If for no other reason, any budding cinematographer should see the movie for Conrad Hall's painterly images. There's also Paul Newman, but I'll get to him later. The usually excellent Jude Law? A caricature. Jennifer Jason Leigh? Non-existent. Tom Hanks? Well, it's one of those times when a sometimes sublime actor ("Forrest Gump," any number of his honest-to-goodness funny comedies) takes himself too seriously, or tries to spread his wings into an area he doesn't normally touch (in this case, a bad guy -- don't worry he's not that bad), and ends up forfeiting the reasons we like him best.
Hanks isn't wrong for the role necessarily, but he brings with him a sense of pedigree that isn't always beneficial -- it seems like his presence stamps a movie as Very Important. Imagine Gabriel Byrne in his place, and you'd get a sense of someone with an edge that could have raised the movie above the level of admirable professionalism. Well, not quite, since the movie's real problem lies with Mendes.
The movie offers an annoyingly idealized version of life, even more so when we consider the subject matter -- no one has blood on their hands. The violence is all off-screen, as if to make it all perfectly acceptable to those in the audience who might be offended. After all, who goes to see a gangster movie to see blood or be at all emotionally conflicted? Whether or not Mendes thought that this approach would make his film more artistic or more acceptable to some unnamed highbrow viewer is just a part of the emotional remoteness of the film. I don't have a problem with an observational approach as a rule -- many of my favorite movies could be called "cold" -- but in a film that's theme is fathers and sons (and you better believe it's hammered home) you'd expect a little more heart.
The comparisons to "The Godfather" are ludicrous. That film had one of the most amazing casts ever assembled and was treated as a bloody soap opera. It was tense and exciting and, above all, involving -- it took us along for the ride. "Road to Perdition" (just compare the titles of the two films and you'll get a sense of the difference) stands back from its subject and its characters. The only other real criticism I have is that we know Hank's future, as well as Newman's. There are no real surprises.
The two Newmans bring something extra to the movie. Thomas Newman's score is very similar to his for "The Shawshank Redemption" and it gives a touch of feeling that Mendes has left out. Paul Newman is what gives the film all of its (little) emotional impact. His raspy voice argues with his natural dignity, and he comes away with the most complex character in the film. In the most memorable scene in the movie, the look on Newman's face is heartbreaking.
Jude Law is very eager -- not ridiculously over-the-top, but somewhat cartoonish (and in the end, he's more memorable than Hanks and his mustache made to make him look -- I guess -- Irish).
Technically, the film is beautiful. The pastel cinematography is lovely -- I just wish Mendes would have wanted a story, some characters and an overall mood as rich as the colors.
***
Hanks isn't wrong for the role necessarily, but he brings with him a sense of pedigree that isn't always beneficial -- it seems like his presence stamps a movie as Very Important. Imagine Gabriel Byrne in his place, and you'd get a sense of someone with an edge that could have raised the movie above the level of admirable professionalism. Well, not quite, since the movie's real problem lies with Mendes.
The movie offers an annoyingly idealized version of life, even more so when we consider the subject matter -- no one has blood on their hands. The violence is all off-screen, as if to make it all perfectly acceptable to those in the audience who might be offended. After all, who goes to see a gangster movie to see blood or be at all emotionally conflicted? Whether or not Mendes thought that this approach would make his film more artistic or more acceptable to some unnamed highbrow viewer is just a part of the emotional remoteness of the film. I don't have a problem with an observational approach as a rule -- many of my favorite movies could be called "cold" -- but in a film that's theme is fathers and sons (and you better believe it's hammered home) you'd expect a little more heart.
The comparisons to "The Godfather" are ludicrous. That film had one of the most amazing casts ever assembled and was treated as a bloody soap opera. It was tense and exciting and, above all, involving -- it took us along for the ride. "Road to Perdition" (just compare the titles of the two films and you'll get a sense of the difference) stands back from its subject and its characters. The only other real criticism I have is that we know Hank's future, as well as Newman's. There are no real surprises.
The two Newmans bring something extra to the movie. Thomas Newman's score is very similar to his for "The Shawshank Redemption" and it gives a touch of feeling that Mendes has left out. Paul Newman is what gives the film all of its (little) emotional impact. His raspy voice argues with his natural dignity, and he comes away with the most complex character in the film. In the most memorable scene in the movie, the look on Newman's face is heartbreaking.
Jude Law is very eager -- not ridiculously over-the-top, but somewhat cartoonish (and in the end, he's more memorable than Hanks and his mustache made to make him look -- I guess -- Irish).
Technically, the film is beautiful. The pastel cinematography is lovely -- I just wish Mendes would have wanted a story, some characters and an overall mood as rich as the colors.
***