We've been discussing this movie because of the fact that director Ridley Scott, in a race against time worthy of its own movie (at least a documentary) rushed to replace Kevin Spacey with Christopher Plummer after Spacey had been accused of multiple incidents of sexual misconduct.

 

The irony is that Plummer (who is actually closer in age to the character he plays J. Paul Getty Sr.) was actually Ridley's first choice to begin with but he ended up going with Spacey whom the studio preferred.  

 

The reviews appear to be quite positive so far and the one I read in the NYT seemed especially laudatory of Christopher Plummer. 

(Interesting piece of trivia: the actor who plays J. Paul Getty III, grandson of the patriarch J. Paul Getty Sr., is named Charlie Plummer, who is not related to Christopher).

 

Here is the trailer:

 

 

Edited December 25, 20177 yr by DramatistDreamer

Prepare to be disappointed.  Basic as hell!  

1 hour ago, ChitHappens said:

Prepare to be disappointed.  Basic as hell!  

 

Wow, really?  How was Christopher Plummer's performance?  I guess this may now serve as a cautionary tale against rushing a film out to the theaters.

I thought the film was largely enjoyable - and the film in and of itself seemed accessible. Michelle Williams was the one and only star in this, though. She gave one of my favorite performances of this award cycle so far.

On 1/5/2018 at 11:42 AM, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Wow, really?  How was Christopher Plummer's performance?  I guess this may now serve as a cautionary tale against rushing a film out to the theaters.

 

Yes, very underwhelming.  I'm not sure how badly the recast and reshoots affected the movie, but it was severely underwhelming.  Lacked focus and choppy.   Mark Wahlberg was just an expensive person in scenes.  His level of acting is not suited for this kind of movie.  
 

Then they try to do a flashback and take Christopher Plummer's character back 40+ years and use Plummer for the scenes.  It was THE most ridiculous thing because the man is 88 freaking years old.  

 

Overall, with or without the recast and reshooting, it just wasn't a good movie.   

40 minutes ago, Skin said:

I thought the film was largely enjoyable - and the film in and of itself seemed accessible. Michelle Williams was the one and only star in this, though. She gave one of my favorite performances of this award cycle so far.

 

I agree that Williams was the best part of the movie, but it's simply not enough.  Which Is why I don't believe there is much buzz about the movie.  Hell, only 3 of us have commented in this thread.   

Edited January 8, 20187 yr by ChitHappens

And if Williams was the best part, the film's production execs sure didn't value her contribution.  At all. In fact, they took advantage of her.

 

Williams (and others) volunteered time and gave up salary for the Spacey-eliminating reshoots because of belief in the cause. Wahlberg's people secretly negotiated him another $1.5 million. https://t.co/uPopsyYfwq

— Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) January 10, 2018

She needs to find different representation. I have a feeling the agency, which reps Wahlberg and Williams, will lose clients! 

1 hour ago, ChitHappens said:

She needs to find different representation. I have a feeling the agency, which reps Wahlberg and Williams, will lose clients! 

 

As they should.

Mark Wahlberg is SCUM

 

 

Edited January 12, 20187 yr by dragonflies

His PR people must've had a talk with him.

 

 

News: Mark Wahlberg and his agency are giving $2M to the Time's Up fund amid outcry over his pay discrepancy with Michelle Williams. https://t.co/wht301R2DI

— Matthew Belloni (@THRMattBelloni) January 13, 2018