You know it’s a great year for actresses in a leading role when Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine, Manchester by the Sea), arguably the most outstanding actress of her generation, gives one of the best performances of her career and won’t even get a sniff when it comes to an Oscar nomination. But that is what we had in 2017. We have a year that, as a whole, hasn’t produced many great movies, nor has it given us many great performances for actors in a leading role. Still, it has given us so many excellent lead actress performances that the likes of traditional heavyweights Williams, Jessica Chastain (Molly’s Game), Emma Stone (Battle of the Sexes), and Jennifer Lawrence (mother!). Williams gives one of the top five performances of her career in Ridley Scott’s (The Last Duel, The Martian) All the Money in the World. But it likely will be forgotten for two reasons.
The first is that it is not one of the five best performances of the year and, thus, won’t be recognized during awards season. The other is that they reshot a good portion of this movie following the claims of sexual assault against Kevin Spacey, one of the key figures in the film. The movie might be more known for what went on behind the scenes than for its final product. Scott replaced Spacey with Christopher Plummer (Beginners, The Last Station), brought in all the key players to reshoot the scenes involving this character (often 18-hour days), spent an additional $10 million to do so, and only delayed the release of this movie by three days. It was the right thing to do. I applaud Scott and all of the people who sacrificed time and money to do what was the right decision. If you’ve heard about this, I’ll mention I did, too. But I felt it was downplayed because Plummer was only in a few scenes. That is not the case at all. In my opinion, Plummer made this film. He stole every scene he was in, and it’s impossible to picture anybody doing a better job. This decision could earn All the Money in the World its only two Oscar nominations (Best Supporting Actor, Best Editing). All in all, it’s a very good movie with top-notch performances. But it isn’t quite as memorable, nor does it hold the weight of the movies that the Academy will recognize this Oscar season.
It’s hard to imagine anyone playing the role of billionaire oil magnate Jean Paul Getty, the wealthiest man in the world in 1973, the year when this movie was set. Based on the International true story of Getty’s oldest grandson, John Paul III (Charlie Plummer – The Dinner, Lean on Pete), who gets kidnapped in the middle of the night and held for a $17 million ransom that the eldest Getty refuses to pay, despite the price tag for his safe return being no more than chump change to him. A penny-pincher his whole life, Getty irons his shirts rather than pay the few dollars to get them dry cleaned. Most of the movie is shot in present-day Europe (between England and Italy mostly). But we also are taken back about ten years, where we get some origin stories. Specifically, we learn that the senior Getty’s son John Paul II (Andrew Buchan – Still Life, Nowhere Boy), his wife Abigail (Williams), and their children struggle to make ends meet. Abigail encourages her husband to reestablish contact with their father. The eldest Getty urges his son to come to Rome under the premise that he will offer him a job in his company. When the family moves to Rome, it is alluded that this is the first time that Abigail and her kids meet Jean-Paul. The initial exchange is awkward at best, but the rich man does offer his son a job…one that he squanders.
John Paul II doesn’t have the same drive or discipline as his miserable, miserly father. Fast-forward a few years, and John Paul II lives in San Francisco and is addicted to alcohol, drugs, and women. Abigail is back in Europe to deal with the divorce from her husband. John Paul II is so hooked on drugs, unable to care for himself, and disinterested that the divorce negotiations are held between Abigail, her lawyer, and John Paul III’s massive legal team. Unfortunately, the eldest, Getty, isn’t willing to give over his money in the settlement since it’s his son’s divorce, not his own. Eventually, an irate Abigail decides to forgo any financial help and instead requests sole custody of her oldest son.
Back to the present, Abigail is beside herself over her son’s abduction. She is incredulous when she hears her father-in-law say there isn’t a price he’d pay in the world to get his son back. In a live television interview, he says if he paid the ransom for his one grandchild, he’d have 14 kidnapped grandchildren instead of just the one. Her hands are tied because Abigail took no money from the divorce settlement. Enter Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg – The Fighter, Deepwater Horizon), a former CIA agent and Getty’s top advisor. Instead of paying the ransom, Getty puts Fletcher on the case. Abigail is frustrated because every direction she takes seems to be a dead end, and she does what only a helpless mother can do. She frets.
John Paul III isn’t being treated poorly by his captors. We learn early on that the captors are novices. They expect the whole ordeal to take just a few days. But as the kidnapping lengthens, it’s clear that jailers are clearly in over their heads. Cinquanta (Romain Duris – Le Divorce, Paris), one of the lead detainers, shows some humanity and befriends the young John. However, he disbelieves that the grandfather won’t pay the ransom. As the ransom price drops, it appears that the senior Getty has no desire to pay any money, no matter how low it goes. Meanwhile, he’s spending his days figuring out which piece of priceless artwork to buy next as his grandson suffers, and the boy’s mother wonders if she’ll ever see her son again.
The key to this movie isn’t its plot. Even though it is based on a true story, it follows a somewhat formulaic storyline. The only real difference is that the person being asked to pay the ransom has the money but doesn’t believe in the principle, even when it involves a grandchild. So, in some regard, if you don’t know the true story, you might wonder if this will play out as you think it might. Some scenes are stretched for theatrics for sure, and, honestly, the whole story could have been better. But it’s worth it to see the performances of Williams and, especially, Plummer alone.
Wahlberg (who I generally do like) is miscast here. His role should have been that of a much lesser-known actor. I didn’t buy him as a negotiator, especially with very little power. He plays the good guy here, which he’s been apt to do recently, and he got more screen time than a less accomplished actor would have. And it detracts from the movie slightly. Also, he is outmatched when he shares the screen with the more accomplished Williams and Plummer. Again, I’m generally a fan of Wahlberg, and he’s done some fantastic movies in the last 6 or 7 years. This isn’t the type of movie I typically expect Ridley Scott to direct, and while I love that he reshot all of Spacey’s scenes, this movie didn’t wow me like Gladiator, Alien, The Martian, etc. It did not feel like a Ridley Scott movie, and I’m surprised he got nominated for a Golden Globe. Unfortunately, he won’t be so fortunate when the Oscar nominees are announced. Plummer might be, though. And this film also could get a nod for editing.
With all the other Oscar contenders out there right now, I’ll wait to watch this one until it comes on Netflix or Amazon. It’s a good suspense movie with great acting, but not an Oscar-season movie.
Plot 8/10 (true stories usually get the benefit of the doubt…but should all true stories be told)
Character Development 8/10
Character Chemistry 8/10
Acting 8.5/10
Screenplay 8/10
Directing 10/10 (I mean to do what Scott did, as referenced in the first paragraph of this review, was admirable and appreciated)
Cinematography 8.5/10
Sound 8/10
Hook and Reel 8/10
Universal Relevance 8/10
83%
Movies You Might Like If You Liked This Movie
- Ransom
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Gone Girl
- American Hustle
- The Social Network