- After first blush in the theater I walked away extremely impressed with both Michelle Williams (who, like back in 2008-2011 looks to be on a roll again) and Christopher Plummer. Wahlberg is bad and miscast. That’s the fault of Ridley Scott and I wasn’t blown away by the photography (the pic above is gorgeous) from Scott and normally I am. Perhaps that will change with a closer look but after first viewing I don’t have it as a major achievement for Scott
- Getty (Plummer) is a great character and Plummer nails it–
- Like Welles Kane he’s a tycoon and a collector. He’s jaded and the embodiment of greed. A great villain. Williams’ Gail Harris (great almost Kennedy-like dialect that Williams nails) is worn down by this horrific event. She wears it so well as an actress. Poor Wahlberg (who I like in other things quite often) is just an empty suit here.
- Williams is one of our great actresses. She wears the stress of the situation and shows a physical and emotional transformation. The scene where she finds out that a gift from Plummer’s Getty is a fake is a tremendous scene
- Great line from the “Artery” review saying “there are still days before this movie opens—still time to replace Wahlberg with Clive Owen or Fassbender”- haha. So true- how good would Clive Owen be in this?
- The shots of Saudi Arabia just aren’t enough for me. Perhaps there were more when this movie starred Kevin Spacey before the controversy (he was replaced, last minute by Plummer and they shot this in a very short window—pretty amazing). Scott is transfixed with Lean so I was hoping for some more beautiful shots of that desert
- The film in the opening hops around sloppily from different eras and time frames and in at least one occasions forgets to put the title. This smacks of an 80 year old director who isn’t really paying attention to every details like he did 30 years ago (Eastwood and Woody Allen have had some of this recently)
- It’s 30 minutes too long
- Recommend but won’t be near my top 10 of 2017
2.0 viewing July 2018
- I do love the black and white Rome opening (pairing two tracking shots) that ends on the fountain– has to remind you of La Dolce Vita and Fellini– the Paparazzi (everywhere) later does as well clearly
- musical cues a little on the nose at least in one instance with “The Zombies” song “Time of the Season” with “What’s your name? Who’s your daddy?”
- at parts it’s almost like Wahlberg is in another film or has a different writer he’s so bad
- certainly a recommend
@Drake-Are any of Scott’s films post All the Money in the World archiveable? Have you seen House of Gucci, The Last Duel, Napoleon, Gladiator 2? He is incredibly prolific in the 21st Century in his 60’s, 70’s, 80’s. Almost double of what he did in previous decades(80’s, 90’s).
@Lionel- Just The Last Duel in terms of the archives. I’ve seen them all
Does any major filmmaker has a worse hit ratio than Ridley Scott? His films get enormous hype before release, then turns out to be mediocre. Even Eastwood has a better hit ratio. But I don’t think Scott has done something as bad as 15:17 to Paris.
@Lionel – I agree, which is why I have never done a full on Ridley Scott Study. Eastwood’s directing career is similar in a way, a few MP or near MP films and a litany of basic Recommends. The difference is Scott’s films often are loaded with great actors and great material yet fall flat. I have noted before that it was disappointing that Red Dragon (2002) with such great material and a superb cast ended up being directed by Brett Ratner. I still enjoy that film but wish that someone like Fincher had directed it. I often forget that Ridley Scott directed Hannibal (2001) which also had a loaded cast and great material yet ended up inferior to Red Dragon. Then there are films like American Gangster (2007) which I enjoyed but felt could have been so much better. I can’t think of many of directors (if any) who so frequently disappoint. It might seem counterintuitive but sometimes mediocre films seem worse than terrible ones, or at least they can be more frustrating in a way
@James Trapp-Steven Soderbergh is the king of basic Recommends.
@James Trapp-Between Eastwood and Scott, at least Eastwood put out some of his strongest films in the 2nd half or later in his career. Scott has been living off the reputation of his first 3 films, 40 years ago.
@Lionel – True about Soderbergh, but at least unlike Scott you can be pretty confident they will actually be archivable films.
@Lionel – True, plus with Eastwood many of his films match expectations. Juror # 2 I enjoyed, I would put as a basic R but it is in line with what I expected. And to be clear I am not championing unambitious films, it is just that Eastwood you know what you are getting where with Scott I continually have high hopes only to be let down