Loading...

Plot:

Rome, 1973. Masked men kidnap a teenage boy named John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer). His grandfather, Jean Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), is the richest human in the world, a billionaire oil magnate, but he’s notoriously miserly. His favorite grandson’s abduction is not reason enough for him to part with any of his fortune. All the Money in the World (2017) follows Gail, (Michelle Williams), Paul’s devoted, strong-willed mother, who unlike Getty, has consistently chosen her children over his fortune. Her son’s life in the balance with time running out, she attempts to sway Getty even as her son’s mob captors become increasingly more determined, volatile and brutal. When Getty sends his enigmatic security man Fletcher Chace (Mark Wahlberg) to look after his interests, he and Gail become unlikely allies in this race against time that ultimately reveals the true and lasting value of love over money..

Also Known As: Tutti i soldi del mondo, A világ összes pénze, Sav novac svijeta Bosnia and, Dünyanin Bütün Parasi, Všechny prachy světa Czech, Kol ha'kessef she'ba'olam, Cena života, Все деньги мира, Tout l'argent du monde, Todo o Dinheiro do Mundo, Всички пари на света, Todo el dinero del mundo, Wszystkie pieniądze świata, Alles Geld der Welt, Ves denar sveta, Όλα τα λεφτά του κόσμου, Pentru toti banii din lume, Vu Bat Cóc Triêu Dô, Kogu maailma raha, All the Money in the World, Visi pasaulio pinigai, Усi грошi свiту, Sav novac svijeta

Leave a Reply

26 Comments

  • raquel-amaral
    raquel amaral

    The first thing here, was how great, would it have been to see Kevin Spacey play the embittered old miser, who with his insanely vulgar display of wealth, refuses to pay for his grandson (this talented actor incidentally sharing the same surname as our replacement Plummer) who has been kidnapped by petty terrorists. Well sadly, that remains to not be seen. There are reasons, Plummer, won’t bargain, with all the imploring from his grandsons mother (Williams, who’s just riveting, and so bloody believable in all her screen time) to grandson Getty back. They are shown earlier on in a section of movie, before we return to the here and now, where that explains some of Plummer’s malicious incentive, but when it comes down to it, he’s just a selfish, bitter old miser you keep hating throughout. His bodyguard, ex CIA, frogman, what have you (Wahlberg) teams up with Williams, to try to locate and snatch him from his abducters, but of course, we know how things like this follow, where serpentine actions/descisions come into play, resulting in some seriously mid range intense moments. Wahlberg does do us, solid, but there are some moments where he doesn’t come off as believable, like a lost sheep, to William’s dialogue (spouting words, not acting upon him) while an older Timothy Hutton appears in a score of scenes as one of Plummer’s slightly shady, cocky, financial advisers, Plummer, a great actor, doesn’t disappoint in the role, doing his normal A1 work, and a Grade A trooper for stepping in at the last minute, due to Spacey’s notoriety But it’s Williams who walks away, seriously with acting honors. This true story. based on this miserable old millionaire, John Paul Getty, who’d rather pay insanely for a crappy Mona Lisa portrait, then his grandson’s freedom, has been wonderfully and vividly brought to the screen, with great detail to story and structure of story, and is a wonderful, fresh way, to start off movie viewing day, 2017. You’ll so much hate Plummer, just hoping in his final minutes, he will croak. Like Williams, it’s obvious what the audience will feel like doing, to his own black sculptured head statue.

    • hell-no
      Hell no

      That’s all the set needed,Kevin Spacey chasin the little boy’s around.F*#_!:g weirdo should be on a set alright,set on fire.

  • louis-williams-parsons
    louis williams parsons

    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.

  • david-perez
    david perez

    I see Getty more like a child. He can’t pay. He has to milk this for maximum psychic effect, terrorizing, making all kinds of points and back. A chess match with his family that no one else is playing. Rook forward then back. His statues aligned with the Romans making his god complex on full display that only him and history can understand. It creates a ridiculous villain with a distant ‘humanity’ via Plummer, the humanity means he will always do the right thing in the end but the process there will be… let’s say thorough.Interesting there at the end, Wahlberg slapped him out of that euphoric detachment wealth slipped him into, not by those words, rather, ‘how strange it is this peasant and his tones, that must mean I’ve crossed some line.’The thriller stuff I’m not as interested in since it’s stock from twelve other movies, and the wealth stuff is too on the nose and oscar-bait already. Michelle Williams being in between. Getty was a picture of what not to be, same time it’s the only rational response to such obscene fortunes is to honeymoon off with your sanity and cash. One-dimensional as it is, I know rich people with only minor fortunes like this.

  • alberta-diaconu
    alberta diaconu

    The Ridley Scott film, “All the Money in the World” is a terrific film telling the 1973 real-life abduction of the 16-year-old-son of the richest man in the world, J. Paul Getty. Its strong points are its excellent scripting, production design, acting and Ridley Scott’s effective direction. It’s a nearly perfect thriller factually based saving totally gratuitous scenes of the security man advising Getty’s wife, poorly played by Mark Wahlberg as if he were the film’s main star, scenes that bog the film down in talky, contrived plot padding. He is an irritating wrong note in an otherwise superb movie that I highly recommend. My guess is that Wahlberg, being one of the producers of the film, created this unfortunate infirmity by insisting his part be expanded to make his character assume an ersatz importance. But, by all means, check out this excellent movie anyway.

  • matthew-long
    matthew long

    “All The Money In the World” (2017 release; 132 min.) is “inspired by true events”, we are reminded at the beginning. As the movie opens, we are told it is “Rome, 1973”, where we see the 16 yr. old Paul Getty (whose grandfather J. Paul Getty is the richest man in the world’s history) is wandering the streets of Rome late one night, only to be abducted. Soon thereafter the abductors demand a ransom of $17 million (about $99 million in today’s money). When Paul’s mom approaches the elder Getty, he refuses to pay. The voice over by Paul reminds us: “We look just like you but are nothing like you…” The movie then gives us the nutshell version of how J Paul Getty made his fortune, taking us to “Saudi Arabia 1948” and the “Toulon, France Shipyard, 1958″. At this point we’re 10 min. into the movie but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you’ll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from director Ridley Scott, now a crisp 80 years young if you can believe it. Here he recounts the events surrounding the kidnapping of J. Paul Getty’s grandson.. I hope for your enjoyment’s sake that, as was the case for me, you don’t know how this ends up, I don’t want to say much more than that, other than to hold on to your chairs… You have have heard that, resulting from the sexual assault allegations, the movie makers decided to reshoot his scenes… after the movie had been completed and with less than 5 weeks to go before its release. Scott apparently relished the challenge, and Christopher Plummer was recast at J Paul Getty. Not only did the film makers pull it off, but I have to say that Plummer is so outstanding in this role, that I cannot imagine Spacey for this role. Plummer casts a long shadow (in the best possible way) over this movie, almost at the expense of Michelle Williams (as Paul’s mother). Mark Wahlberg plays Chase, a former CIA operative and designated by Getty as the negotiator to try and get Paul released. Bottom line: this is a great real life crime drama that also looks at the isolating effect of being so rich that you never know whether anyone around you is sincere or simply in it for the money.”All The Money In the World” opened wide today. While I wanted to see it, it was actually my grown-up kids who choose this for our annual Christmas Day movie. The early evening screening where we saw this at here in Cincinnati was completely sold out down to the last seat, Given the positive buzz and word-of-mouth this movie will likely create, this movie may have surprisingly long legs at the box office, even more so if high profile award nominations continue to come in (it already did quite well with 4 Golden Globe nominations). In any event, I encourage you to check out “All the Money in the World”, be it in the theater, on Amazon Instant Video or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusions.

  • joseph-green
    joseph green

    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.

  • michelle-becker
    michelle becker

    “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.

  • sergej-heser
    sergej heser

    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.

  • fernando-samuel-ramos
    fernando samuel ramos

    I Was disappointed in this one. This movie had the right ingredients great experience. Good actors, a great story… While you can’t say this movie has bad acting, During the movie you really can’t bond with these characters because the story doesn’t stick on the characters. For me Ridley real missed a opportunity with this picture. ‘sorry for my bad English’

  • dominik-novotny
    dominik novotny

    I don’t know about anybody else…but how could you maintain interest in the plot. The real distraction is paying attention to Plummer and knowing that Spacey is muted and superimposed over. They should have left it alone to be honest. I get that Spacey has controversial allegations, but the film was already made and marketed…and anticipated. The original will never be seen…because as a society we now censor art based on the behavior of the artist.Oddly enough, we never cared about Eminem pistol-whipping people, or TI having an illegal military arsenal of weaponry. If Jeffrey Dahmer painted a thought-provoking masterpiece moments before his execution….should we burn it?? Or should we study it?Answer: leave it alone…study it. Keep it intact. How can we ever learn and grow when we use censorship?I couldn’t enjoy it. Too distracted by wondering what the film originally was…

  • anastasiia-kalchenko
    anastasiia kalchenko

    This film commits the worst sin a film can commit: It is dreadfully boring. It feels ultimately pointless and dwindles on mediocrity at all times, making this an even worse Ridley Scott film than Alien: Covenant, as that film was at least hilariously bad at times. This one nearly put me and my buddy to sleep.At 2 hours and 12 minutes, this film spends much time meandering and padding out its running time with repetitive low-energy diversions and failure is too often consequence-free. The protagonists feel ineffectual and the baddies feel incompetent and nonthreatening as a result, and the vast majority of the film is people talking back and forth with awkward lengthy pauses in their dialogue. This story isn’t all that interesting enough to justify the length, and feels like a formality of Ridley Scott at this point. If you give me a taste of suspense and then show me that this happened over the course of months I will believe you. You don’t have to present it in real time.The film’s portrayal of the Getty family “as only obsessed with wealth,” as Ariadne Getty put it upon seeing the film, is not necessarily based on fact. Sure, J. Paul Getty does state his love for his bloodline throughout the film, but it is heavily weighed against with his cold attitude to the situation and an incredibly cheesy “gotcha” moment where Getty appears to be negotiating the ransom only for it to be revealed he was simply negotiating the price on a piece of artwork. It’s as basic as these ironic Hollywood anti-Capitalism stories go, where the lack of humanity is cartoonishly exaggerated. I probably would have come up with something like this back when I was an angsty teenager who knew everything about the world.J.’s portrayal isn’t the only problem though. Practically every character comes off as shallow and one-dimensional, especially the kidnapping victim, John Paul Getty III, who as a teenager is immediately portrayed as a needlessly ungrateful git towards his mother, and thus I didn’t feel attached to him as a character, which is a shame since it’s based on a real person. Fletcher Chase comes off as terribly incompetent right out of the gate as the movie doesn’t spend much of its excessive time portraying his detective work on screen and simply shows one brief interaction which leads him confidently to a wrong conclusion based on no solid evidence.I wanted more humanity and more depth to the characters. There were interesting ideas brought up, such as the issue of paying a ransom encouraging further kidnappings, which is unfortunately just a one-time throwaway line despite being a rational concern.If you are curious about this event, do yourself a favor and read up on it instead of watching this drawn out lazy Oscar bait. Ridley Scott is so hit-or-miss nowadays that I wonder if even the original Alien film was only accidentally a masterpiece, much like M. Night Shyamalan with The Sixth Sense, Joel Schumacher with Falling Down and Neill Blomkamp with District 9.

  • dr-kristina-kristoffersen
    dr kristina kristoffersen

    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 …

  • isaiah-harris
    isaiah harris

    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: B7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)

  • freddy-siering
    freddy siering

    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.

  • mare-uus
    mare uus

    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!

  • lucie-prochazkova
    lucie prochazkova

    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.

  • cesidia-testa
    cesidia testa

    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.

  • brad-butler
    brad butler

    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.

  • henry-fransson
    henry fransson

    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-

  • ginzburgas-gytis
    ginzburgas gytis

    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.

  • tandogdu-hurdogan-manco-safak
    tandogdu hurdogan manco safak

    I was familiar with the entire saga and I was eager to see the Ridley Scott dramatization of the events. Now I saw it. A truly depressing movie experience by the director of the original Blade Runner (I’m not going to talk about the 2017 version) All by the numbers with a commercial eye that, I must say, is faltering big time. Did you see Scott’s version of Robin Hood with Russell Crowe? No, here Scott attempts the conquering of box office grosses by a close up of J Paul Getty’s ear as he’s been mutilated. What a shame! Ridley Scott had the extraordinary Michelle Williams to play the mother and she is the one that makes it true even if the script doesn’t provide her with well structured scenes and gives her Mark Whalberg to bounce of. He seems the hostage at times, delivering his lines without an ounce of real conviction. Charlie Plummer (oddly enough no relation to Christopher Plummer) is lovely and Christopher Plummer appears as a techno distraction but if they thought we were not going to be replacing Plummer for Spacey in our minds, all the time – aware of the performance as well as the technical wonder – they were wrong. As we left the theater that was the main topic of conversation. Plummer/Spacey. I’m afraid that greed played a part in this operation.

  • bognar-magdolna
    bognar magdolna

    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.

  • roan-lankle
    roan lankle

    I remember the stories of Paul Getty with pay phones in his house for his guests. He was always a picture boy for the horrors of money. Nobody paid any attention to the horrors not the real ones anyway, just the exterior ones of opulence, meanness and greed. Everything for and because of money, everything. The kidnapping of young J Paul Getty caught the attention of the world then, the plight of his mother is the stuff great drama is made of and here Michelle Williams does wonders with her character. She is totally true, one hundred per cent of the time, but her director doesn’t know how to capture it. The film is a rambling, repetitious, undramatic product by Ridley Scott. I didn’t detect any real thought behind it. Just craftsmanship and that sometimes is enough, but not this time. I suppose money was also behind this enterprise. Even the stitching of Christopher Plummer in place of Kevin Spacey has a totally commercial connotation. Mark Whalberg? I like him but everyone laughed when he appeared on the screen. So completely out of place, specially when confronted by the powerful authenticity of the wonderful Michelle Williams. All in all a dispiriting affair in more ways than one.

  • eliana-euthumia-khronopoulou
    eliana euthumia khronopoulou

    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.

  • linda-carlsson
    linda carlsson

    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