It seems to me that 'Money' is a perfect, elegant and flawless product; a very stylized classic drama. While I was watching it, movies like The Rope (Alfred Hitchcock, 1948) or Wait Until Dark (Terence Young, 1967) came to my mind. The movie is concise, pragmatic and straightforward. Its goals are clear and they know how to reach them. Its message is, on top of that, beautiful, illuminating and not indulgent. The tension is built up in a superb manner for a movie that needs to keep us in suspense. And the director's work with the actors is sublime. With perhaps the exception of Kellan Lutz, more inexpressive, they are all splendid, and that makes the text shine and the credibility of what is taking place escalate. In that sense, the actor's direction is spectacular. At times, the necessity of filming hastily is noticeable, but not so much because of the editing, which is perfect, with just some isolated glimpses that can be observed. However, it is more noticeable in the staging: it looks like there wasn't time to plan a proper communicative meaning beyond what's functional. There is not a genuine relationship between the characters and the space, not a single shot provides more information than what the characters verbally announce. It would have been a spectacular movie if they had taken more risks in that sense. It would have been even better if they had what every movie lacks of: time! But, in spite of that, everything in 'Money' is believable, accurate and intense. Concision, focusing on a single location, a right pace in the dialogues, witty replicas and great performances are but a few of its virtues. In that sense, 'Money' is a complete success.
