Road to Perdition

Ever since Coppola's "The Godfather" came out in 1972, just about every auteur director working in America seems to have cherished the ambition to produce his own "Godfather", hence crime epics like Scorsese's "Goodfellas", Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America", De Palma's remake of "Scarface", the Coen brothers' "Miller's Crossing" and Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction". Following his acclaimed first film "American Beauty", Sam Mendes obviously decided that the it was time to make his own "Godfather", because his second film, "Road to Perdition" is a gangster drama in this tradition.

Michael Sullivan junior is a twelve-year-old schoolboy from Rock Island, Illinois. Although it is the early 1930s, the time of the Great Depression, the Irish-American Sullivan family enjoys a comfortable upper-middle-class existence. Young Michael, however, is puzzled about what his father, Michael senior, actually does for a living; all he knows is that he works for John Rooney, a seemingly respectable elderly gentleman who treats the boy like an adopted grandson. The truth, however, is that Rooney is an organised crime boss and Michael senior his "enforcer" When young Michael stumbles on the truth, after witnessing Rooney's unstable son Connor killing another gang member, he inadvertently puts himself and his family in danger. In an attempt to eliminate the boy, Connor murders his mother Annie and younger brother Peter, forcing Michael and his father to flee for their lives. The rest of the film deals with Michael senior's search for revenge for the deaths of Annie and Peter.

The title can be understood on a number of levels. On the most literal, Perdition is a town to which some of the characters travel at the end of the film. On another level, "perdition" can be interpreted as meaning "death" or "destruction", and on a third "eternal damnation". Perhaps the film's bleakest moment comes when Rooney says to Michael senior that "none of us have any hope of getting to Heaven". This is not just a figure of speech. Rooney is a practising Catholic who has nevertheless embarked upon a way of life which he believes can only result in his damnation to Hell. The film's emphasis on the futility and sterility of the criminal lifestyle is reminiscent of that great British gangster movie, "Get Carter".

The bleakness of the film's moral message is emphasised by its visual style, dominated by a muted palette with dark backgrounds and dull greens and greys. Filming took place in winter and early spring, often against a backdrop of snow and rain; Mendes intended the cold, bleak look of the film to reflect the characters' emotional states. Water, snow and ice are recurrent visual images throughout, from the snowy opening funeral scene with a corpse on ice to the closing scenes by Lake Michigan. The film's emotional impact is also heightened by Thomas Newman's evocative, elegiac musical score.

The film's two most important characters are Michael senior and Rooney, who loves Michael like a son, and yet tries to kill him to save his biological son Connor. In some ways the audience can sympathise with Michael, a man who has suffered unjustly through the deaths of two innocent family members, and this sense of identification is strengthened by the casting of Tom Hanks, an actor normally seen as sympathetic characters. On another level, however, we recognise Michael's moral responsibility for his own predicament as one of those who live by the sword and are therefore doomed to die by the sword as each killing fuels the cycle of revenge and leads to yet more bloodshed. This is one of Hanks's most accomplished performances as he is able to show both these sides of Michael's personality. One of his redeeming characteristics is his love for his son, who he hopes will be able to lead a better life than the one he himself has led, and the film ends on a note of hope in this regard.

This was to be Paul Newman's last appearance in a feature film, and it was to be a fine end to his distinguished career. Although Rooney is a lifelong villain, he is not wholly evil, but a tired, disillusioned old man, in Wilfred Owen's phrase a "devil sick of sin", who retains enough moral awareness to realise that his false system of values has blighted his life and the lives of others. The other notable performance comes from an almost unrecognisable Jude Law as Harlen Maguire, the hit-man sent by Rooney to kill Sullivan. Maguire also works as a crime-scene photographer, and the relish with which he photographs murder victims reveals a macabre fascination with death. In his remorselessness Maguire recalls Anton Chigurh, the hit-man played by Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men", although to my mind Law gives a better performance than Bardem. Maguire, for all his evil, is a recognisable human being whereas the one-dimensional Chigurh seems more like a personification of some abstraction such as "death" or "fate".

The "my own Godfather" syndrome means that the organised crime epic has become something of an overcrowded field in the last forty years, but I must say that "Road to Perdition" is one of the most impressive entries in that field. I was impressed by Conrad Hall's breathtaking cinematography, by the standards of acting and by an intelligent script with its themes of father-son relationships, of the ethics of revenge and of the consequences of violence. Above all I was impressed by Mendes's ability to weave all these elements into a mythic whole, an epic which manages to say something new in the otherwise clichéd gangster genre. When I reviewed "American Beauty" I said that Mendes had joined that elite group of directors (Orson Wells, Sidney Lumet, Bryan Forbes, Stuart Rosenberg) who had made a masterpiece with their first film. With "Road to Perdition" he has joined that even smaller group who have made masterpieces with their first two films. 9/10

This couldn't have been better. The strong restraints on Mike Sullivan's expressions couldn't have been portrayed in any other way. Tom Hanks delivers the best performance of his career. Young Tyler Hoechlin drives an emotional wheel; playing the basis character for the story. And veteran Paul Newman gives one of his best character performances in a long time.

This film is based on a bold graphic novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner. This is a father/son story which basically employs the two candidates solely unfit for the roles. Mike Sullivan had no father as a child, so John Rooney took him in. Although a generous man, Mr. Rooney involved himself in organized crime. Therefore, the debt of Sullivan was only to be paid off in involving himself in the business. Now, Sullivan has a wife and two children and is trying to keep his children safe, but at the same time pay back his boss. The events to follow, will test Sullivan's loyalty and embrace his family's fate.

With a great adaptation by David Self, the dialogue comes out seldomly, but yet very virtuous. The story unfolds in a beautiful 1930's setting (Brilliant Art Direction by Richard L. Johnson & Nancy Haigh) covered with a dark rainy (snow on the ground) exterior. Driving the story, is Thomas Newman's wonderful Irish score, settling in only when necessary.

But the most important technical element in the film is Conrad L. Hall's beautiful photography. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen; and I watch a lot of films. The scene when Mike and Michael are in the car, entering Chicago is quite impressive. The shot starts at the front of the car, revealing Mike(Hanks) through the windshield. It subsequently dollys around to the side of the car, to see Michael(Hoechlin) awakening and peering out his side window. As it continues, it trucks sideways and dollys back, completely around the car and reveals a gorgeous scenic 1930's Chicago.

With a great cast and crew, the principle man creates a brazenly amazing film. I'm talking about Sam Mendes, who made his feature film debut in 1999 with American Beauty. (won him various awards) Before American Beauty, Mendes worked as a play director for the British Theater, but decided that he wanted to move on saying that there was nothing new for him in theater. With only two films, Sam Mendes has marked himself in my book as one of the great directors (In a list of about twenty-five).

The film illuminates a brazen genre that has its hits and misses and expresses the true theme brilliantly. The photography, acting and story is phenominal. I'm still waiting for Scorcesee's Gangs of New York, but for now, I'm fully confident in saying that this is the "Best Film of the Year". Considering it's competition (Signs, Insomnia, Minority Report) thats a strong statement.

Road to Perdition is a classed-up mob story about revenge. With a stellar cast and Oscar-winning cinematography, the film is a dark meditation on vengeance and the fate of one's soul. Heavyweights Tom Hanks and Paul Newman anchor this film, with great support from Daniel Craig and Jude Law. This is a brooding film, but I think it does a great job of conveying its more hopeful messages through some stunning photography.

`Road to Perdition' is a rocky road of revenge and reconciliation, punctuated by some gorgeous Conrad Hall cinematography. Tom Hanks is a 1930's mob hit man whose 12 year-old son sees him commit a murder. The rest of Director Sam Mendes' (`American Beauty') film is the boy's coming to terms with that knowledge. Paul Newman plays a `godfather,' a father to his errant son and like a father to Hanks.

Laced throughout are 3 father-son relationships, which seem to move toward the violent ends reserved for mobsters. Hanks' son is ambivalent about his dad, whom he seems to adore yet hold accountable for his crimes. Newman's son is like Sonny Corleone, too loose to be in charge and no heir apparent; Hanks owes his lifestyle to Newman-all these relationships are subsumed by the business needs of the larger organization.

This is noir with a dark palette, costuming in clothes metaphorically heavy, and sounding often as stylized and minimal as the murders Hanks commits. `Road to Perdition' lacks the grandeur of Coppola's `Godfather' epic, but it succeeds in evoking an old-testament judicial system where eye meets eye and tooth savages tooth. The revenge motif is too dominant to let the film rest on the promising father-son motif.

Hanks' son learns about morality and decides about following in his father's footsteps. Hanks gives another controlled performance, and Paul Newman lets us know there is room for one more powerful screen godfather.

Let me start this off by saying this movie is beautiful. By a technical standpoint, perfection was achieved. I'll remember this movie as proof of example; outstanding direction/cinematography cannot fully compensate for a lackluster plot.

On paper, the plot is an average set up. Relationships in a crime family are tested, but none are ever stretched too far. In this sense it feels somewhat familiar and not very original.

But what does keep this movie from being average-blah, is the care put into EVERY shot. I give a huge amount of credit to the cinematographer. A good amount of noticeable techniques were used. I particularly liked one symmetrical pillar shot that used a zoom in dolly in trick. A slight variation of the Vertigo introduced, zoom in dolly out.

But with all of these wonderful shots I noticed something. There was so much technically stunning camera work, I found myself completely drawn out of the story. Was this done intentionally? To some degree I think so. This nicely compliments the dark and rainy 1930's settings.

Noticing this I tried to put more thought into the plot. There basically was none. The characters were cold and lacked development. Any dialog is important and used sparingly. I couldn't stop myself from drawing comparison to The Godfather. What Road to Perdition lacks is any underlying intensity between the characters. I never feel like they were a tight-knit family and do feel as if I'm simply watching characters play their parts. The story has no poetry and feels more like a collection of parts that aren't worth its sum.

I appreciate it in its stunning visuals, but once the credit rolled I felt nothing. And I find no reason to return back to it.