All the Money in the World

All the Money in the World is an inspiringly problematic film. It starts out like Le Dolce Vita and ends like Citizen Kane, but I can’t compare anything that happens in between with anything else. Though it contains a number of scenes that are reminiscent of a procedural thriller with detailed mapping of a certain working process as a classic dramatic structure that should draw viewers in and keep them in suspense with well-though-out dosing of information, the film is rather unsatisfying due to its muddled (especially with the constant jumping between various places, times and characters in the first half) and, at the same, very straightforward narrative, disjointed rhythm and cyclical yet somewhat monotonous structure with repetitive situations. ___ Paul's abduction is mainly a pretence for creating situations in which something that you normally wouldn’t buy with money (trust, attention, maternal love) is monetised, and for discussions about greed and a person’s worth. The tone and urgency of these scenes, which usually attempt to dialectically take into account the perspectives of both parties, change as the stakes rise and the probability of the son returning to his mother decreases. The theme of capitalism’s impact on interpersonal relationships is developed throughout the film, conceived here on a purely transactional level (it pays to invest in someone, but not in someone else). It isn’t so much about the relationships themselves or the development of the characters, most of whom (with the exception of the mother) are merely caricatures. At the same time, however, it’s not true that it isn’t about them at all, which would have paradoxically benefitted the film. ___ All the Money in the World is a dramatically strangely unbalanced work that with its structure draws our attention more to its creators’ arguments than to the characters and their suffering. I’m not sure if that was the intention, but I enjoyed the film as a cynical, non-moralising disputation on the power of money. 65% (26.01.2018)

How come no one filmed this before? This well-written drama directed with Ridley Scott’s traditional elegance is first and foremost a delicate satire of the spiritually bankrupt moneybags Getty, who was driven by his lust for wealth. The grotesqueness of his character makes him a bigger villain than the Italian kidnappers; he is even reminiscent of the Daniel Day-Lewis’s character from There Will Be Blood. Whatever Kevin Spacey was like in his role, Ridley’s original intention to cast Christopher Plummer was a good choice, as the veteran actor is phenomenal with his facial expressions and gestures. The secondary storyline, which actually takes up more of the runtime, is a thriller dominated by Getty’s counterpoint — the desperate but strong mother of the kidnapped portrayed by the excellent Michelle Williams. Hitchcock would be pleased with her hairstyle and frightened expression. Wahlberg, the film’s highest-paid actor, was just a makeweight. The less you know about the real story, the more you enjoy the movie. (24.01.2018)

The great premise and the interesting potential in the storyline is exploited only halfway. Ridley Scott, of course, gives the viewer a refined vintage piece with gorgeous filters and lavish 1970s production design (Roma rulez) – he's always been a master of that, and even at his advanced age, he's not letting down his standards. There's no shortage of his creative trademarks either – e.g. what would a Scott flick be without a scene with falling snow? The pace is a bit weaker, sometimes unbalanced, and the plot jumps around and often omits important points that the viewer is forced to assume. But Ridley did hit the right balance with the bad guys. On the one hand, the menacing Ndrangheta, the Calabrian mafia (very hardcore), on the other the uncompromising and bankrupt billionaire Getty, played in the end by Christopher Plummer, who delivers a brilliant performance. Maybe it will mature with time, but at the moment the form and one good figure is not enough to make me happy. (26.03.2018)

I didn't believe in it too much, but in the end I'm surprised how much I enjoyed the film. Ridley Scott's direction is slick and precise, Mark Wahlberg is classically good and Charlie Plummer was solid, though I think Kevin Spacey would have been better. Quite suspenseful towards the end and there was a twist, so I'm satisfied. 70% (12.04.2018)

I think Ridley Scott soured this movie for me from the start by replacing Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer. That alone made me hesitant to watch it at the time, even though Plummer delivers a solid performance. Eventually, I gave it a chance, and while the film has that classic epic Hollywood feel, it drags in places and feels unnecessarily long. Still, it's not a bad movie, and definitely not a waste of time. But the whole Me Too shadow is something it’ll never shake off, especially since Spacey was cleared of the charges. Hollywood really showed how ruthless it can be when money’s involved. (26.03.2021)