Road to Perdition is modern film noire, case closed. What? Confused that I didn't give an argument? I shouldn't have to because you should all realize this. To be noire you need to have a dark eerie feeling to the film, deadly ladies, death, smoking, booze, and fedoras. That may not be the exact definition of film noire but it is mine. Don't like it, too biased? Well that's too bad I'm sticking to it!
Road to Perdition has a great dark feeling, that is obvious. It rains for at least 30% of the film and at key parts where rain would make the moment more intense. Another thing that adds to the dark feeling of the film is the title. Perdition means "Eternal Damnation" and almost every one who dies in this film in someway deserves damnation for what they did.
Those who die in Road to Perdition that deserve damnation are everybody except Annie Sullivan and Peter Sullivan who died to signal the beginning of the journey. When they died Mike Sullivan and Michael Sullivan had to leave and run because they were no longer safe and their time on the road was their time on the road to perdition. Everyone else who died was damned from the start because they were killers, fraudsters, druggies, criminal masterminds and full on psychopaths. This includes (not chronologically seen) Mr. Rooney, Conner Rooney, that guy in the gentleman's club, gentleman's club guy's guard, those dudes in the warehouse full of barrels of booze, freaky camera assassin, feminine bank guy in bridal suite, Mr. Rooney's body guards, and that's all I can remember. However, there is one more person I didn't mention, Mike Sullivan himself! After all he has done he deserves to die right? He fulfilled his mission to keep his son out of the gang life and died doing it because that was the icing on the please-don't-be-a-dirty-killer-like-your-old-man cake. Such a touching film.
Sadly, I can't think of any deadly ladies in Road to Perdition, but there are plenty of booze and smoking. Many gangsters in the film have cigars and drink whiskey. Lastly, fedoras! 96% of men in this film have a fedora on and dress in snazzy coats and suits. The ladies even have snazzy clothes from the swaggin 1930s.
I think I've proved this movie is film noire and if I didn't, well it still is because any person in the right mind can see it. I suddenly have a craving for bacon; I want bacon, bye bye!
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Deeds on Deeds Action!
I have just watched two movies, one a remake of the other. Though it isn't a direct remake of the other. These movies are Mr. Deeds goes to town and Adam Sandler's Mr. Deeds. I am a big Adam Sandler fan and I have never seen the original Mr. Deeds so I may be biased but I'll try to put my personal feelings aside. I will take a look at the differences and similarities and see which movie was just better, though I think the outcome will be obvious.
Lets take a look at the older Deeds first. For an old movie I kind of liked it. It had exceptional humor, good acting and overall feel to the movie. It seemed longer than the Sandler version as well. It was more serious than the Sandler version meaning the humor was more dry. This was anticipated though because the movie was made in 1932 which is a whole different era. The general story is that Deeds inherited a ton of money fro his dead uncle and a company that is very big. While in the big city Deeds meets this girl who he likes but is an undercover reporter publishing bad stories about him. While trying to enjoy New York City he ends up doing some unlikable things which only make him look worse such as hopping onto fire engines and punching popular figures and feeding donuts to a horse.
Now for the Adam Sandler version. This movie is from 1998 which is more modern. This version has a story that is simply a reskinned version of the old one while retaining the intended feel. Deeds inherits a ton of money and a big company from his uncle and goes to New York city and meets girl. Deeds in this movie also does some bad things that make him look bad but they were much more worse in here. He still hopped on a fire engine, egged cars, and partied with random people. Sandler also punched some popular people in this movie too but also through them into tables and beat way harder than Cooper did. The girl in this version was still an undercover reporter but was with a news station rather than a newspaper (difference in era). She still published bad stories on Deeds though. Any way Sandler's comedy is much more modern which ends up creating a different style of movie while still keeping the old movie feel by retaining much of the old story.
Which do I like better? Adam Sandler because of my own reasons but just to seem unbiased I'll toss so e things out. I grew up on Sandler, his form of comedy is more my style being from the late 90s and not the early 30s, and it had a more enjoyable take on a good story. Don't get me wrong I still like the old one but I just like the newer one more. And Winona Ryder is good looking but that's beside the point, I'm a 90s guy!
Lets take a look at the older Deeds first. For an old movie I kind of liked it. It had exceptional humor, good acting and overall feel to the movie. It seemed longer than the Sandler version as well. It was more serious than the Sandler version meaning the humor was more dry. This was anticipated though because the movie was made in 1932 which is a whole different era. The general story is that Deeds inherited a ton of money fro his dead uncle and a company that is very big. While in the big city Deeds meets this girl who he likes but is an undercover reporter publishing bad stories about him. While trying to enjoy New York City he ends up doing some unlikable things which only make him look worse such as hopping onto fire engines and punching popular figures and feeding donuts to a horse.
Now for the Adam Sandler version. This movie is from 1998 which is more modern. This version has a story that is simply a reskinned version of the old one while retaining the intended feel. Deeds inherits a ton of money and a big company from his uncle and goes to New York city and meets girl. Deeds in this movie also does some bad things that make him look bad but they were much more worse in here. He still hopped on a fire engine, egged cars, and partied with random people. Sandler also punched some popular people in this movie too but also through them into tables and beat way harder than Cooper did. The girl in this version was still an undercover reporter but was with a news station rather than a newspaper (difference in era). She still published bad stories on Deeds though. Any way Sandler's comedy is much more modern which ends up creating a different style of movie while still keeping the old movie feel by retaining much of the old story.
Which do I like better? Adam Sandler because of my own reasons but just to seem unbiased I'll toss so e things out. I grew up on Sandler, his form of comedy is more my style being from the late 90s and not the early 30s, and it had a more enjoyable take on a good story. Don't get me wrong I still like the old one but I just like the newer one more. And Winona Ryder is good looking but that's beside the point, I'm a 90s guy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)