Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” has all of the ingredients of films I am drawn to: a well known director who has masterpieces to his name (Sidney Lumet – aka “Network,” “12 Angry Men,” among loads of others), respected actors and actresses (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Albert Finney, etc), and a fantastic premise that appeals to one of my favorite genre’s: noir.

Consider the set-up: Two brothers agree to rob their parent’s jewelry store as they are in need of some cash. Ethan Hawke’s character needs the money to pay child support and deal with rough times. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character just needs the money (though I am not sure I understood exactly why). The set-up may sound harsh, but the brothers know that their parents insurance will cover the losses, and they reason that no one will get hurt. It’s a victimless crime that they can only benefit from.

Right?

The film is told in a mildly out of sync narrative style where we jump forward and backwards in time, with plot points nicely revealed as we need them (think “21 Grams”). It certainly does well to ratchet up the tension. Sidney Lumet knows how to make the movie turn white knuckle. The script originally had the brothers written as friends, but Lumet’s decision to change the friends into brothers makes this “all in the family” tone benefit the feel of the movie. The movie would not be nearly as compelling without it.

But, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and I didn’t get along too well. It is a dark movie. Not dark in the way “The Dark Knight” is, but dark in the way few, if any, movies I have ever seen are. Consider a comparison with “The Dark Knight”: The Joker is a morally absent, deviant monster being combated by a clearly good force. By contrast to the Joker, “Knight’s” Gotham city mobsters appear almost as good guys. It makes his unpredictability a major point of tension as the Joker is loyal to no one person, but rather the philosophy that all mankind is inherently corruptible and prone to evil. The Joker sets out to prove this in every way he can. The Joker’s belief in everyone’s evil side allows the movie to explore what everyday men and women do when they have the capacity to commit evil.

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is evil run amuck. There are no good guys. Everyone is out for themselves. The result is a film that is possibly the least redemptive, most intently punishing movie I have seen. Perhaps thematically, I could give it credit for being an interesting take on sin without redemption, or guilt without forgiveness. But so what? Why should we care? “Devil…” starts bad, gets worse, then ends.

Why should I care when not one person in the movie is worth caring for?

As a study of guilt, “Devil…” is worth mentioning. One of the brothers has to cope with his role in carrying out the plan to its less than ideal ends. His guilt is palpable, I felt guilty just watching him. But, I didn’t find the movie saying anything about guilt other than showing guilt on screen.

Acting is universally well done, if predictably so. Hoffman, Finney, Hawke, and Tomei are all proven. Lumet’s mastery of direction gives a tightly focused character for each thespian to reveal. Lumet insists the movie is a melodrama, almost apologetically. I think it works and it helps to explain some of the contextual dramatics on display. However, it is worth mentioning that for some reason Marisa Tomei appears dead set on wearing as little or no clothing throughout as much of the movie as possible. I am not sure why Lumet made this decision. It is almost distracting to the narrative and focus of the film. It got to the point where I expected her to be topless in every scene. Sometimes nudity can serve a genuinely important point to the story, characters, or otherwise, but here it just feels mostly unnecessary.

In spite of so many ingredients I crave in a great movie, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” proved that the parts were superior than the whole. It’s intent to observe careless adultery, murder, drug use, and evil for 2 hours may be an interesting character study, but the lack of purpose of any kind hurt any of what it intended. Sure – perhaps we could argue it is a revenge story between a Father and his son, or the tried and true moral that nothing is easy in life. But again – so what? Why should I care? Why should you?

I think I’d rather watch “Network” for great Lumet, or “The Man Who Wasn’t There” for great noir.