caracas1914 December 28, 2017 Share December 28, 2017 I thought that it was well done, competent and intermittently fraught with some tension but not particularly inspired film making. The kindapping of J.P. Getty the teenager was a great opening scene ,and I always enjoy watching what Michelle Williams does with a role. The biggest issue I had was with the fabricated drama of Getty escaping, near misses, etc. It just made the movie seem to follow the boilerplate action narrative, when the elements of truth (ie the real life characters and their interplay) seemed a more interesting avenue. To make matters worse, per the action every time the film focuses on the Mark Wallenberg character it just sucks all the life out of the film. Completely. Of course the money scene that was coming , the ear mutilaton was hard to watch but damn if Scott the director didn’t pull it off. Now , The elephant in the room. J.P. Getty Sr was with Kevin Spacey in the role and replaced by Christopher Plummer when the scandal blew of Spacey being an alleged sexual predator. (Legalese I know) Like so many critics, I agree that Christopher Plummer’s J.P. Getty Sr. As THE richest miserly man in the world nailed it so well that it’s hard to push it out of your mind he basically did all his scenes mere weeks before the film was released; I’m guessing since they knew exactly what scenes they were (film was already edited for release) the adrenaline filming was able to click into place. Plummer just oozes so much callous indifference to humane qualities you want to take a shower after watching his scenes. Hard to believe Kevin Spacey inhabited the role as completely as Plummer did. Apparently from what I’ve seen in previews Spacey had tons of prosthetic makeup to look aged whereas Plummer’s age battle scars were earned... 5 Link to comment
Miss Slay December 29, 2017 Share December 29, 2017 I thought this film was fantastic. Michelle Williams did an incredible job- as did Christopher Plummer. I was not familiar with the story and he was bone chilling. There were parts that were a bit unbelievable- like Palo roaming around the same square as his mother/mark wahlberg and the mafia! I found that parts were a bit melodramatic but overall I really enjoyed this film! 1 Link to comment
HunterHunted January 2, 2018 Share January 2, 2018 Very charming interview with Ridley Scott about the film and the reboots. http://www.vulture.com/2017/12/ridley-scott-all-the-money-in-the-world-reshoots.html Link to comment
SmithW6079 January 3, 2018 Share January 3, 2018 On 1/2/2018 at 11:11 AM, HunterHunted said: Very charming interview with Ridley Scott about the film and the reboots. http://www.vulture.com/2017/12/ridley-scott-all-the-money-in-the-world-reshoots.html That was interesting, but he's a pretty foul-mouthed guy, isn't he? Link to comment
HunterHunted January 3, 2018 Share January 3, 2018 1 hour ago, SmithW6079 said: That was interesting, but he's a pretty foul-mouthed guy, isn't he? He is, but that's not an impediment for him to be charming to me. 1 Link to comment
thuganomics85 January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 (edited) While I find his movies to be hit or miss, I always have a fondness for Ridley Scott for when he accepted the Best Comedy award for The Martian, and he clearly thought the entire thing was silly (again, I love the film and it had its funny moments, but comedy isn't what I'd call that film.) As for this movie, I thought it was a pretty good thriller and Michelle Williams was fantastic (it probably helped that I just saw her getting wasted in The Greatest Showman), but my biggest takeaway is that I really can't believe we almost didn't get Christopher Plummer as J. Paul Getty. Even if one was to separate Kevin Spacey's personal life from his work (I know it's hard now) and I can safely say I have enjoyed a lot of his work in the past, I feel like his version of Getty would have had the same underlining smarminess and sleaze that every Spacey character tends to have and while it might have been entertaining, it would have just been another classic "Oh, here's Kevin Spacey being a dick!" performance. But Plummer? I was memorized by his version and how he played him. He was a cold, calculating, selfish, and even heartless, but it never felt like Plummer was twirling a moustache or making his Getty revel in his horrible deeds. This Getty simply just couldn't bring himself to believe there was any price worth parting with for his grandson (until the end), and for him, it wasn't personal, just business/logic. I think the best moment was when he simply replied with "Nothing" when asked what price would he pay, because he really came off like he just couldn't comprehend why this was even being asked of him. It almost makes him scarier and even more realistic then if he went all overdramatic (like I suspect Spacey would have.) In short, Plummer should have always been the first choice and he nailed the role. Makes me wonder what could have happened if he wasn't a last minute replacement and actually had more time to prep. While Mark Wahlberg didn't embarrass himself at least, I've really come to accept that unless he's being directed by someone who can guide him (Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese), he really is mediocre at best. Even his big scene when his character confronts Getty ended with him getting blown off screen by Plummer's silent glares. Edited January 4, 2018 by thuganomics85 4 Link to comment
Morrigan2575 January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 22 minutes ago, thuganomics85 said: In short, Plummer should have always been the first choice and he nailed the role. Makes me wonder what could have happened if he was a last minute replacement and actually had more time to prep As I understand it, he was the first choice but the studio wanted a more recognizable/bankable name. I agree that Plummer makes more sense, for one thing they didn't need 20lbs of make up to age him up. Another, I agree on that baffled "nothing" line, It was a brilliant delivery. 2 Link to comment
Dejana January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 I thought that Christopher Plummer would be in 4-5 scenes but it was a huge role and what a wonderful, multifaceted performance! The only distracting CGI was in the scenes in the desert, where there's a side shot of Spacey from a distance, getting off the train. It was nice to see Michelle Williams in a feistier role. Wahlberg wasn't awful but not on the level of his co-stars, either. What All the Money in the World Gets Right (and Wrong) About The Getty Kidnapping (Vanity Fair) 1 Link to comment
Morrigan2575 January 4, 2018 Share January 4, 2018 Fascinating read, thanks for the link. I had no idea Balthazar Getty was Paul's son 1 Link to comment
choclatechip45 January 7, 2018 Share January 7, 2018 The movie was well done kind of crazy Plummer did filmed his scenes just before the movie was released. Link to comment
Cirien January 7, 2018 Share January 7, 2018 On 04/01/2018 at 5:53 PM, Morrigan2575 said: As I understand it, he was the first choice but the studio wanted a more recognizable/bankable name. I agree that Plummer makes more sense, for one thing they didn't need 20lbs of make up to age him up. Another, I agree on that baffled "nothing" line, It was a brilliant delivery. That reasoning has always seemed weird to me....like in what world is Captain Von Trapp *not* a recognisable name? 4 Link to comment
Ambrosefolly January 7, 2018 Share January 7, 2018 8 hours ago, Cirien said: That reasoning has always seemed weird to me....like in what world is Captain Von Trapp *not* a recognisable name? Plus they already had Mark Wahlberg and Michelle Williams. The only person I feel sorry for is the person that did Kevin Spacey's make-up, because it looked amazing. 1 Link to comment
BetterButter January 10, 2018 Share January 10, 2018 Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than $1,000 Link to comment
caracas1914 January 11, 2018 Author Share January 11, 2018 21 hours ago, BetterButter said: Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than $1,000 What’s even crazier is that they share the same agency. 1 Link to comment
absnow54 January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 The thing is Michelle Williams agreed to work at scale for the reshoots because she supported Ridley Scott's decision to replace Spacey. Mark Whalburg, for whatever reason, did not make the same agreement. So I don't think this is a good example of the power of negotiation (although maybe Mark's salary is so high to make up for the cut the agency missed out on due to Michelle's choice.) Link to comment
Morrigan2575 January 11, 2018 Share January 11, 2018 15 minutes ago, absnow54 said: The thing is Michelle Williams agreed to work at scale for the reshoots because she supported Ridley Scott's decision to replace Spacey. Mark Whalburg, for whatever reason, did not make the same agreement. So I don't think this is a good example of the power of negotiation (although maybe Mark's salary is so high to make up for the cut the agency missed out on due to Michelle's choice.) Good point. I respect her decision. Walberg just comes off as a greedy ass. 4 Link to comment
caracas1914 January 11, 2018 Author Share January 11, 2018 (edited) Well Ridley Scott seemed to indicate that the top people worked basically for free on the reshooting... obviously he meant himself and Michelle. Edited January 11, 2018 by caracas1914 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.