Road to Perdition (2002)

This is one of those rare times that I allow myself to review a re-viewing because I'd mostly forgotten the first viewing. I have a friend (also a bit relevantly forgetful) to thank for convincing me to give it another go, as well as for helping me understand and appreciate what was happening.

In peak Al Capone-era Chicago, 12-year-old Michael Sullivan, Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) knows that his father, Mike (Tom Hanks), has a dangerous job but gets curious about the unstated details, so he stows away in the car one night. Mike turns out to be a debt collector for the Irish Mob under John Rooney (Paul Newman), and Michael sees John's hotheaded son Connor (Daniel Craig, attempting a U.S. accent again) commit a murder even John wouldn't approve. Fearing that Michael won't keep his promise not to talk and resentful of Mike winning John's favor, Connor attempts to kill, directly or indirectly, the entire local Sullivan family, ironically missing only the two most important targets. Mike plans to take Michael to a relative in the fictitious town of Perdition, Michigan (modeled after Hell, Michigan?), but first he wants to neutralize the Rooneys' pursuing threat, possibly with Capone's aid via the one other real gangster mentioned, Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci).

I've never seen Hanks in a role this close to villainy. His son Chet favors it specifically for being off the beaten path. Mike is still pretty likable, of course. We get the impression that he wouldn't be a criminal if he didn't owe so much to John growing up.

The other character who merits coverage in this review is Harlen Maguire (Jude Law), a hit man after Mike. He does not exist in the graphic novel on which the movie is based, which might explain why he's a bit quirkier than the rest, not least in his photography of victims. Law complained about his unsettling appearance, but I think it worked out for the intent. (The other major departure from the source is at the climax, and I'm not surprised to learn as much.)

The plot's pretty involved, considering all the focus on a kid. Some aspects still didn't click for me until later. But even when I didn't quite know what to make of it, I was engaged. It doesn't feel 117 minutes long.

No doubt the scoring helps. The motif is rather haunting, tho it didn't stay in my head as much as I'd hoped. I even sat throught the credits just to hear it all.

Then there's the cinematography, which won a posthumous Oscar for Conrad L. Hall. I won't go into the details, but it could surprise us (mostly pleasantly) as much as the writing. I only wish the filmmakers were a little fonder of unrealistically bright lights. Incidentally, Hanks and Hall both asked director Sam Mendes to tone down the violence, albeit still within the R rating; as a non-fan of Sin City, I'm glad Mendes agreed.

The biggest weakness? Well, many reviewers think that it falls a little short in emotional manipulation or that Connor or Harlen could use better development, but those potential downfalls didn't come to my mind. I'm more concerned at the many anachronisms, some of them substantial. And my friend and I just assumed that the consistent spelling of "recipit" for "receipt" was a deliberate old-fashioned thing, but my research suggests otherwise.

RtP was going to be a Spielberg picture if only his schedule weren't full. I saw the resemblance before I knew that, which is a good sign that Mendes did a fine job. I hope to retain it a lot better from now on.