Rating: 3 out of 5
After the incredible success of his high-octane tragicomedy American Beauty, director Sam Mendes dialed things down for this soggy Prohibition-era drama based on Max Allen Collins' graphic novel. Making good use of Conrad L. Hall's impeccable cinematography, Mendes recreates a gloomy 1931 Chicago to tell this melancholy and dialogue-minimal tale of mob violence and fatherhood.
Tom Hanks stars as Michael Sullivan, a stony but remorseful hitman and father of two living in a lesser Illinois town. Sullivan's boss/father figure is the aged John Rooney (Paul Newman), whose small empire is threatened by the heirship of his jealous and unstable biological son Connor (Daniel Craig). One night, Sullivan's solemn twelve-year-old son Michael, Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) follows his father to find out exactly what he does for kind old Mr. Rooney. When the boy witnesses Connor's thoughtless murder of an employee, the elder Rooney has no choice but to put the next hit out on the Sullivan family. Sullivan's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and younger son are killed, and he is forced to take Michael, Jr., on the run. When they have no luck in Chicago, they flee even further, trailed by a clever photographer/assassin (Jude Law).
Road to Perdition is a visual marvel, with praiseworthy sets and flawless cinematography, accompanied by a score from composer extraordinaire Thomas Newman. In an amplified version of the Mendes tradition, it alternates between scenes of heavy dialogue (not as colorful here as usual) and drawn out sequences of symbolism. Unlike his other films, however, this one cannot keep its themes straight. The predominant one is that of father-son relationships, supported not only by the two Michaels whose bond strengthens over the course of the movie, but by Rooney and Michael, Sr., and Connor. Sullivan's relationship with Rooney seems to walk the line between professional and filial. Rooney certainly fills the role of patriarch to the Sullivans, but he also represents the devil that Michael, Sr., sold his soul to so his family could live comfortably. It's no wonder Connor grew up to be the crazy one, when his father's favorite son isn't even his real son.
Voiceover narration and such, however, point our focus towards Sullivan himself. Not necessarily how he acts as a father and quasi-son, but his nature as a person. (The particular balance between stern and compassionate would be a daunting task for even the most skilled actor, and the great Tom Hanks just barely manages to hold it together without slipping up.) The prompt is essentially, "Is Sullivan good or bad?" We aren't given a specific answer, but the film has an unmistakable slant towards the former option. Yes, he's a mob enforcer, but we are hardly given a chance to consider that he might enjoy his work. By the end, the point becomes moot.
Yet all of these ideas get bogged down further by conversations and plot points that would suggest the primary theme is something more strictly mob-related. It's hard to say what, exactly; the movie flops between themes like it's controlled by a possessed spatula. There are still scenes that are entertaining, even excellent unto themselves (most of the Jude Law scenes, for example), but they don't add up to much. Dare I say it, style over substance wins again.
No comments:
Post a Comment