Well acted, but hollow and derivative

Rating: 6/10 (20 February 2009)

Sam Mendes's first two films ("American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition") are two of the great American movies of the last ten years or so. The films, which examine, with great flair, the hollowness of the American Dream (though the latter has this in the background), have a new companion piece in the form of "Revolutionary Road". However, although Mendes is on familiar territory here, he doesn't manage to get anywhere close to the power of those films.
The film's story is familiar. 1950s suburban Americana turns into a living hell for a young bohemian couple. In short, it is something like an extended episode of "Mad Men". However, the driving idea behind the film is that this couple is trying to escape from their hell, rediscover the romance of their lives and flee to Paris. It is no coincidence then that Mendes has decided to reunite Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet for the first time since they played the star crossed lovers in Titanic who embodied romance and the American dream.
The thing is that the casting is the most interesting thing in the film and that wears off rather quickly. The same old tired clichés are rolled out. The yearning neighbourly lust, the affair with the secretary and so on have all been seen before and nothing new is added. A few years back, Todd Haynes provided a far more effective and interesting piece in the form of "Far From Heaven" which examined the great prejudices and falsehoods that the fifties had wrapped up in them.
There are plus points. Winslet is fantastic, and should have been nominated for this rather than for "The Reader". DiCaprio is not as good as he has been, but Michael Shannon delivers a fantastic turn in the rather stereotypical role of the crazy man who sees past the charade. It is also stylishly shot (yet more excellent work from cameraman Roger Deakins) and looks very good.
However, it simply lacks a crucial element. It is very difficult to care for these characters. They always remain distant. Perhaps that is intended, but if so it is an error, because as the story unfurls in a predictable manner it becomes harder and harder to engage with them.