All the Money in the World stars Michelle Williams as the vexed but headstrong Gail; mother of the sixteen-year-old John Paul Getty (Charlie Plummer), the eldest heir to the Getty family oil fortune. On the night of July 10, 1973, the young John Paul is picked up by a windowless van along the Plazza Farese in Rome. He is quietly kidnapped by masked men asking for a fortune in ransom from his grandfather, then the richest man in the world. Unbeknownst to the kidnappers and frightfully well known to the rest of his family, Gail included, J. Getty (Christopher Plummer) is an impossibly frugal man.
I came in knowing little to nothing about the plot of the film which definitely helped the viewing experience overall. The tension created by the increasing desperation of the kidnappers combined with Getty's miserly behavior turned what could have been a dry retelling of events into a really taut suspense thriller. You never truly know if the end result is going to go by way of Patty Hearst or the Lindbergh baby but what is clear is due to Getty's ambivalence we're in for a long siege.
This may prove daunting to some. The thrust of the narrative starts and stops due to the waiting game brought on by actual events. This then allows a talent like Scott to indulge in what he likes best i.e. symbolism, thematic overlapping, philosophical back-and-forths largely having to do with aesthetics, social, political and moral subtexts that are highlighted over and over etc. It's basically the same stuff that made fans of the Alien franchise bristle from Prometheus (2012) and Alien: Covenant (2017) but this being a drama, it suddenly becomes easier to swallow.
Additionally the very inclusion of Mark Wahlberg as security expert Fletcher Chase (that name though), may give audiences the impression that we're in for more fodder than what ends up being on screen. The actor serves basically connective tissue - a conduit in which Getty is to impose his power and Gail her humanity. It works for the purposes of the story but there's no denying he wears out his welcome. When his arc swells into a third-act, heartfelt speech of moral indignation I personally got flashbacks to his role in Patriots Day (2016).
Markie Mark aside, the acting, the direction and the period detail is largely top-notch with Michelle Williams deserving special praise as the worried mother who refuses to be a victim. Early on we see Gail and Getty's dynamic. Her tenuous connection to the family dynasty is a small, fragile piece of the movies thematic core but she wields it mightily against Getty who seems to think everything has its price.
Much ado was made about and Ridley Scott's baffling decision to do extensive reshoots after wrap, after Kevin Spacey's sexual harassment allegations were brought to light. The goal was to remove the actor entirely and replace him with Plummer, the actor Scott originally wanted to play the role in question, but couldn't due to scheduling. I for one was skeptical of this decision. Even if the gifted director, actor and the production team were able to convincingly remove Spacey via cut, paste and shoot around - a task I assumed was impossible, the question would always remain in my mind, should they? Mind you not from a moral standpoint, Spacey is in all likelihood a man-handsy bridge troll; I'm talking artistically and casting wise. If you were to tell me Plummer was to be plugged into any other Spacey role I'd call you nut. Would this actually work?
I'm glad to say it did and not just technically either. Plummer is fabulous to the point where it's hard to see anyone else wondering ambulant down the art filled halls of Getty's Xanadu. From the moment of his introduction to the old curmudgeon's last bow, Plummer effortlessly transports us into the mind of a vainglorious, money-hungry miser. He assumes he takes his place among emperors and captains of industry even while this story posits he belongs among murderers and thieves. We may never know what Spacey did to accent the role but based on what little knowledge I have, I'm going to trust Scott on his discussion.
Of course now that it's possible to effectively remove problem actors from projects with only the size of Wahlberg's shoulder pads being a tell, more uncomfortable questions emerge. It's clear from the thoughts of industry insiders and anonymous online comments that people are still reeling from the very thought of digital removal and replacement. Yesterday it was Superman's mustache; today it's Frank Underwood, who knows what tomorrow may bring.
It's a discussion for another time however. Long after the smoke has cleared and the initial controversy subsides, it's likely All the Money in the World will take its place near the top of Ridley Scott's lesser works. It's good, even great in portions but some of the film's pacing issues and on-screen indulgences cripple the film from being anything more than a good yarn.
I came in knowing little to nothing about the plot of the film which definitely helped the viewing experience overall. The tension created by the increasing desperation of the kidnappers combined with Getty's miserly behavior turned what could have been a dry retelling of events into a really taut suspense thriller. You never truly know if the end result is going to go by way of Patty Hearst or the Lindbergh baby but what is clear is due to Getty's ambivalence we're in for a long siege.
This may prove daunting to some. The thrust of the narrative starts and stops due to the waiting game brought on by actual events. This then allows a talent like Scott to indulge in what he likes best i.e. symbolism, thematic overlapping, philosophical back-and-forths largely having to do with aesthetics, social, political and moral subtexts that are highlighted over and over etc. It's basically the same stuff that made fans of the Alien franchise bristle from Prometheus (2012) and Alien: Covenant (2017) but this being a drama, it suddenly becomes easier to swallow.
Additionally the very inclusion of Mark Wahlberg as security expert Fletcher Chase (that name though), may give audiences the impression that we're in for more fodder than what ends up being on screen. The actor serves basically connective tissue - a conduit in which Getty is to impose his power and Gail her humanity. It works for the purposes of the story but there's no denying he wears out his welcome. When his arc swells into a third-act, heartfelt speech of moral indignation I personally got flashbacks to his role in Patriots Day (2016).
Markie Mark aside, the acting, the direction and the period detail is largely top-notch with Michelle Williams deserving special praise as the worried mother who refuses to be a victim. Early on we see Gail and Getty's dynamic. Her tenuous connection to the family dynasty is a small, fragile piece of the movies thematic core but she wields it mightily against Getty who seems to think everything has its price.
Much ado was made about and Ridley Scott's baffling decision to do extensive reshoots after wrap, after Kevin Spacey's sexual harassment allegations were brought to light. The goal was to remove the actor entirely and replace him with Plummer, the actor Scott originally wanted to play the role in question, but couldn't due to scheduling. I for one was skeptical of this decision. Even if the gifted director, actor and the production team were able to convincingly remove Spacey via cut, paste and shoot around - a task I assumed was impossible, the question would always remain in my mind, should they? Mind you not from a moral standpoint, Spacey is in all likelihood a man-handsy bridge troll; I'm talking artistically and casting wise. If you were to tell me Plummer was to be plugged into any other Spacey role I'd call you nut. Would this actually work?
I'm glad to say it did and not just technically either. Plummer is fabulous to the point where it's hard to see anyone else wondering ambulant down the art filled halls of Getty's Xanadu. From the moment of his introduction to the old curmudgeon's last bow, Plummer effortlessly transports us into the mind of a vainglorious, money-hungry miser. He assumes he takes his place among emperors and captains of industry even while this story posits he belongs among murderers and thieves. We may never know what Spacey did to accent the role but based on what little knowledge I have, I'm going to trust Scott on his discussion.
Of course now that it's possible to effectively remove problem actors from projects with only the size of Wahlberg's shoulder pads being a tell, more uncomfortable questions emerge. It's clear from the thoughts of industry insiders and anonymous online comments that people are still reeling from the very thought of digital removal and replacement. Yesterday it was Superman's mustache; today it's Frank Underwood, who knows what tomorrow may bring.
It's a discussion for another time however. Long after the smoke has cleared and the initial controversy subsides, it's likely All the Money in the World will take its place near the top of Ridley Scott's lesser works. It's good, even great in portions but some of the film's pacing issues and on-screen indulgences cripple the film from being anything more than a good yarn.