Three years ago Sam Mendes presented us with "American Beauty," a film that went on to win Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Best Director. That's quite the accomplishment for Mr. Mendes's first foray into film. Now he follows that performance with "Road to Perdition."
What's new? The actors. What's old? Pretty much everything else, with one major exception.
Set during 1931, the film presents the Sullivan family in their prosperous Chicago suburb: Michael Sullivan (an almost bloated Tom Hanks), wife Annie Sullivan (Jennifer Jason Leigh), twelve-year old son Michael Sullivan Jr. (a sometimes cherubic Tyler Hoechlin) and younger son Peter (Liam Aiken).
The senior Sullivan works for John Rooney (Paul Newman), an Irish boss who pretty much controls the town. But what exactly does he do for Mr. Rooney?
Well, that curiosity leads son Michael to spy on his father one night when he steps out to do business. Michael's presence is exposed to his father's colleagues; what precipitates is a sudden fall from grace for the elder Sullivan, and very soon he and Michael are fleeing for their lives.
Harlan Maguire (Jude Law) is enlisted by Chicago higher-ups to assassinate father and son. Each character runs from, chases and intersects with another as the story winds down to its inevitable, jarring climax.
Many aspects of "Road to Perdition" are excellent, and indeed the film gives the audience much to contemplate. The whole ensemble works well to portray a group of people swathed in an unescapable melancholy and trapped, due to circumstances out of their control, in less than honorable lives.
Newman masterfully encapsulates this idea while the oily, serpentine, and utterly revolting Law seems to thrive off of it.
In fact, Jude Law's performance is one of the many highlights "Road to Perdition" offers: compare this to his work in "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "A.I.," for starters, and one finds an actor who really deserves his own film.
And Mr. Hanks? Well, he starts off surprisingly well portraying a sad, troubled man who hopes for a better life for his son while being unable to ameliorate his own miserable predicament.
As the film continues and explores his character more, however, he opens up to reveal the typical (and disappointing) Mr. Nice Guy one finds in "Philadelphia," "Saving Private Ryan," and, oh, just pick one. Unlike Law, Hanks fails in his attempt to create a person entirely different from what he has given us before.
The true star of the film, however, is the cinematography of Conrad L. Hall (who nabbed that cinematography Oscar for "Beauty").
Almost every image could teach a lesson of its own, and the intellectual joy one receives through analyzing and appreciating scene after scene is why one should go see this film.
The entire film could have been ripped from a frigid Hopper canvas (note especially the very brief restaurant and sidewalk scenes in Chicago), and one delights when contemplating the role of color (from Annie Sullivan's lips to the lakeshore) or the stunning use of light to define objects and people. "Beautiful" and "frightening" are two words that come to mind when looking at this film.
Mendes wants, however, to give us something as profound as "American Beauty," and, alas, he fails to do so.
What should be a thought-provoking meditation on morality, the relationship between fathers and sons and fate (among other things) simply does not come together in the end.
The intended emotional whallop is missing, and what we are left with are incredible images just begging to be dripping with messy and difficult questions.
Go see the film to watch how it wonderfully exploits all those qualities unique to this medium, yet do not bother looking for a thought-provoking message. It is just not there.
