Avaliações de usuários

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.

Greetings again from the darkness. Who among us isn't intrigued by a real life "unsolved" murder mystery? Throw in a very wealthy New York real estate family, a never-discovered body, an executed friend, and a horrible childhood trauma and it is certain to draw the attention of filmmaker Andrew Jarecki. Jarecki's film "Capturing the Friedmans" won numerous awards and is among the best documentaries ever made. He has a knack with dark family secrets.

In the film, Ryan Gosling plays David Marks, disenchanted son of Real Estate mogul Sanford Marks (a powerful Frank Langella), who witnessed the grisly suicide of his mother when he was very young. David meets the energetic and affectionate Katie (Kirsten Dunst) and the two dreamers escape Daddy's clutches and head to Vermont to open a health food store. Finally wilting under pressure from Sanford, the couple returns to the city and David joins the family business. The good things are soon to end.

Since much of the real life story is still a mystery, Jarecki does a nice job in assembling pieces from the trial records. Along the way, we meet David's friend Deborah Lehrman (Lilly Rabe), an acclaimed writer who seems to always be there for David ... as he is for her. We witness the transformation of David from loving husband to mentally disturbed murder suspect.

Jarecki gives us some guidance on what might have happened and how the plan could have been executed, but we'll never know for sure. What we do know is that there was not much happiness associated with this family, despite the wealth and 42nd Street real estate holdings.

The acting in the film is tremendous. Gosling, Dunst and Langella are top notch. Yes, Ms. Dunst provides what is easily her best screen performance ever. Support work from Lily Rabe, Phillip Baker Hall, Nick Offerman and Kristen Wiig is all strong and believable. This one will give you the creeps ... and rightly so.

"All Good Things" is a love story and murder mystery set against the backdrop of a New York real estate dynasty in the 1980s. Directed by Andrew Jarecki (director of the Academy Award-nominated doc Capturing the Friedmans), the film was inspired by the story of Robert Durst, scion of the wealthy Durst family. Mr. Durst was suspected but never tried for killing his wife Kathie who disappeared in 1982 and was never found. The film stars Ryan Gosling as David Marks, Kirsten Dunst as Katie McCarthy, and Frank Langella as David's father, Sanford Marks.

From the beginning, the relationship between Gosling and Dunst is very intriguing and interesting; possibly the best part of the story. Their chemistry is very believable and charming. As David and Katie start their lives together, everything seems perfect. However, all good things must come to an end.

David's father does not approve of Katie or of David's lifestyle. Disappointment is all he sees in his son. David seeks to please his father, even if that risks his own happiness. Katie becomes increasingly independent, hoping for more out of their happy life and marriage. David likes things as they are. Soon enough, secrets from his past slowly begin to surface, resulting in mistakes and consequences that cannot be changed. I won't mention details into David's past, but it soon becomes apparent that this happy marriage wasn't meant to be. Jarecki does a very good job of showing us a perfect marriage as it slowly crumbles and falls into nothing. It's very effective, and at times, tough to watch.

Although it is difficult to get into his character, Gosling is superb. He does the best of what can be done with a character that isn't given easy material to work with. It's quite sad to see a character who obviously needs help, but is never able to get it. Dunst gives an incredible performance. She stole the show. Her character is of a woman who loves her "prince charming" with everything that she has, but as their relationship dies, she slowly disintegrates into an abused mess. Dunst gives one of the best performances of her career.

The first half of the film was good. Jarecki, however, did have issues with piecing together the second half of the film. This is when the supporting characters of the film became an important part in moving the story along. Truthfully, we did not know or care enough about some of these characters. It was difficult becomes there was no one that we could really root for. It was still interesting, but not nearly as good as the first half. Everyone gave great performances. Lily Rabe, Kristen Wiig, and Philip Baker Hall were wonderful. Not one bad performance out of the entire cast.

"All Good Things" is an intriguing story that studies two people as they rise to their greatest, but unfortunately fall to their worst. The performances make this film worthwhile. The film isn't perfect, but I found it to be a very interesting portrayal of a true story that will clearly blow your mind.

7/10

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

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.

All Good Things is a film that's 'based on a true story.' However, I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen those words, only to find that the movie was so loosely based on reality that it might as well have been Star Wars. Yet, with All Good Things, it really is based on a real murder/missing persons case in America from the eighties.

We see Ryan Gosling and Kristen Dunst meeting and falling in love. Everything seems idyllic until Gosling starts acting more and more strangely. Then his erratic behaviour starts to get physical and even violent. 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 the 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.

We're given plenty of visual ammunition with which to base our own conclusions on who may or may not be guilty of which crimes, mainly through alluding to deviant mental conditions or sexual preferences. None of these offer any real evidence, only circumstantial. However, despite leaving the viewer in the role of judge as to whether Gosling's character is guilty or innocent, the film is worth watching for the two leads' performances. They do well to get into some very difficult characters and the film is definitely worth a look.

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.

All Good Things (2010)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Decent drama about real estate heir David Marks (Ryan Gosling) who goes against his father's (Frank Langella) wishes by marrying a young woman (Kirsten Dunst) who doesn't come from the same background. The young couple start off just fine but David's personal and mental issues start to wreck the marriage and before long the wife is missing. Nearly twenty-years pass and someone decides to open the case back up after David has been connected to a couple other crimes. ALL GOOD THINGS features an interesting story based on a true story and it contains some very good performance but when the end credits started I couldn't help but think that all of the good things had been wasted. We can start off with the good stuff and you certainly have to look straight at the performances. Gosling once again turns in a very strong performance as the mentally troubled Marks. I thought the actor did a very good job at playing the troubled character without having to go with familiar bits and pieces to show how "troubled" he actually is. Gosling plays the part mostly silent and I thought this was an effective decision. Dunst also comes off extremely good and I'd dare say that she steals the film. I thought she was quite believable early on as the sweet girl who thinks she has finally reached her dreams. The actress is even better towards the end of the movie when she starts to become abused and begins to fear for her safety. I thought Dunst played the abused part very well and she was quite believable. Langella can always be counted on for a good performance and he really gets to shine here as the rather troubled father trying to help his son. The supporting cast includes some fine work by Philip Baker Hall, Michael Esper, Kristen Wiig and Lily Rabe. The biggest problem I had with the story was the direction, which just seemed all over the place. There's a lot of psychological stuff going on here but it never really jumps off the screen. While watching the movie I couldn't help but wonder what someone like a young Brian DePalma would have done with the material. Another major issue was the screenplay. This is still an unsolved case so it should go without saying that not ever question is answered but at the same time I couldn't help but feel that I left the movie not knowing anything about the lead character. About the half way point in the film Dunst tells Gosling that she doesn't know anything about him and I couldn't help but agree. It's hard to know if this was meant to be some sort of character study because if it was then we don't get to know David. Was it supposed to just be a crime picture? If so then there's really not enough questions asked about what happened. ALL GOOD THINGS is worth watching if you're fans of the cast but if you want to know about the real case then it's probably best that you get a documentary.

Some movies are bad. You get to the end and you wonder why you bothered watching them. And then some movies are painful. "All Good Things" falls into the "painful" category. Was this a story that deserved to be told? It's based on the story of Robert Durst (whose name is changed in the movie to David Marks, played by Ryan Gosling.) The details (as far as they're known) of Durst's life are fairly well presented. The story revolves around the troubled relationship David has with his real estate mogul family, and with his deteriorating relationship with his wife Kathleen, played by Kirsten Dunst. Eventually Kathleen disappears, and to this day no one knows what happened to her.

The movie clears nothing up (which is forgivable, since it is an unsolved case.) It revolves around testimony David gave in his trial for killing someone else, which is the somewhat cliché means by which the movie unfolds. The problem with it is that it starts out uninteresting from the very beginning, becomes downright boring quite quickly, and enters the realm of the truly bizarre in the last 45 minutes or so. The story doesn't flow well, and the pieces don't seem to fit together. The story seemed to move in a sort of A to E to M to X direction, with the viewer not really being sure what the connecting points were, and in the end it left me completely unsatisfied.

To be frank, this was a waste of time. (1/10)

This is not a bad movie at all, but you should watch the documentary "The Jinx" and get the true story. I didn't connect the two untill I watch this movie the second time, but this is made over the life and story of Robert Durst.

Both Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst play their roles very well, and there is an evil vibe to the movie - it never really shows any dull moments. Andrew Jarecki did a good job directing this, but a much better job directing "The Jinx", and the tension is so much better and much scarier. And of course have a huge flip side - but enough of that here ;-) Watch it instead!

The stage curtains open ...

"What the hell did I do? Killed them all, of course."

Since the release of this film in 2010, more light has been shed on the Robert Durst case (on which this film was based upon). The above quote was taken from the final moments in the final episode of an HBO Documentary called, "The Jinx", where Durst allowed himself to be interviewed and then seemingly, in the bathroom afterwards, forgot he was wearing a mic and unintentionally confessed to the murders. BUT, my review is for this movie, "All Good Things".

Ryan Gosling plays the part of David Marks (Robert Durst) and Kirsten Dunst as his wife Katie (Kathleen McCormick) as we begin when they first meet in New York in 1971. David witnessed his mother's suicidal death as a young boy and he was never the same since, impacting nearly everything and everyone that would later be a part of his life. He and Katie marry and start a new life running a house food store in Vermont called "All Good Things". Things are good until David feels the heavy pressure of his overbearing, wealthy father come down on him for not providing his wife a better life, and then later when she wants to start a family, he is deadset against it. If you know the story of the Durst's, then you know how this eventually ends up.

This was an entertaining movie with very good, strong performances by both Gosling and Dunst. Most especially by Kirsten Dunst, who was nothing short of mesmerizing in her role as the ill-fated wife. Despite the good acting though, the overall effect of the film was just "okay". By movie's end, they make it appear that he had managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes even though everything else around hims shouts "suspicion"! How prophetic it turned out to be.

I did enjoy the movie, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it. It is worth a one-time watch, and it is enough to stir your curiosity into looking up the real story and finding out the facts. I would recommend watching "The Jinx" over this, as it held my attention much more. This is 6 stars out of 10.

Solid true crime story has the feel of real life to it in the most important part--the details. Even when the plot makes a swerve towards "oh i can't believe that's what really happened for a second" territory--its the little details and short scenes that makes it feels true to life. (i'm thinking of the scene where Kristen dunst painfully mails this evidence indicting her husband to the senator only to have him mail it back to her husband the next day--"this is family business...and none of our affair", or the quick scene of Ryan gosling writing his phone number on the boat "in case it gets lost", or the terse "Leave A Message" greeting on Gosling's hideaway's answering machine every time someone calls.) There are a lot of little things like that throughout that really make the movie pop.

Yes its true that the story is yet another one about an increasingly sociopaths rich guy--and the unraveling of his life as he gets more and more paranoid, etc. We never really get to know why the main character starts to feel the way he does, beyond the standard he's upset that he's being pushed into a lifestyle he didn't want and doesn't feel the least bit appreciated by his dad bull crap. We don't ever know what's going on inside the main character's mind and its to the film's credit that it doesn't really try to generate any sympathy or likability on the main character's behalf--even if the director and Gosling gives us a slight clue or two as to what might of shaped his current mania. (based largely on the should be coasting but somehow still excellent Frank Langella's treatment of Gosling, Gosling's witnessing of his mom's death at a very early age, and his overall shift in attitude towards his life as portrayed by his non-verbal cues.) That the film succeeded in keeping my interest for its entire running time would be a good question to ask however. The two main performances are top-notch of course, you really get why both parties would be attracted to the other without ever really questioning it--you even get why Dunst would choose to stay with Gosling even after the first bits of crazy start appearing, and there's a lot more where those first bits came from. The film however is also very well directed--the pacing is perfect for this type of film, (the film begins right with the meeting between Gosling and Dunst thankfully wasting zero time on filler material before their courting) i've said before the small details that can make or break a true story are pretty perfect here, the tone of the film--straight face verging on very dry black comedy at times is very good too. When it was over, I really felt like i hadn't wasted my time watching it and that i was really absorbed by the story--however i could not quite place my finger on WHY the film was made in the first place. It was a good story with solid acting all around but the real question that you will want to ask at the end of the film remains unanswered in real life too (which may in fact be the reason the film was made but its still frustrating to ask a question that remains completely unsolved even in the true life story on which this is based.) This is however a solid film with a solid Ryan Gosling performance at the center that too few people will see and will probably go unappreciated for many years until some writer or blogger exploring his filmography years from now tries to pulls it out from obscurity as a re-discovery or whatever. The real story though really should be how Andrew Jarecki successfully made a more or less compelling feature film out of true life events. (something that too few documentary filmmakers actually manage to do even a quarter as well when they try their hands at fictional films.)

Based on a notorious unsolved murder case in New York, David Marks (Ryan Gosling) is the son of high power landlord Sanford Marks (Frank Langella). They own half of Time Square, the more seedy half. When David married Katie (Kirsten Dunst), they happily moved out to the country to run their organic food store. Eventually they abandon the failing food store, and he reluctantly joins the family business. He starts to change. She can't divorce him because he has no money of his own. She would get nothing from the divorce unless she could find something to hold over the family.

The pacing is slow. Andrew Jarecki is a first time director, and lacks the skills to pump up the drama. Both Gosling and Dunst put in good performances. The movie just doesn't have the tension that it is suppose to. It probably spent too much time as the happy couple in the first half of the movie.

When I first knew about the movie, I had least amount of expectation with it given the fact that it had lower ratings overall. I found out about the movie through Roger Ebert and ultimately led me to watch it due to his high rating of the movie. To my surprise, I wasn't let down. All the actors performed well especially Ryan Gosling and Dunst. The chemistry between them seemed beyond average. Ryan fared exceptionally well with his change in demeanor of the character as the movie progresses. We get to see the dark side of the socially disconnected character driven by his father's resentment towards him.

But the movie starts to break apart as it progresses where there seems to be an uneven pace in the screenplay although Ryan tries to hold on to it.

I'd surely recommend it for a one time watch though.

Ryan Gosling fans be warned: He is not enough of a reason to see this movie! I have no idea why Gosling would attach himself to this abysmal project. I usually love him, but this was a very repulsive character that never seemed real to me.

Although Kirsten Dunst was mostly a pleasure to watch, the direction was so slooooowww and painful that I felt like committing murder myself by the end of the first act, trapped watching awful (mostly insane) characters making awful choices.

Following a tedious start, with the droning voice-over of a lawyer questioning the main character, the lackluster script never improved. The repetitive, melodramatic plot just kept going from bad to worse. I very much regret wasting an evening on this.

All Good Things is actually pretty great for its first half. It isn't until its second half that it gets messier and messier and just becomes a very entertaining film. I also always have problems with these types of films that "make up" evidence that isn't there, but in this case nothing is made up completely aside from the fact that it's putting evidence out there from the real case that may or may not have happened, but that makes sense for the film.

The acting is uniformly good, and as good as Gosling is, this film belongs to Kirsten Dunst. She steals every scene she's in, and never once misses a beat of her character's emotional arc. It's a pity that she didn't get any award notices for this. And my review is short, but I really liked it even if it turns into some sort of guilty pleasure by the end.