Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA 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... Leggi tuttoA 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.
Recensioni in evidenza
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".
Much of the "Bottle Shock" crew is back ... Alan Rickman, Bill Pullman and Eliza Dushka. Add Mary Steenburgen, Shawn Hatosy (Outside Providence, The Cooler), Danny Devito and Ted Dansen, and you have an odd, but talented cast to deliver your odd, but entertaining film.
Alan Rickman plays the role he seems born to play ... arrogant self-diagnosed genius. His family and co-workers somehow tolerate him despite his blindness to their own talents. This is especially problematic once Rickman becomes a Nobel Prize winner. Without giving anything away, his son, played by Bryan Greenberg (Prime) is kidnapped and held for the $2 million Nobel prize money ... by a guy with ties to Rickman's character. That is the simple part. After that, the script flies through its twists and turns creating quite a mess of fun! Bill Pullman is the detective on the case and he draws from his voice pattern as the odd realtor in "You Kill Me", all while pining for Steenburgen ... who is a brilliant forensic expert in her own right. Danny Devito takes an odd turn as the Reformed OCD gardener who has a couple of memorable scenes. Eliza Duska (the bar owner in Bottle Shock) is quite memorable as the stunningly dark poet who captures Nobel Son's heart the evening before he is nabbed. Coincidence??? What I find most interesting about the script is that it could have focused on any number of story lines. Steenburgen, Rickman and Dushka all have characters that could be developed further. But it really works here to have the division and balance.
My only warning here is to be prepared for a Guy Ritchie-type experience. There are times of rapid-fire edits and crazy techno-mod music that will challenge your ability to follow along and keep up. I believe it just adds to the fun in this case.
As a philandering chemistry professor who as a laboriously detestable character drives the story by winning the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Alan Rickman is the definite anchor for the ensemble cast of characters, all of whom are pawns in the script's scheme to weave the jazziest web the genre's seen in years. It could have easily achieved that goal were director Randall Miller contemplative enough to understand the effects of the audiovisual medium of film. There are not only sequences which require a much different kind of music, but there are several sequences which would be much more impacting to the tension of the unraveling story's pace without overscoring at all. Nearly every American genre film has sequences handled in the less effective way, but few of them soar into the depths of its extreme.
Rickman is the flagship but Mary Steenburgen is no less charming as his wife. A woman can be married to a man like Nobel Prize-winning chemist Eli Michaelson purely by being masochistic, deranged or in control of a deeply sophisticated feel for bitter sarcasm. But in spite of there being plenty of pleasant surprise in bit roles by Danny DeVito, Ernie Hudson and Bill Pullman as well, there isn't much room to talk about their performances, which are compartmentalized into roles that serve more as functions than characters to create a remorseless plot. Each character's occupation has much more to do with how they could come in handy to tie up loose ends than with who they are.
Nevertheless, this caper takes you for a turbulent excursion, because whether or not Randall Miller or his wife and co-writer Jody Savin have crafted a top-drawer entry into the con game genre, they remember that confidence tricks manipulate human weaknesses like selfishness, corruption and ego, as they are all things a con artist possesses himself, but also exploited are merits like honor, charity or a forthright belief in good faith on the part of the con artist.
I think the acting was pretty good. Ever since Die Hard, I always liked the actor who played the father. The son was perfectly fine as well. I really liked City Hall, but the plot called for little of her. I think the mom could have shown a little more emotion, but otherwise solid. Really, I can't criticize the acting here.
The plot was not particularly innovative, but had a few interesting tweaks.
The camera work seemed pretty standard. I think the modern technique calls for a lot more camera movement, which I don't always care for.
Parts of the movie were a bit disturbing. That's a personal thing, and what I found disturbing, others may have found amusing.
My main complaint was that the movie seemed to shift a bit late in the movie. It felt like they ran out of time and had to cram a ton of stuff into the last 30 minutes. It wasn't that I was lost. I followed the story. But it was a bit unsatisfying. Had the final 30 minutes of the film been more solid, I think maybe I would have given it a 6 out of 10.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizMary 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.
- BlooperDuring Barkley and City's love scene, a patch covering her right nipple is briefly visible.
- Citazioni
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.
- Versioni alternativeIn 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.
- ConnessioniReferences Scarface - Lo sfregiato (1932)
I più visti
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Nobel Son
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 4.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 540.382 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 333.912 USD
- 7 dic 2008
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 550.782 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 50 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1