I saw All the Money in the World during its opening week because I like Ridley Scott for all the good times even when he annoys me with his anger and shock over his inevitable, future death and not openly professing Space Jesus as his Lord and Savior. His best movie making days are probably behind him, but he is still above average and generally makes a solid film so he can have my money.
All the Money in the World is based on the real life story of the kidnapping of John Paul Getty III. Side note: I’m planning to read Painfully Rich: The Outrageous Fortune and Misfortunes of the Heirs of J. Paul Getty by John Pearson, which the film is largely based upon. It stars acting badass Christopher Plummer as J. Paul Getty and an almost unrecognizable Michelle Williams as Gail Harris, the ex-daughter in law and mother of the kidnap victim. Romain Duris, best known to audiences as Xavier, the French exchange student to mixed up, well-traveled adult in L’Auberge Espagnole, Russian Dolls and Chinese Puzzle, has a strong supporting role as Stockholm Syndrome’s favorite kidnapper.
All the Money in the World is a solid, entertaining film. It gives us the vicarious thrill of living in a sumptuous wealthy world while feeling morally superior to the rich and not so bad about our lives of squalor because at least we, the audience, have our priorities straight. We also get a dash of excitement by wondering if we could survive being plunged into an Italian criminal underworld that sees human life as a paycheck. Scott possibly was aiming for Citizen Kane glory in his portrait of a society that values money, objects and status more than people whether criminal, tycoon or journalist, but it does not mean that they are devoid of a heart. Disillusionment with relationships or the desire to provide for those you love appear to be the motivation of these people who are cruelly casual with human life.
Scott and Plummer were wise to not demonize Getty while simultaneously not shying away from his awfulness. They maintain his humanity and his callousness. Are the tender moments between him and his family a scam, sincere or both, a wish and dream that he can’t believe in so he fails them and clings to what he can trust? The ambiguity keeps us guessing, and the way that Plummer plays it indicates that Getty is never completely sure either. He may be scamming himself and conning his family. Don’t we all to some lesser degree?
All the Money in the World suffers from a bit of a woman problem. All the women exist solely to help the male characters or act as sexual objects, including Gail, a character that I loved because who doesn’t love a mother that will do anything to protect her kids. Williams brings out a Stanwyck meets Hepburn quality to her performance that makes her seem undefeated and unstoppable even when she is losing. At the end of the day, she is Neeson without the skills negotiating with all the people holding her kid for money: her ex-father in law, the kidnappers, the press. She ultimately outmaneuvers them and wins so she ends up being the hero of the film.
Oh, and Mark Wahlberg is in it, but basically does nothing. I’m not saying that because of my well-known historical distaste for the gentleman because when he is good, he is good, and I’ll be the first one to express shock that he is capable of actually doing his job, i.e. acting (Ted, The Fighter, The Departed, The Perfect Storm). I’m also not saying it because Williams’ agent seemingly fell asleep on the job, but was wide-awake when on the clock for Wahlberg. No, his role in the movie felt like the most unrealistic part of this film. If Wahlberg said that he was a former CIA agent, was capable of making deals in international contexts and push around a man like Getty without reprisals, I would take a sip of water just so I could do a spit take before I laughed in the person’s face. The faux intrigue of the last third of All the Money in the World felt contrived so the audience could have some excitement. If his character was not a composite and based on a real life person, I hope that Getty got a refund because you suck at your job! You are the worst! Hang your head in shame.
All the Money in the World has narrative issues. I’m not sure why Scott decided to begin the film by jumping around different time periods and with narration from Getty III, which is swiftly abandoned. I think that if he could have sustained that concept through the film, it could have worked, but he probably couldn’t do that while simultaneously clearly telling the story so he probably should have stuck to chronological without the unnecessary hindsight narration. When Scott aims for deeper meaning in this film, he falters. Is it appearance versus reality? What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? I will do anything for love! Which is better, to put your faith in objects that never lie (but they potentially do a couple of times in this film) or people who do? I felt like we missed an opportunity to explore this pathology during a casual remark by Getty that his father thought that he would amount to nothing! I also don’t believe that Getty died consumed by the guilt of not being there for his grandson.
I enjoyed All the Money in the World as a Hollywood fantasy of wealth and crime and expected the movie’s impact to ultimately evaporate with time. It was not until afterwards that I realized that THIS was the film that Kevin Spacey was in that had to be reshot, which made me even more retroactively impressed with Plummer and Williams’ performances! Old man has still got it! Honestly he did a better job than Spacey could because Spacey would have played Getty as a straight up villain and Plummer’s performance wasn’t muffled by all the aging prosthetics. Also how straight up awesome are you to be able to memorize a script in less than two weeks and give a perfect performance in such little time. Now remember that Plummer is 88. At 88, if I’m alive, I do not plan to keep doing my current job forget doing it better than people half my age! Scott deserves special praise for making a seamlessly perfect film in which none of the external production turbulence is apparent in the finished film product. Please note that it was the second film that he was working on that year, the other being Alien: Covenant, and he is no spring chicken. Even if his motivation was selfish, Scott did the right thing by excising any distractions and probably made a better film as a result. Hollywood should take a page from his book even if all the pages are colored by ego.
All the Money in the World is a notable film for improving by taking a stand even if the only motivation is self-interest and attention. For once, the marketplace worked, and the oldsters showed us how to get the job done. Unfortunately the story behind the scenes is better than the script. Despite all of its failings, All the Money in the World does not suffer from the maladies of other Oscar nominees that harken more to past glory than to future excellence and have a whiff of mothballs even on opening night. Its counterparts are currently more memorable because they are germane to contemporary discourse in their backward glance, but All the Money in the World feels timeless in its capturing of past periods and will hold up during future showings. If the Italian kidnapping industry interests you, I highly recommend that you check out I’m Not Scared.