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.
I think he played the part perfect and was rightfully picked.
shareHe was ok. I still think he is typecast in comedic roles
shareWhy cast hanks for ANY role!? Terrible actor. And on the wrong side of politics too.
shareHe was a WW1 veteran turned hitman, so he presumably had combat experience despite not being a sterotypical hoodlum.
shareWhy make this movie in the first place?
I get it's about redemption for a family man who happens to be a thug enforcer but now finds his own world turned against him. It was and is an overdrawn movie trope and I sensed it within the first 10 minutes of the movie. All of the other responses here talk up the breaking of archetypes using well known actors playing against what they're usually known for (heroic) but to me that was a mere window-dressing tactic to disguise this movie as a sullen character study of "the bad guy" when it really is nothing more than a schmaltzy retelling of Once Upon a Time in America.
How many times before this movies has Tom Hanks played--- a less than good man???
Make NO mistake Sullivan is NOT a good man --- Good family man, but kind of distant --
He's a enforcer for the Mob, he kills people and it's not just a job to get thru the depression, I'm guessing he got in right after WW1, HE and Connor may have served together
SOOO In my humble opinion THIS was excellent casting
Good Guy Tom Hanks plays a criminal with a heart
I had absolutely no problem with Hanks in the role, I thought he was fine. But if I had to replace him around that time (2002), I could see Russell Crowe working, possibly even Bruce Willis, based mainly on seeing him in The Sixth Sense.
share