Love & Secrets

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

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.

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.

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.