Review: All the Money in the World

(Dir: Ridley Scott, 2017)

There's a line uttered halfway through All the Money in the World by the mercurial J.P. Getty (Christopher Plummer): "Priceless? I deplore that word. Dirty and old? I have no problem." In some ways that gets to the core of this character/man, as everything is to be bought and nothing is out of reach, with his whole life defined by the power presented to him by his ever-growing mountains of money. Now just imagine, in light of what we all now know, how that line would have sounded coming out of Kevin Spacey's mouth. Yes, it's impossible not to address the elephants in the room. As a comparison it would be fascinating to watch the original cut with Spacey playing the billionaire, especially as Plummer is so damn good at exuding a callous ruthlessness. The original trailer treated Spacey as the big reveal – the real reason you're going to want to watch this – but his heavily made-up and prostheticised appearance felt jarring in these brief snippets, suggesting this might be bordering on characature. It's unlikely we'll ever know if they made the right creative decision (this being different to the right thing to do morally or what's best for business), as the Spacey iteration suggested a domineering and larger-than-life version, rather than Plummer's more isolationist and almost mythical character. Perhaps being able to see a finished cut of the film let him work out how to make the character work even better?

Which leads us to elephant number two: $1.5 million. Not the ransom demanded for J. Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer), but Mark Whalberg's fee for reshooting some of his scenes as Fletcher Chase in light of the Spacey/Plummer switch. Scott Mendelson at Forbes wrote a prescient article about this controversy of Michelle Williams' payment for reshoots being just $1,000 (read it here). It feels like it needs reiterating here since it highlights the deeper issue going unreported due to the sensationalism of the numbers: the lack of quality, lead roles available to female actors today. Williams, playing Gail Harris, is the lead in the film, and she likely accepted expenses only to ensure the film got released since it's important for roles like this to get as much exposure as possible. Plus she is excellent here. This is a reasonably big film by her standards, but typically in bigger films she (and most other female actors) would be cast as the love interest / wife (cough The Greatest Showman). Whalberg on the other hand is one of the world's biggest film stars and for him this is smaller than all his most recent work, a prestige picture in which his character is third most important. So why shouldn't he, like everyone else involved, try and get paid properly for this extra work? The studio could've said no to his monetary demands, but since his character interacts with JP Getty more than any other his involvement in the reshoots was essential, thus he had nothing to lose by asking. Williams had as much right to make similar monetary demands, but no doubt knew that doing so could have a negative impact on her career, limiting her potential to be considered for the smaller number of quality, visible, female roles. They all have a right to be paid fairly for this extra work, especially when it came about so suddenly, so this shouldn't necessarily be an indictment on Whalberg, it's an indictment on an industry that values its female actors far less, not just monetarily but in it's reluctance to cast them in leading roles, especially in the high profile films that proliferate our screens weekly. It should also be noted that director Ridley Scott allegedly worked on the reshoots for expenses only too.

So now we've addressed the two huge elephants rather unsubtly sitting in the corner, what of the film itself? It is a thoroughly engaging thriller that benefits from it's seventies setting and how it (mostly) jumps between Italy and Getty's staid, hollow palace of wealth in the English countryside. Scott creates an almost dreamlike world – something about the way it's lit and shot feels almost hyper-real, but that helps tease some tension out especially when you're not familiar with the actual events. But this is essentially a two-hander, a game of chess between Gail and Getty himself. A mother prepared to do anything for her son who doesn't care about the money, versus the curmudgeonly patriarch who cares more about the name and reputation he's carefully crafted, the power from owning things and his prospect of getting a tax write-off. And it works because both Williams and Plummer are excellent, inhabiting their characters so effectively. The rest of the supporting cast do a fine job but they are merely window dressing.

At the end of the day All the Money In the World is a decent film that will, unfairly, be remembered for it's controversies. More written about than seen. But it features a couple of excellent performances and an interesting dive into the psychology of someone wealthy beyond compare, which retains an abhorrent fascination that makes some sort of sense by the end.

Review: The Cloverfield Paradox

(Dir: Julius Onah, 2018)

Cast your mind back ten years. That was when it emerged out of nowhere and took us by surprise. There had been that nameless, mysterious teaser trailer which decapitated the Statue of Liberty and referenced JJ Abrams. There was little to no information online beyond the cryptic, and eventually a name that told you absolutely nothing. I was fortunate enough to be invited to the multimedia screening in the sorely missed Empire Leicester Square screen 1 (the best in central London and perfect screen for this film). No-one there really knew what to expect. Eighty-five minutes later, after emerging from the sensory assault on-screen, the adrenaline was coursing through the body and the mind was buzzing with excitement. The thrill felt whilst first watching Cloverfield a decade ago is still firmly embedded in my memory – how few of the eight hundred plus films I've since seen at the cinema can I actually say that about?

Since then it has remained something of an enigma. Credit is due for not just rushing into creating more of the same, but it seems to have gone too far the other direction with a tenuous approach to keeping the name alive. 10 Cloverfield Lane is a decent little thriller but you'd never know it was supposed to be any relation to the first film without that name, which if anything proves more of a hindrance. And it's the same issue with The Cloverfield Paradox – there amounts to a few minutes which directly thrust it into this world, but beyond that this could be any independent story in which we need to save our planet. It doesn't help that we've jumped an indeterminate amount of time forward to follow an international team of scientists two years into conducting dangerous energy experiments in space. What has actually happened in the numerous years between destruction arriving and what we're now seeing? There's an interesting bridging story to tell, and if the "second film" does actually answer some or most of this it was done in such a subtle way that only the most ardent fans will have latched onto the details. 

There's potential for The Cloverfield Paradox to be a really interesting film, but tonally it's all over the place. At times it hints at wanting to be like Event Horizon yet it's flirtations with horror amount to nothing. The mystery and thriller elements feel half-baked, and there's not enough action or convincing drama to satisfy. Frustratingly there are some good ideas here such as the actual paradox concept, the introduction of Elizabeth Debicki's character and the lighter touches from Chris O'Dowd (the latter of which would sit better in a different film). Then there's the Earth-bound scenes which feel unnecessarily tacked on, existing solely as a way to tie it into the Cloverfield series – something the film was never originally conceived as being part of. And it shows. Thus we have an averagely entertaining film that would've been greatly improved by either going full bore into sequel territory, or by ditching the half-assed attempts to tie into an existing series and refining it's ideas under the original God Particle title. The only winner here is Paramount who wisely abandoned plans for a cinema release and instead sold the film to Netflix for an alleged $50m. Quite why Netflix paid that much for this film without obtaining rights to the Cloverfield name will remain the most intriguing mystery associated with The Cloverfield Paradox.

Review: The Post

(Dir: Steven Spielberg, 2017)

The Post is a predictably reliable film. Steven Spielberg directing. Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks as the leads. A real life story that proved an important moment in history. These guys can sleepwalk through a film of this nature and you know it'll be high quality, regardless of it not being close to the best films of their respective careers. There's nothing to fault with the acting here and it's particularly enjoyable seeing familiar faces such as Matthew Rhys and Bob Odenkirk dig into interesting roles – in many ways it's their presence, and the whole supporting cast, that actually lifts the film. The moments of argument and debate over whether they should or shouldn't publish the famed Pentagon Papers are where the film really comes alive.

Thanks to the current political "situation" in the US The Post was rushed into and through production – a clear case of trying to be relevant with an eye on marketability – but that arguably feels a little too detrimental to the film. Watching it without making parallels to the present day is impossible and somewhat distracting. The positive sense of achievement you get from the actions of the staff of the Washington Post in 1971 feel hollow knowing that in 2018 the press are facing an even more alarming problem. And it's not as if a Spielberg drama is actually going to inspire much positive action. If The Post had been released two or three years earlier we would've all breathed a sigh of relief over how far we'd come. But now it's films such as Oliver Stone's Snowden, with the same core theme of disgust at the government and a belief that the public should know, that feel more relevant.

The Post is the sort of drama that Spielberg makes so well, with both Hanks and Streep fitting perfectly into roles of the type they usually inhabit. In other words you know this is a high quality drama even if it's not the best work by any of the parties involved. Just try not to feel too deflated as it reminds you how bad things are today.