How can such a great thriller from such a great director have such ugly cinematography? Don't get me wrong, right away I noticed Ridley Scott's penchant for gorgeous master shots. He can capture the atmosphere of Italy quite well in a single take. Yet, this may well be the ugliest filter I've ever seen in a movie. Perhaps I could count 300 and The Immortals, which sear my eyes, but those are caricatures to begin with and were never meant to be taken seriously. This, though? Really, Ridley? Why? The only place I've seen filters like these done worse and played straight is in television, with shows like Riverdale and Smallville (and I was a fan of the latter). The colors for this movie feels artificial, lifeless, and dull, and to make it worse, Christopher Plummer has a fondness for wandering around in dimly lit room that accentuate all of these problems. This movie practically a doctoral thesis on how digital cinematography can go wrong.

Okay, okay, I understand, Ridley Scott is an auteur, and this was an intentional decision on his part in order to make the feel of the film reflect the coldness of its most pivotal character, J. Paul Getty. I don't buy it. It isn't enough of a reason to make this film look like puke, and I suspect that shooting the movie on film would have lent more gravitas to the performances. After all, Paul Thomas Anderson recently made a movie about a cold and detached individual, and he didn't let that deter him from making everything of his canvas. Besides that, this is a period piece, yet the cinematography makes it feel like anything but.

With all of that having been said, yes, the hype for Christopher Plummer didn't disappoint. For those not in the know, J. Paul Getty was initially played by Kevin Spacey, until the actor fell into disgrace. Ridley Scott recast him at the last minute with the legendary Christopher Plummer, which was a stroke of genius. First, Plummer looks more like J. Paul Getty to begin with. Second, Kevin Spacey's persona as an actor brings with him a hint of villainy in every role. Plummer plays J. Paul Getty without that baggage and creates a more nuanced character, someone whom you can have more conflicting feelings on.

All the Money in the World is about the former richest man in the world, oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, and how his grandson, J. Paul Getty III gets kidnapped in Italy for ransom money. Getty Senior refuses to pay the ransom, since it would encourage people to kidnap his other grandchildren, and refuses to do anything about the situation that might create a bad business situation. He figures that he might get a former CIA agent, played by Mark Wahlberg, to find the kid and retrieve him without making any compromises.

Getty III's mother Gail, played by Michelle Williams, thinks like a normal person and finds this atrocious. Most people will relate to her opinion more. What's interesting, though, is that when I reviewed this movie other the phone for my own mother, she said that while she would be like Michelle Williams, she also understood Getty Senior's outlook, and it is interesting.

Far and away, the best thing about this movie is Plummer. He takes a character who is incredibly extreme and manages to make him sympathetic, a man who never knows who he can trust because everyone, even family, seems to want something from him. He's frugal, even to the point of claiming that not even his grandson is worth paying any money for, while also saying that he has a special love for him. He captures an interesting balance. As I said, far more than Spacey could have done. Of all of the men supported for Best Supporting Actor, I hope that he wins.

The second great performance comes from Michelle Williams, who manages to look and feel like a normal mother. She doesn't look excessively pretty, but she have the look of someone who became ugly for an Oscar-bait role, either. She looks beautiful in the way that a normal mother who takes care of her appearance would. She manages to take her character through a range of emotions, the best of which being her states of disbelief and denial, where she's not quite shedding tears but clearly looks in over her head. For a moment, I misremembered the list of Oscar nominees and thought that she was one of them, but then I looked them up and realized that she wasn't on there. That's right. They had to put Meryl Streep on there instead.

For those just tuning in, my last several reviews have all taken potshots at the Academy for not recognizing that there's female talent outside of the Streeposphere.

The other performance that really stood out came from Romain Duris, who played a kidnapper called Cinquanta. He's a likable guy, someone who doesn't want to see Getty III hurt and doesn't derive pleasure from his work. He has the passion of an Italian, and a heart for family, and a sense of honor, and a knowledge of things in life that are valuable. He delivers my favorite line in the movie, something that reminded me of a significant cultural difference between Americans and the rest of the world.

The idea that family determines anything about who you are offends many Americans. Consider how many people disliked the notion that there was a special Force Family in STAR WARS. Yet, in many other places in the world, your family relations determine not only the situation you're born into, but who you are as a person. Not all of the world is quite so individualistic.

Anyhow, Mark Wahlberg did a fine job, although not anything particularly surprising. I will defend hi against people who say that he can't act, but he isn't necessarily the most flexible actor. I also didn't pay much attention to him considering that his character was obviously fictionalized.

To end on that note, the end credits make sure to point out twice that this movie was a dramatization inspired by true events. Do not assume that it represents the real events all that well. For example, the last scene with J. Paul Getty depicts a significant even in his life that didn't happen until years after the kidnapping. However, the basic inspiration is true. Family did initially assume that Getty III was joking around and wasn't in actual trouble. J. Paul Getty did refuse to pay the ransom of $17 million dollars and cited dangers to his other grandchildren as a primary reason. He was infamously frugal. He did end up negotiating the highest amount of money that was tax deductible (which was a little higher than in the movie, if I recall). However, Getty III's father had a little more involvement than in this film, but Scott found the drama more interesting if he wasn't present in the story and if he focused on the contrast between Gail and her ex-father-in-law as two opposing, extreme personalities from different worlds.

And you know what? You get a pretty good performance out of that and a nice drama about the the extremes of stoic individualism versus compassionate family bonds. Christopher Plummer is a legend. And the color grading sucks. I'm not sure which one of those is the greatest takeaway for me.