Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA professor of chemistry wins the Nobel Prize. His wife joins him to Stockholm, but his son, working on his Ph.D., get kidnapped, and the ransom demanded is exactly the Nobel Prize sum: $2,0... Alles lesenA professor of chemistry wins the Nobel Prize. His wife joins him to Stockholm, but his son, working on his Ph.D., get kidnapped, and the ransom demanded is exactly the Nobel Prize sum: $2,000,000.A professor of chemistry wins the Nobel Prize. His wife joins him to Stockholm, but his son, working on his Ph.D., get kidnapped, and the ransom demanded is exactly the Nobel Prize sum: $2,000,000.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
The son of a Nobel Prize-winning chemist is kidnapped for ransom. There are a lot of interesting ways to take this story. The main problem is, they take all of them. We have an opportunity to investigate what's really going on in the mind of the son, how has his father affected his life, why does the father live his life the way he does, who is really responsible for the kidnapping and why... . The ways to explore this story are endless, and instead of delving in whole-heartedly, all that came out was a jumbled mess that left me feeling frustrated with no invested knowledge in any part of the story. Another review said the problem was too many cooks. I second that, and will adapt the phrase from "too many cooks spoil the broth" to "too many writers spoil the story". Only two screenwriters were credited, but I'm willing to bet there were more with their hands in it.
The actors were all quite good, I'm sure. It's the characters that I'm more confused about. Whenever they presented a scene which echoed my experiences in the ivory tower of science, they usually followed that up with a scene that didn't make sense based on what we knew about the characters. Perhaps I was focusing too much on specifics, but I was continuously confused and frustrated by their characterization and story ideas. Too many writers, ideas, and lack of focus spoiled "Nobel Son".
But then we don't. Most of what we believe during the first half is mutated in the second half until the story changes completely. There is no great message here, it is just a mostly entertaining fluff of a movie.
Alan Rickman is good as the morally bankrupt professor and Nobel winner. Bill Pullman almost reprises his role from "Zero Effect" where he is a sharp eyed detective able to piece together arcane clues.
Randall Miller is the MTV director, Miller and Jody Savin - each with a rather meager resume as a writer - are responsible for the winning script.
It's rare and fortuitous these days to walk into a theater to see a movie whose plot you know, and still be engaged and surprised. Such is the case here.
With deliberate exaggeration and advance apologies, I'd compare "Nobel Son" to "Sleuth" both for its tit-for-tat, now-you-see-it/now-you-don't continuous cliff-hanger nature, and the sense of amusement and fun even through some rather harrowing action. "Son" is *like* "Sleuth" in the true sense of that grossly abused word: having some of the same characteristics.
Only a great English stage actor such as Alan Rickman could make the silly cartoon figure of Eli Michaelson believable - and he does, becoming sort of likable in his unfettered loathsomeness. Michaelson is rotten to the core, antisocial beyond the worst case of Asperger's, plus a miserable human being - and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Mary Steenburgen plays his long-suffering wife, a character with a vaguely delineated past as a storied criminal investigator. Never too far from her is Bill Pullman, a detective, former colleague, current shoulder to lean on. Bryan Greenberg is the son, who - as you must know from all the ads and buzz - is held for ransom, apparently by Shawn Hatosy, a young actor who more than holds his own against the veterans in the cast. Danny Devito and Ted Danson show up, unnecessarily but - in the case of Danson - not irritatingly. Eliza Dushku has a star-turn debut as City Hall (that's the name), a looney poet, painter, and fornicator (their word, not mine).
There is something inexplicable about the cinematography: everybody in the cast looks like hell, sans makeup, sans Vaseline-smeared lens, sans everything. Pullman wins the race to Showing All the Pores, pasty-white, as unattractive as possible, but the others - including the women - are not far behind. A new trend? Makeup crew on strike? Who knows? For sure it's distracting, but "Son" is too good to allow this stupid quirk to interfere.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesMary Steenburgen's main reason on deciding to do this film was because she was always a fan of Alan Rickman and always wanted to work with him.
- PatzerDuring Barkley and City's love scene, a patch covering her right nipple is briefly visible.
- Zitate
Eli Michaelson: If anyone in this room ever doubted my intellectual superiority, or your get fortune to be under my incomparable tutelage, you can now formally kiss my fine white ass.
- Alternative VersionenIn the U.K. the film was cut by 10 seconds to remove a scene where somebody has their thumb cut off. An uncut 18 certificate was available to the distributor. For the 2010 DVD the cut was waived and the certificate raised to an 18.
- VerbindungenReferences Scarface (1932)
Top-Auswahl
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Offizielle Standorte
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Giải Nobel Nhớ Đời
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 4.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 540.382 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 333.912 $
- 7. Dez. 2008
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 550.782 $
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 50 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1