"Perdition, n. The fact or condition of being completely destroyed or ruined; utter destruction, complete ruin." This word, so kindly given a definition by Oxford English Dictionary, fully embodies and is also the antithesis of the film "Road to Perdition." At first one may say that the entire film is one long road towards destruction- the destruction of a man's family, then of his morality. Or maybe it implies destruction of a hit-man's ex- employers by the ex-employee. Or it could be the destruction of all the hopes and dreams of a man, followed by the destruction of those who destroyed the hopes and dreams. The point is, these forms of perdition are not what the film is meant to be about. Yes, vengeance is part of it, but it's not the point.
Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is a mercenary who is part of a mob, where his Dad's (the late Paul Newman) the boss, and brother (Daniel Craig) his associate. After his wife and one of two sons is killed by his brother, also intending to murder Sullivan and his second son, Michael and Peter (Liam Aiken) go on the run to primarily escape danger, then go on a mission of revenge- both corporal and pecuniary.
Throughout the film, Michael kills men practically in front of Peter, robs banks with the help of Peter, and, alongside Peter, is shot at by a sociopathic hit-man (who happens to have an interest in the art of photography and played by Jude Law). The thing about these horrendous acts by Michael in front of his young son, who is merely a child, is that the audience supports each one after the other, smiling at the bank robberies and satiated by the coldblooded murders of his enemies. Through all his faults, Michael is our hero. He steals the money for revenge, not greed (as shown when a hefty sum is left for a pair of Good Samaritans). While he kills for redemption, the man chasing him kills for pleasure. Michael had the same profession his sadistic chaser (Jude Law) has (coincidence?).
And Michael truly loves his son- probably the only thing he does love. He doesn't know him well at first (he has no idea what his son does in school), but soon he knows his son more than any other ("You're more like me," he says to Peter). Michael is a man filled to the brim with hate for his family's assassins and love for his son. In the end, it is the hate that is destroyed. It is assassinated. It is removed by (who else?) his only son, who in the end performs an act that, in itself, defines the movie: the question of morality in murder is finally answered.
Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is a mercenary who is part of a mob, where his Dad's (the late Paul Newman) the boss, and brother (Daniel Craig) his associate. After his wife and one of two sons is killed by his brother, also intending to murder Sullivan and his second son, Michael and Peter (Liam Aiken) go on the run to primarily escape danger, then go on a mission of revenge- both corporal and pecuniary.
Throughout the film, Michael kills men practically in front of Peter, robs banks with the help of Peter, and, alongside Peter, is shot at by a sociopathic hit-man (who happens to have an interest in the art of photography and played by Jude Law). The thing about these horrendous acts by Michael in front of his young son, who is merely a child, is that the audience supports each one after the other, smiling at the bank robberies and satiated by the coldblooded murders of his enemies. Through all his faults, Michael is our hero. He steals the money for revenge, not greed (as shown when a hefty sum is left for a pair of Good Samaritans). While he kills for redemption, the man chasing him kills for pleasure. Michael had the same profession his sadistic chaser (Jude Law) has (coincidence?).
And Michael truly loves his son- probably the only thing he does love. He doesn't know him well at first (he has no idea what his son does in school), but soon he knows his son more than any other ("You're more like me," he says to Peter). Michael is a man filled to the brim with hate for his family's assassins and love for his son. In the end, it is the hate that is destroyed. It is assassinated. It is removed by (who else?) his only son, who in the end performs an act that, in itself, defines the movie: the question of morality in murder is finally answered.
