Eastern Promises

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Jerzy Skolimowski
Running Time: 100 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

It's something we've known for a while but Eastern Promises just further confirms it: Viggo Mortensen is one hell of an actor. He's actually such a strong, intimidating actor that his performance comes close to overshadowing and overpowering this film, making it difficult to care about the other characters half as much. This movie is all about Viggo…and the violence. It's something director David Cronenberg is quick to remind us of in every single frame of this film, sometimes in more excruciating detail than we feel comfortable watching. As thrilling as it is sometimes, there may be some confusion as to what audience this film is for. The excessive male nudity is likely to turn off (straight) male audiences, while the brutal violence and gore would cause the female audience to hit the stop button on the remote. As is, it's a very good, absorbing crime film that benefits greatly by having Cronenberg at the helm.

Previously a cult horror director, Cronenberg has lately taken baby steps toward the mainstream, or at least as close to the mainstream as someone like him can get. Reuniting with Mortensen, whom he directed in one of 2005's best films, A History of Violence, he has has this gift for depicting violence in the harshest, most realistic way possible. It was present in even his earliest work. That's definitely on grand display here, even if the film is somewhat clichéd and gives us a take on the mob genre we've seen before.

I can't help but laugh just a little when I see it on many year-end top ten lists because it really is just a one-trick pony, as entertaining and over-the-top as it may be. But at least it's a film of substance and can't be categorized as "Hollywood fluff," a term I've been using a lot these past couple of months to describe the unusually high level of lightweight studio offerings. No one could ever call Cronenberg's films "lightweight." Plus, it earns bonus points for containing what's easily the most exciting (and uncomfortably homoerotic) fight scene of the year. You'll never want to enter a men's locker room again.

Anna Kitrova (Naomi Watts) is a midwife at a London hospital who successfully delivers the baby girl of a hemorrhaging teenager who ends up dying on the table. She leaves behind no identification other than a diary, which contains a business card, that leads her to a restaurant fronting for the Russian Mob. The owner, Semyon (played with subtle menace by the great Armin Mueller-Stahl) offers to translate the diary, which is written in Russian. He obviously isn't doing this out of the kindness of his heart and is hiding something I probably shouldn't reveal in this review.

Unwise, emotional decision-making puts Anna in over her head and she finds herself face-to-face with Nikolai Luzhin (Mortensen), the chauffer of Semyon's insane, drunk son Kirill (Vincent Cassel). What's so amazing about this partnership (you couldn't call it a friendship) between Nikolai and Kirill is how Nikolai not only puts up with this guy, but knows exactly how to handle him, showing more patience than anyone else would in that situation. Even when our patience for his behavior starts to run out, Nikolai becomes even calmer and more tolerant, defending his unstable actions to Semyon. There are weird, creepy homosexual undertones to their relationship that the film teases but mercifully doesn't fully explore, even when we increasingly fear it will.

This Kirill guy is definitely off his rocker and many times during the film you're not sure whether to laugh at his actions or cringe in fear. Casell (who's done strong supporting work in films like Derailed) chews into this role like it's a three-course meal and more than holds his own scene-for-scene with Mortensen. No small achievement. Aside from a twist late in the film which is a surprise but hardly a shock, the script mostly follows the predictable pattern for these types of films and doesn't contain a lot of twists and turns. But it's worth mentioning that the person I was watching this with and I were taking bets as to which characters would survive until the end of the film. Both of us were way off.

It's tough to believe the Viggo Mortensen we see here is the same man who played Tom Stall in A History of Violence two years ago. This film isn't anywhere close to being as psychologically deep or complex as that near-masterpiece, but Mortensen's performance is just as subtly powerful, in a far different way. As I was watching the brutal, bloody shower fight scene I was wondering to myself why he was having such a tough time finishing these guys off. Then it occurred to me that this guy isn't the invincible fighting machine that Tom Stall was.

It was tough for me to let go of that notion, just as its tough to shake any character Mortensen has played throughout his career. I'm sure I'll have the same problem with this one. It seems in the past couple of years he's really turned that corner and shot to the top of the list of our best actors, mastering the ability to believably slide into any role. Cronenberg gives him center stage again here and he owns the film with his trademark quite intensity. He radiates a calmness that's scary because you're always aware of the possibility that he could explode. He deserves a Best Actor nomination for this.

Naomi Watts, on the other hand, doesn't fare as well but that's only because Steve Knight's screenplay requires Anna (as well as her hotheaded Russian-born uncle, played by Jerzy Skolimowski) to make head-scratchingly stupid decisions in order to service the drama of the story. I didn't believe they were unrealistic decisions that someone in her similar situation wouldn't make, but it did make it more difficult to root for the character. Caring more about the villain than the heroine didn't help. The movie doesn't force the issue of some kind of a deep relationship between the two lead characters, which was probably a wise move. Watching this though it occurred to me that Watts just might be one of my favorite actresses because even when the material isn't up to her talent level she's always compelling to watch. There are a lot of beautiful movie stars but I could only count on one hand how many are also great actresses. She is.

With its heavy gore (even the opening scene is brutal) and male nudity this film would have been pure B-level camp if anyone but Cronenberg was behind the lens. With all the crazy stuff that goes down here this really should pass as a comedy (at least on paper), but he finds a way to not only make it dramatic, but at times terrifying. Cronenberg's career has gone in an interesting direction because, unlike a Sam Raimi, as he's edged closer to the mainstream he's found a way to appeal to more audiences without sacrificing any of the elements that brought him there. This time he just didn't have a strong enough screenplay to support him but it should be very interesting to see where he decides to go next. You can say what you want about Cronenberg, but he's no sell-out. Eastern Promises could stand as a shining example of standard material being elevated by a great director and terrific performances to appear more important than it actually is. The film is far from perfect but you won't be able to look away, as much as you'll want to.

From The Vault: A History of Violence

Director: David Cronenberg
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes, Heidi Hayes, Stephen McHattie, Greg Bryk, Peter MacNeill
Running Time: 96 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2005

**** (out of ****)

Spoiler Warning! This review contains spoilers and gives away key plot points.

It's often said that certain directors are experts at "establishing a mood" in a film. Very few filmmakers have done as good a job with this in any recent film than David Cronenberg does within the first half hour to forty minutes of 2005's A History of Violence. In many ways the whole movie hinges on what he does within that time frame to draw us into the story. The Canadian filmmaker best known for his shocking horror and science fiction films (including Scanners, Dead Ringers and the underrated eXistenZ) is remarkably restrained here and that restraint makes the violence that comes later that much more horrific.

Despite its title, the film ( which is loosely adapted from the 1997 graphic novel by John Wagner) actually isn't your typically violent motion picture. It's not interested in being that. It's more interested in what causes it. Typical of Cronenberg's films, the violence we do see is graphic and brutal, but this time it doesn't eat up a tremendous amount of screen time and its placement within the context of the story is carefully chosen. This is an intelligent meditation on violence and how it can intrude on our daily lives when we least expect it and shake us to our core. In this day and age, where the depiction of violence in the media is more scrutinized than ever, it's a relief to see a film that doesn't just show violence, but explores it.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a local diner owner who lives in small town Indiana with his loving wife, Edie (Maria Bello), teenage son Jack (Ashton Holmes) and small daughter Sarah (Heidi Hayes). One evening at work he becomes a local hero when he kills two armed robbers who hold up the diner and threaten the lives of the customers and employees. The story receives some national exposure and attracts the attention of some mysterious men in black suits, who come to town to pay Tom a visit. The leader of this group is the facially disfigured Carl Fogarty (a scary Ed Harris), who's a member of Philadelphia's Irish Mafia and swears that Tom is really a man named "Joey Cusak." He claims they have a score to settle because it was "Joey" who shredded half his face with a barbed wire 20 years ago. Tom, who claims he's never seen Fogarty in his life and doesn't have a clue who this "Joey" is, enlists the help of the local sheriff (Peter MacNeill) to protect him and his family from this growing threat.

The more Tom denies he's "Joey" the more menacing a presence Fogarty becomes in him and his family's lives. He stalks his wife and daughter while they shop and drives past the diner to mess with Tom's head. Meanwhile at school, Tom's son Jack is having problems of his own as he's constantly being picked on by a school bully, but can't find the guts to fight back despite his rage growing exponentially by the day. This sub-plot, which seems inconsequential at first glance strongly reflects the theme of the film and becomes much more important later. Thus far, the story is essentially a mystery and a very effective one. Is Tom telling the truth? Is this just simply a case of mistaken identity? Or, is Tom hiding a violent, criminal past from his family and friends? Read no further if you don't want the answer.

Tom is really "Joey Cusak" and he was a member of the mob 20 years ago when he disfigured Carl Fogerty. He put that part of his life behind him (or so he thought) and started anew as Tom Stall in small town Indiana. Does the mean he's been living a lie? To Tom it doesn't because in his mind "Joey" has been dead for the past 20 years and he started over. The cleverness in the script is that Tom himself is so convinced that he's no longer that man that we, like his wife, really believe him when he tells us he has no idea why these guys have come to town.

Early on we do have some doubts about whether this guy is telling the truth but we don't want to listen to them because Mortensen plays Tom as a nice, laid back guy we'd love to have as our next door neighbor. You could actually imagine him coming over, popping open a couple of beers and sitting on your couch watching the game. However, when his diner is held up it brings something out of Tom he thought was dormant. He was in a hopeless situation and had no choice but to react the only way he could: violently. He's a hero for it, but his actions had the unfortunate consequence of digging "Joey Cusak" from the grave. When those men identify him, Tom has no choice but to defend his family, while at the same time struggle to keep his dark secret from them.

A History of Violence is ultimately about disguises. The film opens with two men (played by Stephen McHattie and Greg Bryk) calmly checking out of a motel. Cronenberg makes us think the movie will be about them, especially after we realize they've left two dead bodies in their wake. That's just a front though and one of the many disguises in the movie. We quickly shift gears into this small, idyllic Indiana town where everything in it seems to be straight out of a Norman Rockwell painting, especially the marriage between Tom and Edie. In this way, the opening of this film reminded me of David Lynch's Blue Velvet (which makes sense since Cronenberg is like Lynch's twisted cousin as a filmmaker), where we're given a perfect picture of small town America, but there's something that seems just slightly off.

We just have a feeling that something will happen. We're not sure exactly what it is, but it's coming and our stomachs sink with dread at the thought of what it may be. Cronenberg brilliantly creates that mood and unwinds the narrative slowly, allowing us to get to know and care for Tom and his family before the hold up takes place, then shocks us and springs the movie forward in unexpected ways. Like the character of Tom, Cronenberg's movie wears a disguise for it's first act.

When Edie eventually does find out Tom's secret she's obviously devasted she hasn't been married to the man she thought she was all these years. Their lives are a lie. This leads to the most controversial scene of the movie where they have rough, violent sex on the staircase. I'm sure there are many who will find that scene implausible. Why would this woman who just found out she's been lied to all these years by her husband (and also discovered he's a killer) want to sexually ravage him? The answer to that question is in an earlier scene at the beginning of the film where Edie dresses up as a cheerleader to turn Tom on. They're role-playing, except this time Tom's doing the dressing up. As "Joey." She doesn't want to have sex with Tom, but with "Joey," the mysterious and violently dangerous new man in her life. "Joey" becomes Tom's cheerleader costume and one of the many disguises Cronenberg uses to maximum effect in this film.

If this were any other film, the revelation of this gigantic secret would cause the story to deteriorate into a violent, action-adventure territory. Instead, Cronenberg uses the secret to dig deeper into the lives of the characters and what makes them tick. Possibly no one is more affected by this revelation than Tom's son Jack, a shy reserved kid who has now just been thrown into a world of violence and it changes him in ways he probably never thought possible. All of it is manifested perfectly in Ashton Holmes' incredibly subtle performance and leads to one of the best scenes in the film where he finally stands up for himself and Cronenberg puts us in an interesting position where we're not sure whether to cheer or cringe in horror.

To end it all and protect his family Tom ultimately has no choice but to "Joey's" old stomping grounds of Philadelphia to settle the score with his own brother, mob boss Richie Cusak (William Hurt in an Oscar nominated supporting role). Now before going into this film I was informed that Hurt was nominated for Best Supporting Actor despite being in the film for just a couple of scenes.

There have been instances in the past where I felt actors have come close to deserving award recognition despite enjoying just a few minutes of screen time (Rodney Dangerfield's cameo appearance in Natural Born Killers comes to mind), but doubted Hurt could make that much of an impact in so little time. I mean we're already three quarters of the way through the movie at this point. I was wrong. From the second Hurt makes his appearance he creates a character so bizarre and unlike anything you've ever seen that even if you remember nothing else about this movie, his Richie Cusak, for better or worse, will be ingrained in your conciousness forever. He doesn't just chew the scenery, he eats this movie for dinner and he only needs about 10 minutes to do it.

Even at its climax, where the movie turns into a violent, bloody showdown the focus is really on the redemption of Tom Stall. When it's all over, he doesn't go to the river to just wash the blood of his brother off his hands. He's cleansing himself of "Joey Cusak." The final shot of the film is especially brilliant and emotionally moving as Tom returns home with his place waiting for him at the dinner table. Things must go back to normal, but the Stall family knows nothing will ever really be the same again.

I had a tough time believing this was actually adapted from a graphic novel, because the story is so deep and complex. Supposedly the graphic novel deals in much greater detail with Tom's time in the mob and is more of a violent gangster story. Screenwriter Josh Olson made a great move by choosing not to go in that direction but instead examine the themes the novel suggests. In doing so he puts us in the position of the characters, wondering what we would do in a similar situation. It helps that the situation is not far-fetched in the slightest and is completely grounded in the reality Cronenberg establishes within the first half hour. I was convinced everything that happens in this film could really occur.

The performances, particularly of Mortensen and Bello as a seemingly happy all American couple, go a long way in establishing that. Bello might one of the most underrated supporting actresses working today and here she's given her most unglamorous role and convincingly portrays a loving wife who's world has been turned upside down. Mortensen, in the performance of his career, plays a cool, laid back guy yet has no problems flipping on a dime to make us believe there's a man with violent tendencies hiding just beneath the surface. Cronenberg has said in interviews that the title of the film can be interpreted in two ways. As our country's ingrained legacy of violence that we struggle against every day or a human being's capability of violence that resides in all of us. Whichever it is, you can be sure that A History of Violence is a film you'll never forget.