poll - who would have been better as Michael Sullivan?
I like Ray Liotta.

reply

Because he is the motherfawking man that's why

My power is discombobulatingly devastating. I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force

reply

It depends on how you view Michael Sullivan.

Viewing him purely as a gangster then Hanks is a questionable selection.

Viewing him as a relatively uneducated family man with few options for providing for his family during the Depression, a man that would deep down rather be doing something more respectable, then I think he works really well.





Let's never come here again because it would never be as much fun.

reply

Ray Liotta? GTFO

The only person I could see pulling off this role would have been Daniel Craig, Deniro or Pacino.

Say what one more time, I dare you!

reply

Daniel Craig was IN the movie numbnut! :) That's why it'll be nothing new to Mendes when he works with him again on the 23rd James Bond film in 2014.

- Justin Sluss of HighDefDiscNews.com -

reply

DeNiro and Pacino have played some great roles as Irish Mafia types, but they might have been too young to play a hitman with a 12 year old son

reply

Too young? They are both over ten years older than Hanks.

reply

Oops - too old

reply

Men can father kids later in life. So no, they would not be too old.

reply

they are way too old -- have seen Pacino run?

reply

I agreed Pacino and Deniro were too old to play Michael Remember the relationship father son with Paul Newman, it would be a little off with an actor as old like Deniro or Pacino Newman was only 18 years older than Deniro and you can tell

reply

It's interesting to think about what some other actors could have done with this role. But that being said, I think Hanks did a great job. It might be the most underrated role of his career.

reply

[deleted]

Ralph Machicco over Tom Hanks?

You made me "LOL" literally. Thanks.

reply

I would definitely have to agree. His most underrated performance. Perhaps someone else could have played Mike Sullivan, but I loved Hanks in this role because it's totally different from anything he's done.

reply

image for user gabone324
by
gabone324
» Sun Mar 6 2011 21:28:32 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since November 2005
It's interesting to think about what some other actors could have done with this role. But that being said, I think Hanks did a great job. It might be the most underrated role of his career.


I agree. And all the other actors mentioned, would have been crap.

reply

The brilliance of this film is that everyone was cast against type.

reply

I thought Hanks did an exquisite job. But I guess I understand that a lot of people were not able to make the transition to accepting him as such a character. He was cast I'm sure as a big name star. But he was terrific in the role. But for you purists who would have liked a different actor and probably not a box office draw, maybe you would have preferred someone like Ciaran Hinds who played Finn McGovern in the film or even Gabriel Byrne or Liam Neeson. Any of them would have worked well. But to me Hanks was excellent in this and I'm satisfied with his performance.

reply

hmm, i know what you mean. i think hanks did a good job but this wasnt the ideal role for him. it doesnt suit his screen persona and he doesnt have the menace that was required to pull the role off in my opinion. jude law is also mis-cast in this movie. newman is superb though.

reply

Bryne is a good Choice. How about Tim Roth or Josh Brolin?

You hit like a vegetarian.

reply

@kingfish

^ great.

Short and straight ot the point.

reply

I agree that casting so many actors against type adds immeasurably to the film. Also... it's the boy's view of things, both literally and figuratively. It's about the boy's first view of what his father does, his relationship with his father, and about the Rooney (Paul Newman-Daniel Craig characters') father and son relationship. It's about both fathers' hopes for their sons. I think that's why Mendes chose Tom Hanks.

reply

especially Tom Hanks and Paul Newman with their squeaky, clean Hollywood reputations, was to show two good men/characters who sometimes do bad things....

Otherwise, the movie would have had to be three hours long so the director could SHOW how good these men/characters were.....

reply

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/evkv3x/tom_hanks_should_play_an_evil_villain_like_henry/

I'd like to see Hanks portray a completely vile and abhorrent evil guy.

No, I don't consider Road to Perdition in the same vein. He was an anti-hero in that. I'm talking about something similar to Henry Fonda in Once Upon A Time in The West (1968) - whereby Fonda played a murdering rapist with no remorse, someone who actively took joy in his evil.

As to why I used Fonda as an example...at the time, Fonda was like Hanks. He was the quintessential good guy. He always portrayed the hero, and in real life was a very good guy. So to see him in that role shocked many. He pulled it off perfectly.

Fonda portrayed one of the greatest villains ever in that film. It would be cool to see Hanks play a murderer/rapist in a film that pushes his boundaries as an actor.

reply

Because he is a versatile actor and he did a great job. This was a role about a family man who happened to be a gangster's muscle.

reply

Yeah, I agree with Jamo57. You get the impression that if life had of presented him with better oppurtunities he would much rather be doing anything else to support his family. Newman's character was almost like a surrogate father figure to him. It's been awhile since I've seen it but I think its even addressed in the movie that Mr Rooney took him in at a young age.
Hanks character felt an obligation to act as a "heavy" for him. You could always see that inner conflict between what he had to do and what he wanted to do and in that sense I thought Hanks was bang on the money...

reply

How did hit men and killers for organized crime look in the 30's and 40's ? Were they box eared and scar faced? What a ridiculous question..... Many hit men, had families...children, wives..etc, etc, did this mean they couldn't have had a kind look about them, or be handsome as opposed to terrifying? Tom Hanks was believable as a killer and a family man. I think we get caught up in hollywoods images of gangsters and thugs, which stunts our vision when examining characters in film. Jude Law was quite convincing as well...
I agree with one viewer, who spoke of Tom Hanks as a man who had to partake in this kind of work in this era of depression. People who think that Hanks wasn't convincing, really must live a life, in which fantasy and film dictates their perception of the individuality of members of the human family.
Ray Liotta as MIchael Sullivan??? hahahhaha

reply

I thought Hanks was perfect in the role and did and incredible job. There isn't any one actor that I think could have pulled off the role any better.

"Adultery makes a party go such a swing!" Naomi——Skins.

reply

Ability to think is lacking at this board.

First, the depression started fall of '29. The movie took place over the winter of 1931. Sullivan didn't go to work as gangster muscle because of the depression, he was well established as a killer long before the depression started.

Sullivan's kids were easily a decade old so going to work as gangster muscle because of the depression to feed his family is a wash a well. Sullivan was probably in his early 20's (also likely in the early 1920's) when he got married/had his first kid.

In all probability he was gangster muscle because of prohibition. That nonsense started about the time Sullivan would have been a young man looking for his first career.

edited to add:

And where is the wonderful proof that Sullivan is a loving family man? Is there a single scene where he's taking the kids to the cinema or playing in the snow? Not that I can recall.

Having children in no way makes someone a 'family man'. It's what you do with those kids that matters.

For all we know Sullivan has two kids because two condoms broke.

reply

Mike Sullivan was an orphan and was raised by John Rooney. In gratitude & out of obligation to Rooney, Sullivan eventually goes to work for him. Sullivan both loves & fears Rooney, as does Rooney's son Connor. Sullivan never allows himself to think of the possible repercussions of his "job", until the tragic consequences come to his front door. Faced with the death of his son & wife, his only concern is for retribution for their deaths and to save the life & soul of his remaining son. He plans to kill Connor Rooney the one responsible for the murders and take his son Michael to Perdition to start a new life.....so yes he didn't pick his career becuz of the Depression, but as far as a loving family man, he may not have been what would be considered a stereo-typical loving father but within the limits created by the life he had lived he did love his children & wife the best way he knew how.



Who will be first to have their backs against the wall when the revolution comes?

reply

This sounds about right to me. You can really tell that he really wanted to be sufficient for his family, though he has a hard time walking the line between his family and his job.

Ray Liotta? Is that to be taken seriously? The guy plays only asssholes He might be good as a gangster, but NOT as this role.
Also I see alot of suggestions for Liam Neeson. I've come to realize he only has one acting style, and it does not fit Mike Sullivan. Neeson is a bit overrated imo
Russel Crove would have rocked this role, but Hanks is great as well.

Actually, Jude Law is brilliant in his role. This guy should really play more bad guys, damn he was creepy

Peez ouwt

reply

My favorite movie. I thought Hanks was OK in this movie but simply didn't stand out like the other actors.

But your suggestion of Russel Crowe is right on the money! Would have been a perfect choice.

reply

I thought Hanks was great. Newman and Craig were perfect together too. Both great actors and they both have beautiful blue eyes. It was strange seeing Law in such a disturbing role but I guess the whole point of casting is getting actors who can shock in unfamiliar roles.

reply

The term "Family Man" has a basic context; A man with a wife and children, who is the
'Patriarch' of the family structure, provides shelter, food and clothing and works. And defining what it is to be a 'family' man has no bearing on whether he was loving, cruel or absent…the term defines his overall position.

It is quite evident, that although he is a 'button man', 'hit-man', or general muscle for Rooney, his presence as a father although serious and stern, is in no way cold or abusive. His CALM but clear disapproval for his son, as we learn from his own mouth was because he saw Michael as he was as a young kid, mischievous, slick, etc.

The American depression lasted until the early 40's, but PRIOR to 1929 known as Black Friday when the crash hit, the U.S. economy wasn't booming or prosperous by any means, in fact, post World War 1 America was laden with unemployment, weak industry and similar poverty. When Michael Sullivan discusses with his wife what his son witnessed, she sights worry about what Rooney Sr. might do. Hanks replies in the vein of; "we had nothing before Mr. Rooney, we were struggling, he helped us get this house…" etc, etc…"we owe him…." This eludes to their state, monetarily, which was obviously after Sullivan came home from the war. SO, poverty was a case for him divulging in his particular 'Line of Work'.. bottom line.

Your ability to think just lacks in general and specifics, It is subjective, and emotional.. The discussion is about, why few might think Tom hanks wasn't convincing. Hollywood dictates how these sheltered idiots think; e.g. how hit men or hired killers must have looked like Neville Brand, James Gandolfini, Charles Bronson, thats all reasoning based on fantasy and the film world, ridiculous..as i stated years ago.

With a name like 'the great gazooo' you must have subjected yourself to quite the doses of television. There were no moments of Sullivan taking his children to the park or the movies, because that wasn't what the film was about, although his love for his children was clear during many moments prior to his youngest sons murder, just not overt.. but rather subtle, and contemplative, done for the thinking person...so maybe it went over your clown hat. Maybe you should whine for a prequel, so you can know whether Michael Sullivan was a good father before 'Road to Perdition' unfolded.

reply

Because he has a warm comforting yet serious air about him, ray liotta is too menacing or sneaky to play a charachter like the one in this film.

reply

ReaganSmash: "Because he has a warm comforting yet serious air about him, ray liotta is too menacing or sneaky to play a charachter like the one in this film."

Bingo.

Tom Hanks isn't just an excellent actor in general, he specifically has the ability to make the audience like a character (in a "warm and cuddly" way, not in a "badass/cool" way) when there's no rational reason why you should.

Rationally, Michael Sullivan is a bad man who belatedly gets what's coming to him.

reply

I think Hanks played the role perfectly. He did a great job creating mood and intimidation

reply