The opening statement that this is "based on events that occurred" suggests how far it is from the true story. And that is its unfortunate downfall because "All Good Things" is a good movie. It's a good story with interesting characters portrayed by phenomenal actors with appealing atmosphere and engaging transitions to advance it along.
Ryan Gosling is going to have to start being careful. If he keeps playing husbands who treat their wives horribly, nobody will marry him. Here, he plays David Marks, quietly-disturbed, rich, trust-fund kid and he just wants to be with a beautiful girl (Kirsten Dunst) and return to the basics of the country life style. Allowing other people to convince him that Katie's not happy, he returns to the questionable family business in New York City where it is made certain that nobody is, or will be, happy.
What I liked most about "All Good Things" (apart from the actors) was that it started as a romantic drama and slowly progressed into an all-out thriller and flipping the villain and victim around so it looks like innocence and guilt could never be placed. But then the filmmakers finally gave us some facts of the real story, and I realized how far off this was. The filmmakers were extremely heavy-handed in who they thought were the guilty parties, and that just seemed so wrong to me.
Being a thriller about an unsolved disappearance/murder case, you can expect it to be violent. And it was kind of violent, but they could have told the exact same story and made it more interesting without any violence. But the little bit of violence really isn't the problem. The problem is their unprofessional way of implying what really happened. And that really is a problem because otherwise, "All Good Things" would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, I can't recommend it because I don't believe in such a distortion of the truth.
Ryan Gosling is going to have to start being careful. If he keeps playing husbands who treat their wives horribly, nobody will marry him. Here, he plays David Marks, quietly-disturbed, rich, trust-fund kid and he just wants to be with a beautiful girl (Kirsten Dunst) and return to the basics of the country life style. Allowing other people to convince him that Katie's not happy, he returns to the questionable family business in New York City where it is made certain that nobody is, or will be, happy.
What I liked most about "All Good Things" (apart from the actors) was that it started as a romantic drama and slowly progressed into an all-out thriller and flipping the villain and victim around so it looks like innocence and guilt could never be placed. But then the filmmakers finally gave us some facts of the real story, and I realized how far off this was. The filmmakers were extremely heavy-handed in who they thought were the guilty parties, and that just seemed so wrong to me.
Being a thriller about an unsolved disappearance/murder case, you can expect it to be violent. And it was kind of violent, but they could have told the exact same story and made it more interesting without any violence. But the little bit of violence really isn't the problem. The problem is their unprofessional way of implying what really happened. And that really is a problem because otherwise, "All Good Things" would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, I can't recommend it because I don't believe in such a distortion of the truth.