I am not sure why I don't recall seeing All Good Things while it was in theaters. This 2010 film stars Ryan Gosling, which is sure to have drawn my attention. He is an exceptional actor, whose films I am always willing to see. This film ended up being a good film to wait for on video, anyway.
All Good Things is based on the true story of Robert Durst, a real estate developer from New York. The names of the characters were changed for the film, and the circumstances stylized to make Durst appear guilty of a murder and a missing person in addition to the murder he was acquitted of. Even taking the approach used by director Andrew Jarecki (and writers Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling), the events do cast a great deal of doubt on Durst's innocence. In this film, Durst was represented by a character named David Marks (Gosling).
David Marks is the heir apparent to wealthy real estate tycoon Sanford Marks (Frank Langella). Marks is a brooding, independent thinker who rebels against his father's wishes. Much of the strain in their relationship dates back to an event that happened when David was seven. His father allowed him to stand in the driveway and witness his mother's suicide as she jumped from their roof. Extensive counseling failed to heal the deep scars of that event. David's perception that his father allowed him to witness the events has created a lasting rift between the two.
When David meets a tenant named Katie Marks (Kirsten Dunst) they end up getting married and opening a small health food store called All Good Things. The business doesn't generate profit and David eventually resigns himself to working for this father. Katie and David slowly drift apart before a confrontation at their summer house ends up in Katie's disappearance. David is never charged with her disappearance and no body was ever discovered. Several years later, David's childhood friend, Deborah (Lily Rabe) turns up murdered. David is questioned but never charged.
David ends up in Texas, where he has taken the identity of a cross-dressing mute. He befriends an elderly neighbor, Malvern (Philip Baker Hall) who also ends up dead. David's trial for the murder of Malvern provides the pivot point for the film. All the other events are flashbacks given in the form of testimony at David's trial. He is ultimately acquitted of the murder, which he claimed was self defense. This, in spite of the fact that he chopped the body into pieces and dropped them in the bay of Galveston.
It is interesting that All Good Things didn't generate a lawsuit. The Durst family is wealthy beyond imagination. While the names were changed, the film claims that they were based on actual events, which clearly references the Durst family. The story took liberties with the known elements but did seem to be careful about changing the facts dramatically. The film sometimes leaves the viewer with impressions without actually connecting the dots completely. It was an effective strategy, but the film never fully realized its potential. While it alerted me to the underlying case (which I was unfamiliar with) it just didn't motivate me much one way or the other. I don't feel the outrage that I may have felt had it been handled differently. In fact, it almost feels as if Marks is a victim of circumstance or succumbed to mental illness. The characters were also somewhat flat, which didn't help the film gain my confidence. Overall, it was an interesting story with great actors that just didn't matter much in the end, in spite of the unresolved cases.
My enjoyment of All Good Things may have tilted into the recommended column based solely on the performances of Frank Langella, Ryan Gosling and Kirsten Dunst. Langella's character was a cardboard cutout. However, Langella gives the role enough charisma to make his character marginally engaging. Gosling gives an eerie, almost deadpan performance that gives his character the mental instability to make him almost likable, in spite of his tendency for extreme violence. Dunst was a good counter for Gosling's unbalanced character. She provided balance and a naivete that gave her character credibility. The casting made this film much better than it otherwise may have been.
All Good Things was rated R by the MPAA. The film includes a great deal of violence, including the dismembering and disposal of a human body. The film contains some sexuality and brief nudity (Dunst's breasts as she walks into the shower). There is some cocaine use off the back of a toilet in the lady's room, drinking, smoking and strong language. The violence and theme of the film are the major elements that should prompt age considerations. Teenage audiences should be fine with this film.
I enjoyed All Good Things, but admit that it could have been much better. If there was a message or point to the film, it was lost on me. If the message weren't muddled in a cast of characters that send conflicting signals, I may have come away feeling more satisfied. Instead, we get great performances, but characters that are lacking. We get an incomplete story that alludes to events without connecting the dots. We are left with presumptions, but not a feeling that we should really care or act on what we have seen. The film makes everyone a victim and no one responsible for their actions. It could have been crafted with an eye to presenting a clear message. 6/10.
Trailer and images subject to copyright.
