Love & Secrets

In All Good Things, the director/writer has created a plausible fiction to account for a series of actual crimes. The evolution of the supposed killer from carefree youth to malignant immoralist is depicted, step by step. The strength of the movie as a story lies in its focus on a web of characters and their relationships to one another, rather than on the crimes themselves. We never see actual violence, but only its effects on characters, and their subsequent efforts to conceal the truth, to escape from their situation, or to satisfy some personal need. The movie functions mainly as a kind of indictment, and I wonder if it would work were it not for the 'documentary' angle, the movie as crusader for the truth, bringing to light the possible culpability of a real person, abetted by certain friends and family, a man as yet unpunished.

The motivations of this character, the object of the indictment, are accounted for in the course of the story, as various traumatic and painful incidents from his life are shown or recalled, and by allusions to deviant mental conditions or sexual preferences that are not. Whether these revelations are served up clearly or merely hinted at, they somehow fail collectively to satisfy as explanations for the barbarism that emerges as the story proceeds. At the end, the inner life of the putative killer remains obscure, a source of dissatisfaction for a movie that is about character.

So, not a great movie, but an engrossing entertainment if you are in the mood for a dark story that leaves you wondering how closely real events in fact matched up to this clever reconstruction.

The dysfunctional family of David Marks appears to have scarred him. His mother's death at a young age seems to haunt him. He is the eldest son of a shady, demanding real estate mogul and seems uncomfortable following in his father's footstep and getting involved in this financial empire. He seems bored, disconnected. One day he meets Katie McCarthy, a sunny and enthusiastic young woman. The story, taking place over several decades, explores their growing relationship and how the weight of David's dark legacy makes it all spiral down.

Andrew Jarecki is better known for the well-received Capturing the Friedmans. This is his first full-feature film and he tackles a difficult project but in many respect, this seems a logical continuation. His past as a documentary maker serves him well, since All Good Things is based on a real story. And much like "Friedmans", once again this is about very scary, dark characters. Jarecki's direction is mostly slick and simple, relying on a script and also an amazing cast

It is David who narrates the story, yet things are kept enigmatic and viewers have to reach certain conclusions. There is an economy in dialogue but everything is put in place for you to have a good idea of what is going on in Marks' life. There's something really powerful yet understated about how David inherited of traits both from his mother and his father, pulling him down. Many people have described the film as a sort of mix of romance and mystery, which is accurate. There are almost noir elements to the film.

What is most remarkable about the film by far is the cast. Ryan Gosling continues his ascension as one of the best actors working today. Kirsten Dunst shows why she has become kind of underrated in a very difficult role. They both play every single emotion perfectly and must use a lot of range and in very few words, we get their characters. Frank Langella as the father steals almost every scene he is in. This is an actor who always took his craft seriously but seems to be getting even better as of late. People talk about the chemistry between Dunst and Gosling but I was amazed by Langella and how he made these two actors better in every scene he was with them. Philip Baker Hall is another veteran who shines here in a smaller role later in the film. It's not easy establishing your character with little screen time but he pulls it. The rest of the supporting cast is excellent. Really strong point (and good for Jarecki, a guy used to film real people and not actors).

Where the film is a little less successful is in drawing the audience in. We feel sometimes as emotionally disconnected from these characters as David and Sanford Marks themselves. Jarecki is almost clinical in his approach. The romance never lifts up and so, the mystery grabs the audience a little less. Visually, the film also ends up a mix bag of more naturalistic shots and weird artsy attempts. There are abrupt flashbacks and forwards that make for an uneven pace and a less engaging experience.

Overall, this is still an interesting take based on a fascinating real-life mystery and a rewarding film if you are patient.

Let me begin with the acting. Very strong and good acting from all the major players on this film. Something you could expect, when you read the cast list. The story is decent too, but you might feel there is something missing (or maybe it was just me). Especially if you have seen similar movies.

The story evolves more or less linear (so you probably will be able to spot where this is heading), so it will mostly depend on your view on the subject and how much you like the actors in it. Again I liked both, but I think there is something missing, that I cannot really put my finger on, but I can feel it's absence. I know it sounds abstract, but I can still recommend the movie nevertheless

A disquieting thriller, complexly plotted and with numerous twists and turns which actually turns out to be fairly closely based on a real-life story in America, which kind of shoots to pieces any criticisms I had of the credibility of the narrative development here.

That said, I'm not sure the time-honoured device of flash-backing from the trial of the accused David Marks, with interspersed updates as matters proceed, best serves the flow of the film. Moreover, things do take some time to get moving with too much concentration, in my opinion, on character development, especially on subsidiary characters, before Marks' strangeness starts to manifest itself, although this too is done awkwardly (off- camera conversations with himself, point-blank rejection of having a family with his living wife, peer-pressure from his father) so that I'm not sure I made the leap to psychopathy that Ryan Gosling's character actually makes.

The supposed thriller sequences are done in a hackneyed manner too, with night-time filming, dark shadowy interiors and even thunderstorms outside which work against the realism striven for elsewhere. By the end, after some head-scratching about Marks' transvestism and the strange, fateful relationship he builds up with his elderly fellow- tenant, I felt the movie hadn't satisfactorily plugged the plot-holes along the way for it to flow as it should.

Gosling and Kirsten Dunst are both good in the lead parts, although the shifts in character for the former, as indicated, are difficult to surmount. While Gosling plays each facet of Marks' contrasting personalities at different stages, I'm not sure he convinced this was all mixed up in one person, although that may be down to the writing. I did appreciate the sub-Herrmann use of soundtrack music, but ultimately felt this movie failed to gel in attempting to combine fact-based analysis of a psychotic Norman Bates type character with the conventions of a mainstream Hollywood psychological thriller.

I had never heard this story before, and found it very interesting in a way that kept me wanting more to see of this film.This movie kept me entertained almost the whole time. has some boring moments like every movie, but still a fantastic movie to enjoy on a weekday. I recommend it to film lovers who wants something more then the usual crap Hollywood has been giving us lately. It's not an Oscar movie, but it in my opinion it deserve high points at IMDb.

Really enjoyed watching Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst working together. they did a good job I think.

Summary: Good directing, Good acting, Good screenplay, Good film.

7/10