Related articles and links |  1 of 6

Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) turns to the ever-popular gangster genre for his second outing. The result is a dark troubling drama of revenge that explores the ways fathers influence their sons in ways both desirable and destructive.

As is often the case, this mobster movie introduces men caught up in the violent cycle of "an eye for an eye." Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is a murderous gangster in the employ of Mr. Rooney (Paul Newman) who rules the town with crime and a grandfatherly smile. Rooney treats Sullivan like a beloved son, which drives his own boy Connor Rooney (Daniel Craig) to dangerous jealousy. Connor is a reckless monster with an itchy trigger finger, and eventually his behavior deals Sullivan a devastating blow. Sullivan vows revenge, hoping Rooney and the mob will see his cause as just. They do not. Mr. Rooney reluctantly hires a perverse assassin (Jude Law) to hunt down Sullivan, who has taken his young son Michael Jr. and gone into hiding. So the chase is on as Sullivan plots his revenge.

Road to Perdition may look like just another way for Tom Hanks to make a bid for the Best Actor Oscar. Hype for film has centered on Hanks playing a "bad guy" for the first time. And yes, Hanks is impressive. But this is more than just an actor's showcase. Perdition is full of real questions and moral dilemmas. In a year when Americans have suffered grievously at the hands of violent men, the theme of revenge carries added weight. You may find it troubling as Mendes skillfully sways you to sympathize, and perhaps even cheer for, Sullivan as he guns down his colleagues. Sure, he's protecting his son, but he also has a bloody agenda for revenge. Is there a similarity between Sullivan's quest to gun down blood-seeking mobsters and America's quest to bomb out the men who would violently strike us in the future?

Regardless of its muddy ethical dilemmas, many critics in the religious and mainstream press agree that Perdition is stylish, well-acted, and perhaps Oscar-worthy. Some add a disclaimer because the film is quite violent. A few take a harsher view, arguing that the film is a pretentious case of style over substance.

Holly McClure (Crosswalk) calls it "a visually interesting and richly layered story that will have you thinking about it and wanting to discuss it with your friends. Fathers, it will challenge you to take a close look at your relationship with your children … and examine how you think they see you versus how they really do."

Similarly, Lisa A. Rice and Tom Snyder (Movieguide) praise it as "a fascinating study on the dangers of 'religion without relationship,' and the need for children to know their father's heart."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' critic observes, "As Mendes examines moral decisions with generational repercussions, the actors' nuanced performances stand out in a sea of popcorn summer movies. The divisive morality tale is layered with regrets, bad decisions, and a good dose of gruesome violence. But also weaved in with the theme of betrayal is redemption, filial love and family responsibility." Regarding the violence, he adds: "The camera is unflinching in capturing its ugly brutality, never glamorizing the crimes. And yet there is a certain strange beauty in seeing Hanks walk determinedly though puddles with a machine gun in his hands."

Mary Draughon (Preview) finds all of these gunshots off-putting: "The intense violence and foul language make it a poor choice for discerning moviegoers."

next page... |  1 of 6

July (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46