Skip to main content

All the Money in the World Pays Off


All the Money in the World is a miracle. To get the elephant in the room out of the way quickly, this was the film directed by Ridley Scott who in one month completely re-shot and re-edited a chunk of the already finished product to replace the disgraced Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer, and still make its late December Awards contender release. And now that I’ve seen it, I can say with certainty, that that was accomplished! You can’t tell this film had been hastily reconstructed, and whether you like it or not, that’s an admirable and historic feat for a Hollywood movie.
In 1973, teenager Paul Getty (Charlie Plummer) is kidnapped by a powerful crime syndicate while in Rome and held for a ransom of $17 million. The kidnappers expect his extremely wealthy oil magnate grandfather J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) to pay it, however he refuses. So it’s up to Paul’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams), cut off from the Getty fortune due to a divorce, to raise the money or find her son with the help of one of Getty’s men Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg).
It clearly shows why Ridley Scott was so determined to complete this film, because his heart is really in it. The film is consistently intense and permeated with an urgency that’s carried by its actors and screenplay. The story is divided between the efforts by Gail to appeal to Getty or track Paul’s kidnappers, and Paul’s imprisonment and torture, both done in gritty detail. This is a movie that manages to be unexpected, even if you know what really happened. A number of close calls keep you on the edge of your seat and they’re shot with some of the realism Scott exhibited in Black Hawk Down, sometimes to an extensive degree. There’s one scene that if you know the story, you’ll be expecting, but it’s still shocking and gruelling to watch. With all this, the film has, of all things, a very classicist tone. This is especially with regards to how the character of Getty is played, with an air of limitless power, but also the arrogance, bitterness, and entitlement that goes along with it. He’s a figure quite evocative of a Roman Emperor, which is emphasized by his enormous collection of antiques and antiquities. The focus on the family dynamic is also really strong, the weight of the Getty name, and how the public react to the kidnapping. Obviously there’s plenty of moments where Gail is barraged by press, but there are also things like the suggestion by Chase, Getty, and implicitly more not directly involved, that the kidnapping may be a fake to extort money from the senior Getty. Each relationship, between Getty and Paul, Getty and Gail, and even Paul’s father John Jr. (Andrew Buchan) is fascinating, and has an echo of a historic dynasty.
Christopher Plummer is absolutely terrific as Getty; more so in the knowledge that the 88 year old took on the role at the last minute on a tight schedule. Even without the Spacey scandal, Plummer is a much better actor and could only be an improvement. He dominates every one of his scenes with his breadth of presence, capturing the complex motivations and feelings of the miserly tycoon with remarkable ease; and he’s sure to receive recognition come Awards season. Also worthy of attention is Michelle Williams as the strong and persistent Gail, desperate to get her son back, but formidably going forward with any option that presents itself. In one scene she notes that the press want her to cry for her son, but she’s far too fearless to do so. Yet at the same time, she’s still driven by emotion and duress, using it to her advantage. She’s one hell of a great character and Williams delivers another stellar performance. Mark Wahlberg is great as one of the films’ most conflicted characters; so is Romain Duris as the other, one of Paul’s captors who develops a sympathetic relationship with the boy. And the younger Plummer (unrelated to the elder) is really convincing as Paul -as anxious and frightened in his circumstances as the audience. It’s also nice to see Andrew Buchan, if only in a small part as Paul’s bum of an addict dad.
All the Money in the World is certainly the far better Ridley Scott film of 2017 (Alien: Covenant wishes it could have been this tense). For pulling this movie out despite the odds, credit goes to a lot of the crew, but especially Scott and his editor Claire Simpson for organically working a solid third of reshoots into the finished movie in what I’m sure must have been record time. It goes to show that despite his bad films, Scott is still an absolute pro, and this was a very good movie to prove it with.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more