All the Money in the World (2017)

All the Money in the World (2017) What an extreme pathology, yet with a twist. J. Paul Getty was known to me mostly as the man who left a fortune when he died that became the Getty Art Museum. Which was famous (and still is) for having deep pockets. Very deep. So Getty, from 20th Century oil enterprises, was really rich. Hence the name of the movie. But they should have clued us in, I suppose (for better sales) that it's about Getty's grandson, who early in the movie (no spoiler) gets kidnapped. What follows is a two part story-the kidnappers and their prey, and the grandfather and other family members. And it's the grandfather who matters most, played with conviction by a rather too-old Christopher Plummer (as a famous last minute substitute for someone who we won't mention). Plummer is ruthless and seemingly heartless. His daughter-in-law is the one sympathetic character here (besides the grandson, I suppose, but he isn't developed very far), and she suffers and struggles. It's her son out there in the hands of some thugs. The movie is good Very good in some ways, but routinely made. And that of course is very good. The story is great, so that holds it up, and the pacing is slow, which brings it back to earth. The kidnappers are made to seem interesting and one of them (played by the great French actor Romain Duris) is given some depth, but really this is the other half of a fascinating situation, and some nuance would have been great. Surprisingly, this is not only produced by also directed by Ridley Scott. And this lacks the originality and spark we'd expect from him. But Plummer is terrific and so is Michelle Williams as the daughter/mother. Mark Wahlberg is a drip and a mistake (he plays a kind of do-it-all man for Getty, and he's very average).

I liked this movie very well. It clearly indicates that there are skilled people both in front and behind the camera. In review I read before I saw it, Christopher Plummer's efforts are drawn to be superb. I agree that he is good at the role of the ice-cold Getty, as the film portrays as a brutal and highly calculating person. The money controls everything.But my personal favorite is Michelle Williams as his daughter in law. Once again she takes a key role in a very good way, giving the film both credibility and lifting it with her efforts. Williams is best in scenes with just her father-in-law and his people. She is good as a mother who does everything for her child, but at the same time tackles the raw circumstances she has to fight.Read the least before you see this one. The action is known, as it is based on a true story. The story of the film is therefore quite slow. Instead, we get underlying stories that tell more about the people involved. This makes an interpreter that sees and strengthens the film, in my opinion. The movie is good, so I do not understand the bad reviews.

Christopher Plummer gives an apppropriately icy turn as the mean billionaire J Paul Getty, who claims to love his grandson Paul, yet won't pay the ransom to free him after he is kidnapped. In the hands of the ruthless Italian mafia, Paul, played with moving vulnerability by Charlie Plummer, is kept imprisoned in a cave and has his ear cut off. Director Ridley Scott doesn't spare us the gory procedure. It shows how soulless and inhuman the kidnappers are. They cook for their families and dance and don't care that Paul is suffering. Interestingly, like Getty, all they care about is money. The cinematography, both in Italy and at Getty's mansion in England, is mostly washed out and grey, as if to reflect the poor state of the characters' souls. As the private detective Getty hires to find Paul, Mark Wahlberg is a little confusing. He starts off as a faithful Getty servant but later turns on him - swearing at him, which I find hard to believe he would do. Paul's mother Gail is the moral centre of the film and with her ex husband, Paul's father JP junior, a drug addled mess, Gail is a tower of strength. As Gail, Michelle Williams is intelligent and understated. Gail actually loves her son, and unlike so many others, will step up and fight to get him back. It's really sad that Getty wasn't able to use his wealth for good. He shirked his duty to his family, and missed out on a lot of love in return, as the scene of a boy Paul, holding Getty's hand as they go through some Roman ruins.

It's 1973. One night, 16 year old John Paul Getty III is kidnapped off the streets of Rome. The kidnappers want $17 million. His mother Gail (Michelle Williams) has nothing. Her ex-husband is a drug addict but it's ex-father-in-law, Jean Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), who is the richest man in the world. JPG is a ruthless oil baron and a penny pinching miser. He puts his fixer Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg) on the case.This movie will always be more known for the controversy from Kevin Spacey as the original JPG. It's not a bad movie but it's not good enough to overtake the behind-the-scene scandal. Quite frankly, Christopher Plummer is a better choice for the role. He needs to be a Scrooge, powerful without the anger. Spacey would probably take it too far. Michelle Williams does solid work as always. She's that good. On the other hand, Wahlberg continues to insists on being the hero of piece which is very annoying. He takes it too far. In one scene, he confronts Getty and I actually felt bad for the bastard. He diminishes the picture. I also note that there is TV show about the same historical drama and I really like that show. This is solid work but the history of this movie will always start with the scandal.