Moviejawn

View Original

WILDLAND is the tamest mob film you'll ever see

Directed by Jeanette Nordahl 
Written by Ingleborg Topsoe 
Story By Ingleborg Topsoe & Jeanette Nordahl 
Starring Sandra Guldberg Kampp, Sidse Babett Kundsen, Joachim Fjelstrup, Elliott  Crosset Hove, Besir Zeciri, and Carla Philip Roder 
Available to watch via virtual cinema, August 20

by Miguel Alejandro Marquez, Staff Writer  

What can be said about this movie? Where do I start? Let’s start with the film’s ending (don’t  worry, this humble critic won’t spoil it). The ending to Wildland is something that needs to be  addressed prior to the review itself. It’s phenomenal. It’s the sandwich scene. If you’ve seen the  film, you know what I’m talking about. To those who haven’t, this film is a build up to a singular  event that ties everything together. That’s what this film is about, tying things together. 

The ending to this movie is what made Sidse Babett Kundsen’s performance an absolute marvel,  and made the story somewhat interesting. But what is Wildland? Well, besides that great way to  resolve the movie, not much else happened. The film ending was literally the best part of it.

Wildland takes place in Denmark, following the perspective of Ida, a seventeen-year-old girl that  has recently lost her mother. Now orphaned, she must navigate the world of organized crime, as  well as be a member of her extended family, the group that controls it.  

Interesting premise, right? Nope. 

Ida is a static character. She has no real goals, no real passions, and no real personality. Her only  action following the world warping midpoint (no spoilers), is to survive. Survival is nice motive,  and a pretty clear-cut goal, but she doesn’t change. Action and inaction is indistinguishable.  Things happen to her, but she doesn’t make any true decisions on her own. She has no real say to  the film’s ending, therefore having no real purpose to the story besides being a surrogate for the  audience. Sandra Guldberg Kampp does a good job portraying the character and her fears, but is  given nothing to really work with. Her emotional status goes from dissatisfied, to annoyed, to  fearful, before going right back to dissatisfied. The fearful part of her performance was great, but  it is shocking how one note both her character, and other characters, were at times. 

But there were characters and performances that did stand out. 

The performance given by Sidse Babett Kundsen, the mother of the group, is one of the best of  the film. She goes from controlling mother, to sincere aunt, to dominating matriarch, in a matter  of moments. 

The film has real shining moments, moments in which both the scenario and the characters really shined though. A moment that was engaging was when the family believes that Ida has turned on them. Ida’s character becomes a pariah to the adopted family. The fact that Sidse Babett  Kundsen’s performance, and the performances of the rest of the family changed, was something  that made this movie stand out. The hostility was palpable. But this moment is wounded. Wounded by its story. 

Yes, this is a film about family, but I have to say that this is the most-mild gang of racketeers on  planet earth. If it wasn’t for the occasional picking up of young children, and the usual trips to a “seedy” bar, I would have guessed that this was just a family of misfits, not gangers. This is a  gangster story that takes place mostly in a kitchen. Maybe that must have been the filmmaker’s  point, having characters be not so stereotypical, but this scenario could have been played around  better. Fleshed out and taken to its ultimate form, rather than having characters moseying about. This critic isn’t asking for a Godfather type of mafia, but at least have something. 

How is this problem created? How does a mob story become whittled down to a drama stuck in a  random Danish home? This film suffers what a lot of independent films suffer from: one location-itus. A disease that mostly starts with the financing side of the industry, but eventually  makes its way to the creative aspects of the story. If done correctly, having one location can be beneficial, even engaging, such as Reservoir Dogs and 12 Angry Men. If done wrong, one location can be boring. It can cause the story to have nothing happen to its characters.  

In Wildland, nothing really happens.

Wildland is not bad, not in the slightest, just terribly misguided. If the storyline’s structure was  reworked, it would have been a much better film. The film picks up the pace after the midpoint, but is severely wounded by a beginning that tries too hard to draw out the relationships between  the characters, and carrying out scenes that go nowhere. If you’re interested in Wildland, be prepared for a great mid-point and finale, but don’t be  surprised if you are dissatisfied with an uninteresting protagonist and an uninteresting world.