All the Money in the World

اچھی فلم!

اچھی فلم!

source: All the Money in the World

Although this dragged on and on for most of the movie, the addition of the totally OTT fictitious rescue chase scene at the end, pushed this film into the ridiculous. On top of that, the portrayal as the mother as the new "heir" was just so stùpid, and further pushed this into unrealistic and simplistic happily ever after stories.

By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened... I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance. A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film. Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more. I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland. I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame. All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission. Letter Grade: B 7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)

How does Plummer do it? Shows up on a day or two notice, then proceeds to steal the film from underneath everyone! He is incredible, those Golden Globe & Oscar noms were deserved. Scott is an expert director, and knows how to pace, stage and film each and every scene perfectly. Wahberg hasn't been as good as this since 'The Departed', and Michelle Williams is a revelation. Goodbye Streep, I'll take Michelle anyday! This plays as a gritty thriller, tempered with some humour, within a great script that maintains your interest and no fat left to trim! I loved this film, I hope the controversy over recasting doesn't keep anyone from enjoying it!

OK, it is a finished cinematic production. Done deal. It delivers. But it is just ok. In the first 120 seconds, there is black & white imagery of a beautiful night-life city, people eating outside, cars and scooters jamming together for the city's ritual late-evening social life, the prostitutes with roman ruins on the background. Yes, this is Rome in the mid-Seventies. Great. Just Great. But then, after the 120 seconds, this beautiful retro vintage display is never shown again. What follows is quite conventional movie-making and story-telling. And the story in the movie takes quite some liberties to make it more appealing to viewing audiences. I guess real-life is boring. Yeah, the night-time involvement by the mother, walking in the alleys of the countryside town, knocking on doors and asking if they have seen this teenager, well, that was just pure fantasy. And when the boy reunites with the mother, that was total eye-swelling tear-producing drama. Even the location where the kid was kidnapped was not accurately portrayed. It looked more like Porta Maggiore, when in reality it was Piazza Farnese. Despite all these and many more misgivings, the decor, clothing, style, objects, indoor architecture, was all accurately displayed. Even the posters on the wall next to the phone booth were timed to the time: "Solidarieta' con il popolo Cileno di Allende" (Chile just had a political coup by general Pinochet). A positive note: the Italian spoken language was indeed Italian, with (almost) correctly-applied accents, to show they were from the South (English subtitles appeared). This gives more authenticity. On a side note, I think the kidnappers where shown to be a bit too "wild" or "rough". You know, unshaven faces, rough edges, crumpled clothing. On a final note, it seems to me that American film-making is heavily focused on actors performance on playing a role. And that is what most critics comment on, when reviews are broadcast-ed or printed on American media. On contrast, European film-making is more slanted on the overall social condition or message and less on the individual actor's performance. This film was definitely more slanted on the American model, although some weak references on the social environment of the kidnappers came subtly through. So go and see the film and then, next time you tour Italy, go to Canale Monterano on the northwest of Rome, and visit the XVII century ruin and ghost town, that was used as filming location.

I Was disappointed in this one. This movie had the right ingredients great experience. Good actors, a great story... While you can't say this movie has bad acting, During the movie you really can't bond with these characters because the story doesn't stick on the characters. For me Ridley real missed a opportunity with this picture. 'sorry for my bad English'

"All The Money In the World" (2017 release; 132 min.) is "inspired by true events", we are reminded at the beginning. As the movie opens, we are told it is "Rome, 1973", where we see the 16 yr. old Paul Getty (whose grandfather J. Paul Getty is the richest man in the world's history) is wandering the streets of Rome late one night, only to be abducted. Soon thereafter the abductors demand a ransom of $17 million (about $99 million in today's money). When Paul's mom approaches the elder Getty, he refuses to pay. The voice over by Paul reminds us: "We look just like you but are nothing like you..." The movie then gives us the nutshell version of how J Paul Getty made his fortune, taking us to "Saudi Arabia 1948" and the "Toulon, France Shipyard, 1958". At this point we're 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out. Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from director Ridley Scott, now a crisp 80 years young if you can believe it. Here he recounts the events surrounding the kidnapping of J. Paul Getty's grandson.. I hope for your enjoyment's sake that, as was the case for me, you don't know how this ends up, I don't want to say much more than that, other than to hold on to your chairs... You have have heard that, resulting from the sexual assault allegations, the movie makers decided to reshoot his scenes... after the movie had been completed and with less than 5 weeks to go before its release. Scott apparently relished the challenge, and Christopher Plummer was recast at J Paul Getty. Not only did the film makers pull it off, but I have to say that Plummer is so outstanding in this role, that I cannot imagine Spacey for this role. Plummer casts a long shadow (in the best possible way) over this movie, almost at the expense of Michelle Williams (as Paul's mother). Mark Wahlberg plays Chase, a former CIA operative and designated by Getty as the negotiator to try and get Paul released. Bottom line: this is a great real life crime drama that also looks at the isolating effect of being so rich that you never know whether anyone around you is sincere or simply in it for the money. "All The Money In the World" opened wide today. While I wanted to see it, it was actually my grown-up kids who choose this for our annual Christmas Day movie. The early evening screening where we saw this at here in Cincinnati was completely sold out down to the last seat, Given the positive buzz and word-of-mouth this movie will likely create, this movie may have surprisingly long legs at the box office, even more so if high profile award nominations continue to come in (it already did quite well with 4 Golden Globe nominations). In any event, I encourage you to check out "All the Money in the World", be it in the theater, on Amazon Instant Video or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusions.

"A Getty is special. A Getty is nobody's friend." J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) If Ridley Scott's All the Money in the World does anything well, it shows the banality of crime and wealth, at least as this abduction/ransom motif plays out. It's the story inspired by the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer) in 1973, his grandfather's resistance to paying the Italian Red Brigade's ransom demand, and the heroic effort of his mother, Gail Harris (Michelle Williams), to bring her son back alive. After slogging through the tepid back story (disjointed to say the least), the story gains strength through the passions of its leading players, both of whom have strong feelings about the right way to respond to the kidnappers' demand for $17 million ransom. Mom would pay, considering grandpa is the richest man who ever lived, and he does not in principle want to capitulate. Yet he may also have reasons to deny the ransom, one that paying would open floodgates of abductions for his other grandchildren and a point made later on but nonetheless fascinating history about the nature of the Getty fortune. Regardless, the central conflict of the story is not the kidnapping but the struggle between patriarch and daughter-in-law for the soul of the family and the deliverance of III. Although the cross editing between home and kidnappers is sometimes jarring, the director makes the audience feel as if it's present at the contentious proceedings. Trying to understand why the old man resists the ransom is a most difficult situation for parents who couldn't possibly do anything other than pay, but the audience can witness the arguments as if right there among the players. Coldness pervades this film, as if Scott were able to let the audience feel the lack of warmth from the old man's. Several scenes show him in front of large fireplaces, evoking a Citizen Kane ambience. Getty echoes the self-centered, aloof, lonely Charles Foster Kane. For the history and the acting, All the Money in the World is worth enjoying this season. Williams plays a resolute and resourceful mother and Plummer infuses the Scrooge-like Getty with a humanity that feels like we are with the real tycoon. The film is also a cautionary tale about the corruption of wealth and the tenuous familial relations when money is the major player. See it and be happy with your small fortune, which may be, I hope, your loved ones.