This movie is one of old classy types where tension is built around dialogues and the predicament characters find themselves in. Christopher plummer is riveting as a greedy billionaire who thinks about evading tax in every walk of his life and want to be in control of everything he sees. Michelle williams is terrific as a caring mother and not the usual dumb potrayals you normally find in these kind of movies. She is smart, witty and sees hope even in darker moments . The scene where she asks "Do they want me to cry?" potrays the real emotion people go through in situations like these. Mark wahlberg is more of a cliched character where you can predict pretty much what he will do. There are intense scenes in second half where the kid acted really well and you felt the pain character went through. Even though its a serious film, you might find humor in traces which made sure its an enjoyable watch.
293 Reviews
Greed
ThomasDrufke30 December 2017
It's nearly impossible to separate what happened off screen with the final product of All the Money in the World. With that said, Ridley Scott pretty much couldn't have done a better job at making a seamless transition from Kevin Spacey to Christopher Plummer in the role of J. Paul Getty. Inevitably that will be the one thing people always remember about this film, but in the end, the film succeeds elsewhere as a thriller based around the kidnapping of Getty's grandson in Rome in 1973.
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film is its non-stop pacing. Whether or not all of the bells and whistles of this story were true, Scott is determined to keep you on the edge of your seat with suspense, even if you ultimately know where the story ends up. And luckily, this story is perfect for a cinematic experience. The true events are unfortunately tragic for many involved, but in the end it's the character of J. Paul Getty that makes for a truly riveting character to watch. Not willing to budge to pay a single dime for his grandson's ransom is beyond frugal, and the fact that the events didn't play out in an even worse manor is a miracle.
Getty's pushback (or lack thereof) makes for a great back and forth with his daughter in law, Gail Harris (played by Michelle Williams). Williams is brilliant in everything, and she once again kills it as the desperate but under control mother of a kidnapped son. She will likely be overshadowed by Plummer come award shows, but Williams' talent will never go unnoticed from me.
Ultimately, All the Money in the World is a fascinating tale of greed, frugality, power, and the differences in people's approach in high stress situations. From great performances to an impressive and important feat from Scott's last minute direction, I quite appreciated All the Money in the World.
7.9/10
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film is its non-stop pacing. Whether or not all of the bells and whistles of this story were true, Scott is determined to keep you on the edge of your seat with suspense, even if you ultimately know where the story ends up. And luckily, this story is perfect for a cinematic experience. The true events are unfortunately tragic for many involved, but in the end it's the character of J. Paul Getty that makes for a truly riveting character to watch. Not willing to budge to pay a single dime for his grandson's ransom is beyond frugal, and the fact that the events didn't play out in an even worse manor is a miracle.
Getty's pushback (or lack thereof) makes for a great back and forth with his daughter in law, Gail Harris (played by Michelle Williams). Williams is brilliant in everything, and she once again kills it as the desperate but under control mother of a kidnapped son. She will likely be overshadowed by Plummer come award shows, but Williams' talent will never go unnoticed from me.
Ultimately, All the Money in the World is a fascinating tale of greed, frugality, power, and the differences in people's approach in high stress situations. From great performances to an impressive and important feat from Scott's last minute direction, I quite appreciated All the Money in the World.
7.9/10
True-story crime drama from director Ridley Scott was a logistical accomplishment
AlsExGal18 December 2019
The film tells the story of the 1973 kidnapping of J. Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer). He's held for an exorbitant ransom, but the kidnappers figure that since the young man's grandfather is J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), the richest man in the world, he shouldn't have a problem paying it. They don't know Getty, a notorious cheapskate and skinflint who first refuses to pay any ransom, and then tries to negotiate it down to only an amount that is tax deductible. This naturally infuriates the boy's mother Gail Harris (Michelle Williams), who works with Getty family security chief Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg) on getting the boy home safely.
Director Scott keeps things moving swiftly along, offering various snapshot flashbacks to moments in the Getty family past to help illustrate the unique familial ties at play. Michelle Williams continues to show an amazing amount of range in her characterizations and accent work. Wahlberg has little to do, and is at times a distraction, although he gets a good "telling 'em off" scene near the end. Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) is good as the unfortunate kidnap victim, and I was impressed with Romain Duris as a sympathetic kidnapper. But all eyes were on Christopher Plummer when this was released, thanks to all of the controversy.
As most will recall, original co-star Kevin Spacey became the focus of much public outrage after accusations against him were made, and director Scott and the film's other producers made the unusual decision to completely reshoot his scenes with Plummer in the role, all mere weeks before the movie's scheduled release. Not only did they succeed, but I can't imagine Spacey being nearly as good as Plummer is as the soulless Getty patriarch. Plummer's Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor was viewed by many as acknowledging the logistical accomplishment, , as much as for the actual performance. But while I could argue that Plummer's is actually a co-leading role, I will say that his nomination was warranted for the acting job.
Director Scott keeps things moving swiftly along, offering various snapshot flashbacks to moments in the Getty family past to help illustrate the unique familial ties at play. Michelle Williams continues to show an amazing amount of range in her characterizations and accent work. Wahlberg has little to do, and is at times a distraction, although he gets a good "telling 'em off" scene near the end. Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher) is good as the unfortunate kidnap victim, and I was impressed with Romain Duris as a sympathetic kidnapper. But all eyes were on Christopher Plummer when this was released, thanks to all of the controversy.
As most will recall, original co-star Kevin Spacey became the focus of much public outrage after accusations against him were made, and director Scott and the film's other producers made the unusual decision to completely reshoot his scenes with Plummer in the role, all mere weeks before the movie's scheduled release. Not only did they succeed, but I can't imagine Spacey being nearly as good as Plummer is as the soulless Getty patriarch. Plummer's Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor was viewed by many as acknowledging the logistical accomplishment, , as much as for the actual performance. But while I could argue that Plummer's is actually a co-leading role, I will say that his nomination was warranted for the acting job.
your money or his life
ferguson-622 December 2017
Greetings again from the darkness. The grandson of J Paul Getty, the wealthiest man in the world, was kidnapped while in Rome in 1973. That fascinating story holds more than enough drama for an engaging movie, and certainly did not need the notoriety or artistic challenges brought on by the Kevin Spacey scandal. With filming completed and a release date mere weeks away, director Ridley Scott made the decision to erase all evidence of Mr. Spacey's J Paul Getty, and replace him with Oscar winner Christopher Plummer. The "do-over" is nearly seamless and it's not a stretch to believe the second version turned out better than the first.
The precisely descriptive titled 1995 John Pearson book "Painfully Rich: The Outrageous Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Heirs of J Paul Getty" is adapted by screenwriter David Scarpa, and it's the storytelling instincts of Mr. Ridley, and remarkable acting of Mr. Plummer and Michelle Williams that keep us engaged for the 132 minute run time.
16 year old John Paul Getty III is played by rising star Charlie Plummer ("Boardwalk Empire", no relation to Christopher), and though this is the story of his kidnapping and violent torture, the movie mostly focuses on the contrasting personalities of his devoted mother Gail Harris (Michelle Williams) and his miserly grandfather J Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), the wealthiest man in the world. She is a woman totally committed to her children while spurning the strings attached to family money. He, on the other hand, has devoted his life to money and winning, ignoring anything that might be construed as loyalty or compassion to family. Having just starred as Ebenezer Scrooge in THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS, this is just about the easiest transition an actor could hope for, given so little prep time for a new role.
The billionaire Getty refuses to pay the ransom, instead dispatching his security specialist Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg) to negotiate the boy's release. As a former CIA operative, Chase misreads both the situation with the abductors and the strength and determination of Gail. We get periodic looks at the captors and the environment where the grandson is being held. Romain Duris (THE BEAT THAT MY HEAR SKIPPED) is excellent as Cinquanta, the captor who spends the most time with the boy. The "ear" scene is explicit enough to elicit groans and shrieks from the audience, so be advised.
"We are not like you" is what the younger Getty tells us as narrator, and he's right. The ultra-rich live in a different world than you and I (assuming you aren't one of "them"), and that's never more clear than when the elder Getty explains his preference for things over people. While we never empathize with the rich miser, director Scott at least helps us understand what made him tick. To him, life was a negotiation and it's all about winning - though his definition of winning could be debated.
The two octogenarians, Mr. Scott (80) and Mr. Plummer (88) work wonders with the outstanding Ms. Williams to make this a relatable story and captivating movie. The elder Getty died in 1976, two months to the day after Howard Hughes, while the grandson Getty had a massive drug overdose in 1981, and died in poor health in 2011, leaving behind his son, actor Balthazar Getty.
The precisely descriptive titled 1995 John Pearson book "Painfully Rich: The Outrageous Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Heirs of J Paul Getty" is adapted by screenwriter David Scarpa, and it's the storytelling instincts of Mr. Ridley, and remarkable acting of Mr. Plummer and Michelle Williams that keep us engaged for the 132 minute run time.
16 year old John Paul Getty III is played by rising star Charlie Plummer ("Boardwalk Empire", no relation to Christopher), and though this is the story of his kidnapping and violent torture, the movie mostly focuses on the contrasting personalities of his devoted mother Gail Harris (Michelle Williams) and his miserly grandfather J Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), the wealthiest man in the world. She is a woman totally committed to her children while spurning the strings attached to family money. He, on the other hand, has devoted his life to money and winning, ignoring anything that might be construed as loyalty or compassion to family. Having just starred as Ebenezer Scrooge in THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS, this is just about the easiest transition an actor could hope for, given so little prep time for a new role.
The billionaire Getty refuses to pay the ransom, instead dispatching his security specialist Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg) to negotiate the boy's release. As a former CIA operative, Chase misreads both the situation with the abductors and the strength and determination of Gail. We get periodic looks at the captors and the environment where the grandson is being held. Romain Duris (THE BEAT THAT MY HEAR SKIPPED) is excellent as Cinquanta, the captor who spends the most time with the boy. The "ear" scene is explicit enough to elicit groans and shrieks from the audience, so be advised.
"We are not like you" is what the younger Getty tells us as narrator, and he's right. The ultra-rich live in a different world than you and I (assuming you aren't one of "them"), and that's never more clear than when the elder Getty explains his preference for things over people. While we never empathize with the rich miser, director Scott at least helps us understand what made him tick. To him, life was a negotiation and it's all about winning - though his definition of winning could be debated.
The two octogenarians, Mr. Scott (80) and Mr. Plummer (88) work wonders with the outstanding Ms. Williams to make this a relatable story and captivating movie. The elder Getty died in 1976, two months to the day after Howard Hughes, while the grandson Getty had a massive drug overdose in 1981, and died in poor health in 2011, leaving behind his son, actor Balthazar Getty.
Passionless
evanston_dad31 December 2017
The true story this film recreates could and should have made a crackling movie, but instead Ridley Scott delivers a serviceable film that hits all of its marks but feels rather bloodless on screen.
As pretty much everyone knows, Christopher Plummer was pulled in at the last minute to play J. Paul Getty, reshooting all of the scenes previously featuring Kevin Spacey in a performance we will now never see thanks to the sexual harassment scandal that emerged about him. Getty refuses to pay the ransom when his grandson is kidnapped, much to the anger and frustration of his ex-daughter-in-law, played by Michelle Williams in a performance that struggles to rise above the middle-brow film making. Mark Wahlberg is Getty's chief security man who's tasked with handling the situation and who eventually sours on Getty as he realizes what a cold-blooded monster he is. All of the performances are fine, but nothing about this movie really ever comes fully to life. Everything we're supposed to feel is telegraphed every step of the way, including the rather obvious moral that a life driven by the acquisition of money and stuff is bound to be an empty one. And the finale, which should be a nail biter, instead is clunky and awkward. Scott's direction in the rest of the film is uninspired but competent; his direction of the film's climax is just bad.
Grade: B-
As pretty much everyone knows, Christopher Plummer was pulled in at the last minute to play J. Paul Getty, reshooting all of the scenes previously featuring Kevin Spacey in a performance we will now never see thanks to the sexual harassment scandal that emerged about him. Getty refuses to pay the ransom when his grandson is kidnapped, much to the anger and frustration of his ex-daughter-in-law, played by Michelle Williams in a performance that struggles to rise above the middle-brow film making. Mark Wahlberg is Getty's chief security man who's tasked with handling the situation and who eventually sours on Getty as he realizes what a cold-blooded monster he is. All of the performances are fine, but nothing about this movie really ever comes fully to life. Everything we're supposed to feel is telegraphed every step of the way, including the rather obvious moral that a life driven by the acquisition of money and stuff is bound to be an empty one. And the finale, which should be a nail biter, instead is clunky and awkward. Scott's direction in the rest of the film is uninspired but competent; his direction of the film's climax is just bad.
Grade: B-
"If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars"
fletcherc2126 December 2017
J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) was the richest man in the world when his grandson (Charlie Plummer) was kidnapped in 1973. He refused to pay a dime of the $17 million dollar, saying he couldn't afford it and it would set a bad precedent. The boy's mother (Michelle Williams) is left with only the aid of the Italian police and a former CIA operative who works for Getty (Mark Wahlberg) to help recover her son.
The film unfolds in a tense drama that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. Michelle Williams is fantastic as a desperate mother willing to do anything to save her child, but having to fight Getty just as much as the kidnappers. Wahlberg is also surprisingly good as the former CIA man that is really a negotiator, not a super spy. The real star is Christopher Plummer's Getty. He is outstanding as an old frail man who built an empire through ruthless negotiations and frugality and refuses to deviate from that even to save his own grandson. His misguided priorities are perfectly displayed by him claiming to not be able to afford the ransom and then spending millions on a new painting. Plummer's performance is all the more impressive considering he stepped in at the last minute and shot all of his scenes in just 8 days.
Ridley Scott blends the experiences of the hostage Paul Getty with the worry of his mother and the indifference of his grandfather beautifully. There is very little wasted movement and my biggest complaints are just the occasionally confusing decisions by some characters, but those decisions are all the ones made by real people at the time, so I can hardly fault Scott.
The film unfolds in a tense drama that keeps the audience on the edge of their seats. Michelle Williams is fantastic as a desperate mother willing to do anything to save her child, but having to fight Getty just as much as the kidnappers. Wahlberg is also surprisingly good as the former CIA man that is really a negotiator, not a super spy. The real star is Christopher Plummer's Getty. He is outstanding as an old frail man who built an empire through ruthless negotiations and frugality and refuses to deviate from that even to save his own grandson. His misguided priorities are perfectly displayed by him claiming to not be able to afford the ransom and then spending millions on a new painting. Plummer's performance is all the more impressive considering he stepped in at the last minute and shot all of his scenes in just 8 days.
Ridley Scott blends the experiences of the hostage Paul Getty with the worry of his mother and the indifference of his grandfather beautifully. There is very little wasted movement and my biggest complaints are just the occasionally confusing decisions by some characters, but those decisions are all the ones made by real people at the time, so I can hardly fault Scott.
This reminds me of" Dynasty" minus the shoulder pads
Sober-Friend30 March 2018
A wealthy oil man's grandson is kidnapped. His son is a broke and gave nothing to his wife in the divorce. Years later the divorced couples son is kidnapped in Rome but evidence points that the boy n may have staged his own kidnapping.
The acting in this is great. The film however seems to go on 2way to long and most viewers who see this at home will be able to hit the "Fast Forward Button"
Worth watching but if you have a limited attention span then skip it
The acting in this is great. The film however seems to go on 2way to long and most viewers who see this at home will be able to hit the "Fast Forward Button"
Worth watching but if you have a limited attention span then skip it
The movie not starring Kevin Spacey
davidgee11 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Ridley Scott revisits the kidnapping of teenager John Paul Getty III by Calabrian gangsters in 1973. JP's parents are divorced; his father JPG II is zonked out on pot and other drugs in Morocco, but he has a devoted mother (Michelle Williams). His zillionaire grandfather JPG the First (Christopher Plummer) refuses to pay the $17 million ransom and tells his ex-CIA security chief (Mark Wahlberg) to rescue the boy.
The opening credits tell us this is "inspired by real events". A few liberties have been taken with the facts as most of us remember them, especially towards the end of the movie. One delicious fact is the British Telecom payphone guests are obliged to use in the hall of Getty's magnificent Tudor mansion in Surrey.
Christopher Plummer is excellent if somewhat OTT as the Scrooge-like mogul. The pace is good, with lots of fast cutting between the family and the kidnappers. It's an okay movie, even a good movie, but it's not in the league of Scott's epic GLADIATOR (which, let's not forget, heavily recycled the plot of BEN HURr).
The big story with ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD is of course the surgical removal of Kevin Spacey from the first final print following his "fall from grace". I read that Spacey's bio-pic of Gore Vidal is now unlikely to be released - a story I'd very much like to see. Is his back-list also going to be shelved, meaning that we will never again see AMERICAN BEAUTY or THE USUAL SUSPECTS? Will Harvey Weinstein's output (including PULP FICTION, KILL BILL and -one of my all-time favourites - SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE) also disappear from TV screens and online video stores?
However vile the "crimes" these two men (and others) have been accused of (and found guilty in the court of public opinion), it surely does not totally degrade the work they - and everyone else involved in those productions - have achieved?
Only asking.
The opening credits tell us this is "inspired by real events". A few liberties have been taken with the facts as most of us remember them, especially towards the end of the movie. One delicious fact is the British Telecom payphone guests are obliged to use in the hall of Getty's magnificent Tudor mansion in Surrey.
Christopher Plummer is excellent if somewhat OTT as the Scrooge-like mogul. The pace is good, with lots of fast cutting between the family and the kidnappers. It's an okay movie, even a good movie, but it's not in the league of Scott's epic GLADIATOR (which, let's not forget, heavily recycled the plot of BEN HURr).
The big story with ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD is of course the surgical removal of Kevin Spacey from the first final print following his "fall from grace". I read that Spacey's bio-pic of Gore Vidal is now unlikely to be released - a story I'd very much like to see. Is his back-list also going to be shelved, meaning that we will never again see AMERICAN BEAUTY or THE USUAL SUSPECTS? Will Harvey Weinstein's output (including PULP FICTION, KILL BILL and -one of my all-time favourites - SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE) also disappear from TV screens and online video stores?
However vile the "crimes" these two men (and others) have been accused of (and found guilty in the court of public opinion), it surely does not totally degrade the work they - and everyone else involved in those productions - have achieved?
Only asking.
Compelling true-story presented exquisitely
Top_Dawg_Critic26 March 2018
The cinematography, set details, directing and acting were all outstanding in this compelling true-story crime drama. Replacing Kevin Spacey with a re-shoot that cost 10M extra was seamless although the editing could have been tighter. The pace could have also been a little faster to make the 133min length not feel like 160 mins. Otherwise a very enjoyable film. 8/10 from me.
Fairly bland - with the exception of Christopher Plummer
bankofmarquis14 February 2018
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)
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)
Plummer Kidnaps The Film
bondscammer27 March 2018
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!
Disappointing!!
Just-A-Girl-1417 October 2019
I was really looking forward to watching this movie. I thought: amazing true story, good cast, great director... It has to be great, right? WRONG!!!
I'm very disappointed! First of all, there was absolutely no need to change the story. This shouldn't have been a movie that was "inspired" by real events. Meaning, they should have stuck with the actual story, step by step. What happened to John Paul Getty III is absolutely astonishing! Why in the world would they change it is beyond me! The details that were left out of the movie and the things they added to it (that didn't really happen) only destroyed the story!
Second, this is not Mark Wahlberg's and Michelle Williams' best performances. Christopher Plummer and Charlie Plummer did a much better job.
Third, I didn't like the pace of the movie. It was slow and boring at parts.
All in all, it wasn't what I expected from a Ridley Scott movie! The only thing I really liked was the title of the movie because it is so true and accurate - all the money in the world couldn't saved this family.
This could and should have been a breathtaking movie!
I'm very disappointed! First of all, there was absolutely no need to change the story. This shouldn't have been a movie that was "inspired" by real events. Meaning, they should have stuck with the actual story, step by step. What happened to John Paul Getty III is absolutely astonishing! Why in the world would they change it is beyond me! The details that were left out of the movie and the things they added to it (that didn't really happen) only destroyed the story!
Second, this is not Mark Wahlberg's and Michelle Williams' best performances. Christopher Plummer and Charlie Plummer did a much better job.
Third, I didn't like the pace of the movie. It was slow and boring at parts.
All in all, it wasn't what I expected from a Ridley Scott movie! The only thing I really liked was the title of the movie because it is so true and accurate - all the money in the world couldn't saved this family.
This could and should have been a breathtaking movie!
Would have been better if they stuck to the facts
duckonthedam18 October 2019
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.
Get the Getty story and an Oscar-worthy performance at the same time.
JohnDeSando23 December 2017
"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.
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.
Hostages to Fortune
richardchatten25 January 2021
Watching this film reminded me of the old joke about Jack Benny being held up with the demand "Your money or your life!!" Followed by a long silence.
"Well?" The hold-up man finally demands.
"I'm thinking, I'm thinking...!"
"Well?" The hold-up man finally demands.
"I'm thinking, I'm thinking...!"
Much gratuitous liberties
arzewski26 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Startling story but a sometimes slow and routine telling of it
secondtake25 July 2018
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. The story is great, so that holds it up, yet 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).
Still, lots of interesting twists, and a worthy story for a film.
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. The story is great, so that holds it up, yet 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).
Still, lots of interesting twists, and a worthy story for a film.
Entertaining movie
nicorip2224 March 2021
kevin spacey who?
sunchick116-872-58338325 March 2018
First thing i want to address that i have seen here, is that christopher plummer WAS NOT superimposed on kevin spacey's face. he was removed completely and all his scenes reshot with plummer. that being said, when i saw the original commercial, i couldn't understand why they cast spacey in the first place. he looked TERRIBLE. plummer was a much better choice, and the studio is crazy for not originally realizing that. now onto the film itself, i feel like i'm maybe writing this review prematurely because this film was quite slow, but i don't think that was a bad thing. i never checked my watch or wanted them to speed it up, i was just surprised that a ridley scott movie WOULD be slow. that being said, there was something missing about the film and i think it was the casting. i think it would have been a complete disaster with spacey. michelle williams was awful as always, mark wahlberg was uneventful, and the kid who played III just annoying. that being said, not the worst film, just anti-climatic.
Eye of the Needle
clarkj-565-16133626 December 2017
There is a passage from the Bible that says that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven. This movie is a testament to that. The acting is outstanding, you really feel like you are there. The mood of Italy and Europe of the 1970s infuses the film. Terrorism is in the air with the Munich Olympics of 1972, the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof gang. The depiction of Getty the oil magnate is shown to us by his various statements and actions. A truly gothic character. The gangster kidnappers are also frightening in their normal everyday lives that accept criminality as if it were like a walk in the park. Hard to believe a time of telephone booths, ringing telephones and sending letters. Ransom demands took time.
Just the film I needed to see in theatres
Ingrouille18123 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I hardly go to theatres to see non-blockbuster/Superhero/Horror movies, and the first one I did see was 2016's The Light Between Oceans. That was the first film like that I saw, difference between this and that is one, it's not boring as hell, and two, it's based on a true story; truly proving that real life is scarier than fiction.
The story focuses on the kidnapping and ransoming of Paul Getty III, the grandson of Paul Getty Sr., who was by the 1970's, one of the richest people alive. Things take a dark turn however when Getty Sr. refuses to pay his grandsons ransom, and his mother is desperate to find the money, whether raising it herself, or pleading for Getty pay it himself.
We're all aware of the Kevin Spacey controversy, and really the "oh so SHOCKING" Hollywood scandals, so they had to recast the role of Getty with Christopher Plummer. Even though Spacey no doubt would have been great in the role, Plummer is great as a replacement. He really sells the character of a withered man fed up with the people around him scrounging him for his fortune. You can understand why he doesn't pay the ransom, even with the people around him condemning him. The scene where you think he's handing over the ransom money, but it turns out to be money for an art piece he's purchasing; really shows he cares more for antiques than his family.
Everyone else is really good. I especially loved Michelle Williams as Getty III's mother Gail Harris, you really feel her frustration with Getty Sr. and her desperation finding the ransom money. Mark Wahlberg was good, though I felt like anyone could have played his character. A grade material FROM Marky Mark definitely, just not A grade material FOR him, he didn't really fit. I also liked the actor who played Getty III. One actor who stands out is Romain Duris who portrays one of Getty III's kidnappers. He's a really good character who keeps your interest.
Overall, All the Money in the World really pulled through, great directing, pacing, and especially acting from everyone. I'll give it an 8 out of 10.
The story focuses on the kidnapping and ransoming of Paul Getty III, the grandson of Paul Getty Sr., who was by the 1970's, one of the richest people alive. Things take a dark turn however when Getty Sr. refuses to pay his grandsons ransom, and his mother is desperate to find the money, whether raising it herself, or pleading for Getty pay it himself.
We're all aware of the Kevin Spacey controversy, and really the "oh so SHOCKING" Hollywood scandals, so they had to recast the role of Getty with Christopher Plummer. Even though Spacey no doubt would have been great in the role, Plummer is great as a replacement. He really sells the character of a withered man fed up with the people around him scrounging him for his fortune. You can understand why he doesn't pay the ransom, even with the people around him condemning him. The scene where you think he's handing over the ransom money, but it turns out to be money for an art piece he's purchasing; really shows he cares more for antiques than his family.
Everyone else is really good. I especially loved Michelle Williams as Getty III's mother Gail Harris, you really feel her frustration with Getty Sr. and her desperation finding the ransom money. Mark Wahlberg was good, though I felt like anyone could have played his character. A grade material FROM Marky Mark definitely, just not A grade material FOR him, he didn't really fit. I also liked the actor who played Getty III. One actor who stands out is Romain Duris who portrays one of Getty III's kidnappers. He's a really good character who keeps your interest.
Overall, All the Money in the World really pulled through, great directing, pacing, and especially acting from everyone. I'll give it an 8 out of 10.
Things money can't buy
kosmasp12 April 2018
You may or may not be aware of the fact that Christopher Plummer came on board after Kevin Spacey had to go amidst controversy (sexual allegations from the past). So bring in Christopher Plummer - and you may try to think at times how Kevin might have done the same thing. Try not to and instead enjoy the movie as it is.
Because you could also think about pay inequality during the re-shoots. The movie itself might have gotten some push through the controversy or it might have gotten people annoyed. I know I wanted to watch it anyway. And Ridley Scott is always a guarantee for quality, at least on the technical side. But I'd argue the story works here too. It may feel a bit cold and distant, but that's on purpose ...
Because you could also think about pay inequality during the re-shoots. The movie itself might have gotten some push through the controversy or it might have gotten people annoyed. I know I wanted to watch it anyway. And Ridley Scott is always a guarantee for quality, at least on the technical side. But I'd argue the story works here too. It may feel a bit cold and distant, but that's on purpose ...
A tour-de-force from Plummer
MOscarbradley2 April 2018
I have no idea how good, bad or indifferent Kevin Spacey might have been as John Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's "All the Money in the World" as we all know he was written out of the picture and famously replaced by Christopher Plummer, not so much at the last minute but after the last minute had passed. Spacey's involvement in the production, or rather his lack of involvement, has ensured "All the Money in the World" a degree of notoriety it might otherwise not have had regardless of the fact that it's actually not a bad film; not a very good one but not as bad as it might have been.
It's about the real-life kidnapping of Getty's grandson though you could never really describe it as a thriller. This is another movie about the filthy rich and the pleasure palaces in which they live and it's quite smartly done even if you have to take a good deal of it with a pinch of salt. If, however, you thought that Plummer's Oscar nomination was nothing more than a slap in the face for Spacey, think again; he's terrific, a near career best performance of a man most people viewed as some kind of monster but which Plummer imbues with several shades of grey. As the kidnapped boy's mother Michelle Williams is excellent while young Charlie Plummer is very good as the victim. But in the end this is Plummer's show, a tour-de-force that I doubt Spacey could have bettered. I just wish we could have seen more of him.
It's about the real-life kidnapping of Getty's grandson though you could never really describe it as a thriller. This is another movie about the filthy rich and the pleasure palaces in which they live and it's quite smartly done even if you have to take a good deal of it with a pinch of salt. If, however, you thought that Plummer's Oscar nomination was nothing more than a slap in the face for Spacey, think again; he's terrific, a near career best performance of a man most people viewed as some kind of monster but which Plummer imbues with several shades of grey. As the kidnapped boy's mother Michelle Williams is excellent while young Charlie Plummer is very good as the victim. But in the end this is Plummer's show, a tour-de-force that I doubt Spacey could have bettered. I just wish we could have seen more of him.
A drama without drama
liufilms-yl7 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This could have been a human drama of unbearable tension instead it's a movie manufactured with devious intentions. Devious in the real world, in movie making terms is totally accepted to do anything to lure people into the movie theaters. Probably their marketing people thought that a detailed slicing of an ear may do it. It made me so angry. No tension, no passion. The only reason to see the film is Michelle Williams. I didn't realized it was her until well into the movie, in fact until she has a scene with Mark Whalberg. She is real and truthful, when they stay with her everything works. Christopher Plummer plays the old mean billionaire to perfection but I must admit I thought of Kevin Spacey throughout. Everything is shot without real thought behind it. I liked the wind taking over the newspapers but the kidnappers remain a blurry mystery to me, who were they really? They looked like actors to me.
Ridley Scott delivered a cold direction of greed and wealth but with stunning performances.
cruise0111 April 2018
All the Money in the World (3.5 out of 5 stars).
All the Money in the World is a fairly well crime thriller film based on actual events when John Paul Getty III is kidnapped and held for ransom when his billionaire grandfather refuses to pay a cent.
The pros about the film? The performances were great. Michelle Williams playing JPG III mother and will do whatever it takes to get her son back. Her performance of trying to convince her grandfather in law to help pay the ransom. Christopher Plummer delivered a great performance. Mark Wahlberg was good as well playing an advisor and an operative to the Getty family.
Director Ridley Scott can deliver some powerful performances in a dramatic film. Look at American Gangster or The Martian. Sure, this is not like sci fi films like Aliens or Prometheus. It is slow moving and all about a family and the theme of greed. Especially on a powerful guy who is greedy and only has desire on wanting more money.
The cons of the film? I felt like the music score was weak with the film. The music score being done by Daniel Pemberton. The setting takes place in the 1970s and could have used the advantage with a 70s soundtrack or a fitting score. But it just did not fit in with the film.
The film can be slow at times from a script by David Scarpa. But the film is left undeveloped with the characters played by Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg. Making it very forgettable.
Overall, it is a pretty fair film. The performances and direction was great. It can be slow and lack a thrilling build up with the music score.
I do recommend seeing this film.
All the Money in the World is a fairly well crime thriller film based on actual events when John Paul Getty III is kidnapped and held for ransom when his billionaire grandfather refuses to pay a cent.
The pros about the film? The performances were great. Michelle Williams playing JPG III mother and will do whatever it takes to get her son back. Her performance of trying to convince her grandfather in law to help pay the ransom. Christopher Plummer delivered a great performance. Mark Wahlberg was good as well playing an advisor and an operative to the Getty family.
Director Ridley Scott can deliver some powerful performances in a dramatic film. Look at American Gangster or The Martian. Sure, this is not like sci fi films like Aliens or Prometheus. It is slow moving and all about a family and the theme of greed. Especially on a powerful guy who is greedy and only has desire on wanting more money.
The cons of the film? I felt like the music score was weak with the film. The music score being done by Daniel Pemberton. The setting takes place in the 1970s and could have used the advantage with a 70s soundtrack or a fitting score. But it just did not fit in with the film.
The film can be slow at times from a script by David Scarpa. But the film is left undeveloped with the characters played by Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg. Making it very forgettable.
Overall, it is a pretty fair film. The performances and direction was great. It can be slow and lack a thrilling build up with the music score.
I do recommend seeing this film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
