Réalisation:
Ridley ScottScénario:
David ScarpaPhotographie:
Dariusz WolskiMusique:
Daniel PembertonActeurs·trices:
Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, Charlie Plummer, Christopher Plummer, Timothy Hutton, Romain Duris, Andrew Buchan, Olivia Grant, Marco Leonardi (plus)VOD (2)
Résumés(1)
Rome, 1973. Des hommes masqués kidnappent Paul (Charlie Plummer), le petit-fils de J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer), un magnat du pétrole connu pour son avarice, mais aussi l'homme le plus riche du monde. Pour le milliardaire, l'enlèvement de son petit-fils préféré n'est pas une raison suffisante pour qu’il se sépare d’une partie de sa fortune. Gail, (Michelle Williams), la mère de Paul, femme forte et dévouée, va tout faire pour obtenir la libération de son fils. Elle s’allie à Fletcher Chace (Mark Wahlberg), le mystérieux chef de la sécurité du milliardaire et tous deux se lancent dans une course contre la montre face à des ravisseurs déterminés, instables et brutaux. (Metropolitan FilmExport)
(plus)Vidéo (14)
Critiques (7)
Comment se fait-il que personne n’ait filmé ce blockbuster auparavant ? Un drame bien écrit et élégamment réalisé à la manière traditionnelle de Scott, qui est avant tout une satire délicate de Getty, personnage avide d'argent et moralement corrompu. Il est un méchant plus épique que les ravisseurs italiens, rappelant même le personnage de Lewis dans There Will Be Blood. Peu importe le rôle de Spacey, le choix original de Ridley de choisir Plummer était bon, ce vétéran est magnifique par son jeu d'acteur et sa gestuelle ! Deuxièmement, bien que la durée soit plus longue sur une plus grande surface, il s'agit d'un thriller captivant, dominé par l'opposé de Getty - une mère désespérée mais forte, interprétée par l'excellente Michelle Williams. Hitchcock aurait été ravi de sa coiffure et de son expression effrayée. Wahlberg, le plus cher, est simplement là pour combler les chiffres. Moins vous en savez sur l'histoire réelle, plus vous en profiterez.
()
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.
()
A retro story shot in a retro way. The tempo is therefore definitely slower than in other contemporary or newer films, and yet the story is interesting and the atmosphere suitably weighty. We can only imagine how Kevin Spacey would have acted (I looked forward to seeing him because I really like masks), and there is nothing left but to acknowledge or cheer over Christopher Plummer's performance. His Getty may not have gotten much space, but still he is so distinctive in every second that he is the most important character, whatever the intention of the creators was. Ridley Scott has still got it, and I consider this film almost full-blown compensation for The Counselor.
()
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%
()
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%
()
Annonces