Les sentiers de la perdition

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.

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.

Conrad Hall went out with a bang. The great film photographer finished his illustrious career with this movie before passing on. He did himself proud as this is one of the best-looking crime films you'll ever see.

Of course, the acting ain't bad when you have Tom Hanks and Paul Newman playing the leads! The amount of action in here is just right, too: not too much; not too little.

None of the characters in here, frankly, are "good guys" as Hanks is a professional hit-man for town boss Newman. Hanks' only redeeming quality is not wanting his young son to wind up a killer like him, although he does teach him how to be the getaway man in robberies! Huh?

As good as the acting is and as interesting as the story is, the real star of this film is cinematographer Hall, who paints scene after beautiful scene with his lens. His work is just awesome.

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.