Why cast Tom Hanks for this role? - Road to Perdition (2002) Discussion

[–] stickley85 14 years ago

Sorry but casting Tom Hanks in this role was a mistake.I can't take him as a tough guy gangster.He's a brilliant actor and made excellent movies.But this was a bad choice.I actually like your choice of Ray Liotta.I could see Pacino,or Deniro in it as well.

reply

[–] Cinamon 14 years ago

I agree with kingfish...Hanks was perfect because he went against type.

reply

[–] fmshaw1971 12 years ago

But that's the whole point of casting Tom Hanks in this role. Sullivan was not a tough guy gangster. He was a family man who had conflicting emotions about the horrible things he was asked to do. He doesn't go in guns blazing to wipe out Finn McGovern. He is sensible, the antithesis of Connor Rooney and thus the son that John Rooney should have had all along. To cast someone like Pacino or De Niro goes against everything the film is trying to convey. Maybe you wanted to see a movie about tough gangsters, but that's not what this movie was ever intended to be.

reply

[–] acwoodcraft-1 14 years ago

I think he was trying to break away from his "Sleepless in Seattle", "You've Got Mail" types of rolls and do something with more depth.

A heart can be broken, but it still keeps a-beatin' just the same.

reply

[–] dirkfallows 14 years ago

I agree, Tom Hanks was great in this film. I really like films that are set in the gangster era.

reply

[–] simba122504 14 years ago

I was happy to see Tom playing a bad guy!

I'm glad Obama won, but I will not jump on the Pro-Choice bandwagon

reply

[–] the_little_fellow 13 years ago

The man can do anything. You can like him, but just as he's about to kill someone he gets this dead, cold look in his eyes that turn him into this cold blooded killer. Amazing an ghaoth a croitheann an eorna

reply

[–] nirvana_kedi 13 years ago

No need. Tom Hanks performance was brilliant.

reply

[–] fmproffit 13 years ago

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.

Even though Hanks did a great job - I kinda viewed Sullivan as a fella several years younger than Hanks...Liotta would've been "ok", but me thinks Clive Owen would've fit the bill nicely.

reply

[–] Mr Blue-4 13 years ago

1. Basically a movie like this gets made because someone like Tom Hanks says yes to it. It STARTS with Tom Hanks saying yes to Sam Mendes and this movie and then goes from there. Why? A $80 million period piece, not based on anything like an old movie or TV show. A serious film, not a mindless action romp.

Personally I think films should be made because they will make great movies, like this one. Unfortunately too much of the business doesn't operate that way.

2. I admire Tom Hanks going against type in this role. He does well. However, this is a role that was tailor made for Bruce Willis.

reply

[–] RRuin 13 years ago

Hanks as an actor is head and shoulders above Bruce Willis.
He's terrific in the film. And going against type worked beautifully.

"Suit the action to the word, the word to the action"

~Hamlet by William Shakespeare

reply

[–] lessthantactful 13 years ago

Bruce Willis? I must disagree with you there. Willis has proven that he can abandon the witty action hero role and play a bit more serious but Hanks is still beyond him in talent.

I can definitely understand why people would be uncomfortable or feel as though Hanks wasn't someone who should have been cast in this role judging by his previous roles.. but the proof is in his performance. He pulled it off perfectly, in my opinion. Though I do think others would have been good, I liked the Liam Neeson suggestion.

reply

[–] Sonny_Blanco 13 years ago

Tom Hanks was brilliant in this film (per usual) and this is probably his most underrated performance of his career. He was a a perfect casting for this.

"I don't want to kill you. What would I do without you? You Complete me!"- The Joker

reply

[–] Romeycash 13 years ago

Simple Answer. All you have to do is look to the last line of the film

"When people ask me if Michael Sullivan was a good man, or if there was just no good in him at all, I always give the same answer. I just tell them... he was my father."

Yes, Michael Sullivan was a gangster, but he was a FAMILY MAN above all else. The role wasn't calling for some ruthless tough guy. He was a guy that grew up in the gangster life, but that's not who he was. He wanted his sons to be as far away from that life as possible. I can't think of anyone in Hollywood that embraces BOTH those aspects better. The look of a good guy, but the acting chops to pull off being a killer. Russell Crowe would be the next closest fit I think, then maybe Eric Bana

reply

[–] Rockonwithyoursockson 13 years ago

The Michael Sullivan character requires someone a bit more understated than Ray Liotta in my opinion. He had to be someone who was believable as a caring father and someone grateful that John Rooney had taken him under his wing. I see Liotta and I picture that snarky laugh of his in Goodfellas. He was great as a mobster there, but it was a different type of character and movie.

When I first saw Hanks was a hitman, I thought it was odd, but in the context of this story, I thought he was great.

Heart attack never stop ol' Big Bear!

reply