Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.

Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.

Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10
Options: (A). negative (B). positive
(A).