Movie Review: "All The Money In The World"

"All The Money In The World": B. I may not go down in history as the World's Greatest Grandfather, notwithstanding my noble efforts, but dag nabbit, after watching All The Money In The World, I'm positive I won't be called the World's Worst either.  Nope.  That title indisputably belongs to multi-billionanaire oil baron J. Paul Getty.

The movie takes place in 1973 when Getty's sixteen year old grandson, John Paul III (Charlie Plummer), is kidnapped off the streets of Rome in the wee hours of the morning.  The kidnappers are comprised of a small band of criminals who are under the mistaken notion that their captive's mother, Gail (Michelle Williams), can tap into her own personal fortune to pay a $17 million ransom.  What they apparently don't realize is that Gail is not a rich woman, having chosen to turn down enormous alimony payments from the billionaire's son (her child's father) in connection with their divorce settlement nine years earlier.  In return, the child's father (Andrew Buchan) has relinquished all parental rights.

Although she is contractually cut off from the Getty fortune, Gail nevertheless goes to her former father-in-law to beg for the ransom money.  The old coot abruptly turns her down, with an explanation that paying for his grandson's release would only amount to an invitation for other criminals to kidnap his other grandchildren.  The grandfather is heartless, unable to mask the real reason for his rejection of Gail's desperate plea, viz., his miserly frugality.  What's more, his air of disinterest makes him despicable.  His saving grace is his willingness to direct one of his company's top negotiators, Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg), to investigate.  Chase is a former CIA veteran who is well-equipped to deal with the criminals.

Williams, who gets top billing, is excellent as the boy's beleaguered mother.  As if worrying about her boy isn't enough, she also is besieged by the rude and intrusive media who can't believe that she is not at least a millionaire herself.  Although he is working for Getty, Chase develops an arm's length closeness (if that's not an oxymoron) to Gail.  As movie viewers, it's hard for us to know which way their relationship is heading.  No matter; as strong a woman as she is, Gail needs Chase to save her son.

Many kidnapping stories include a captor who empathizes with the captive, almost to the point of switching sides.  That good-hearted criminal is usually a female, but here it's Cinquanta (Romain Duris) who, in many ways, becomes the boy's protector.  To what lengths will this (almost) good-hearted kidnapper go to shield the teenager from the cutthroats?

The main off-screen buzz surrounding All The Money In The World pertained to eighty-eight year old actor Christopher Plummer, who plays the senior Getty.  Plummer was called upon by producer-director Ridley Scott to take the place of defrocked Kevin Spacey, originally cast to play the billionaire, after the latter became the subject of many sex abuse allegations made after the film's production was completed.  Scott, determined to retain the scheduled mid-December release date, required Plummer to learn his part in only nine days during which the scenes which had contained Spacey were reshot with Plummer.  Not only did Plummer heroically ace this challenge, he has been nominated for -- and is favored to win -- the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award.

Unfortunately the middle and final thirds of the movie do not fulfill the promise of the beginning.  Maybe an endless series of phone conversations is to be expected with this type of story, but they become momentum inhibitors.  There are too many times when things don't add up, and the denouement is too formulaic.  I will give extra points, however, for the scene in which the grandfather has a change of heart and states his willingness to pay a small portion equal to $1 million of the ransom.  That is the amount which he can claim as a tax deduction.  The oil man never does figure out that you can't take it with you.      

Tenth Annual Movie Ratings Recap

By now you know all about my Movie Ratings Recaps, this being the seventh time I have posted such an animal on my blog.  In the last rendition, posted on February 8, 2017, I bemoaned the fact that I only managed to take in nineteen movies during the previous twelve month period, an all-time low.  Unfortunately things did not improve numbers-wise this past year.  As you will see below, I only got to the cinema seventeen times.

What accounts for this wrong way trend?  When I first started blogging in 2011, I figured movie reviews would always make a good fall back position if I could not think of a more timely topic of interest.  New movies come out every week, so there would (should?) always be blog-worthy material.  While that may generally still be the case, my recent sporadic attendance can mostly be attributed to two general factors, separate but related.  First, I have spent more time doing things like babysitting, traveling, walking, reading and watching sports, either in person or on the tube.  Those are all things I enjoy and therefore constitute stiff competition to my movie attendance.  

Secondly, I am simply not into the genres of films which seem to be gaining favor with studios, producers and the movie-going public.  Those genres include action-adventure/Marvel Comics, science fiction/futuristic war stories, animation, and fraternity/jock comedy.  If I see one more add for a movie featuring an armored robo-cop type warrior, I think it will reduce me to tears.  I'm also not a big fan of costume period pieces, a la Downton Abbey, nor have I tried any of the Fifty Shades flicks.  (I will have to count on my daughter, Gina, to fill me in.)  Yet when I see a string of trailers promoting soon-to-arrive films, this is what's being offered.  A quick look at the list of top fifty box office hits for 2017, according to the website the-movie-times.com, shows only three I attended: Dunkirk (# 14),Murder On The Orient Express (# 31) and The Post (# 43).  (Ironically, those were the three films I rated the lowest of the seventeen I saw.)  Also disappointing for me personally is that of the other forty-seven movies in the top fifty, there is only one movie that I had hoped to see but did not: Baby Driver (# 28).

I think what I've written in the immediately preceding paragraph simply comes with the territory of being an old codger.  Movies are being made mostly for the younger generation, a smart business plan especially considering the multi-million dollar investments required for feature film production.  But things tend to go in cycles, so maybe in a few years there will be more movies to which I'm attracted.  One can only hope. 

As always, the movies within each ranking are listed in my order of preference within that group, and the month of my review is indicated after each title.

A:

American Made (November '17)

A-:

Moonlight (March '17)

Maudie (August '17)

Darkest Hour (December '17)

B+:

Wind River (August '17)

The Salesman (March '17)

American Assassin (September '17)

My Cousin Rachel (June '17)

Lady Bird (January '18)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (December "17)

B: 

Lion (April '17)

The Post (January '18)

Good Time (August '17)

The Lost City Of Z (May '17)

Hacksaw Ridge (February '17)

B-:

None

C+:

Murder On The Orient Express (November '17)

C:

Dunkirk (August '17)