Based loosely on the true story of one of the most prolonged missing person cases in New York, Andrew Jarecki’s (Capturing the Friedmans) All Good Things tries hard to tell a story but ultimately fails to form anything meaningful or lasting. I say it is based “loosely” on a true story because this case is still an open case. As a result, this story is a wishy-washy mess based upon a jumble of fact, rumor, conjecture, and psychoanalysis. By the end of the movie, you could care less about what happens to each of the characters. You would rather just have some logical conclusion. Unfortunately, that’s not what you get. I felt myself wanting and wanting to like this movie, but I grew increasingly frustrated as the movie dragged toward its unsatisfying conclusion.

Ryan Gosling (Blue Valentine, Half Nelson) stars as David Marks, the son of New York City real-estate mogul Stanford Marks (Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon, Good Night, and Good Luck). The family decided, at a very young age, that David would join the family business and, as the only heir, eventually replace his father. We can see glimpses early on that David is mentally ill. We learn that he witnessed his mother jump to her death at a very young age. How much this contributes to his well-being as an adult is up for interpretation.

We first meet Durst in 1971 as a young man. He smiles a lot, acts a little goofy, and seems happy. A lot of that has to do with the fact that he meets his future wife, Katie (Kirsten Dunst – Spider-Man, Elizabethtown), in one of the film’s opening moments. Stanford advises his son not to marry Katie, citing all that he doesn’t like about her. He believes that Katie’s lively, bubbly personality will hinder his son’s plans. He thinks she is well beyond the family’s social class. When his father says, “She’s nothing like us,” David responds, “I know. Isn’t that great!” David is as happy and untroubled at this moment as he is at any other moment of the movie.

After David and Katie marry, they move to Vermont to open a health-food store. The couple is at the peak of their happiness. However, when Sanford visits, he orders his son to return to the city and rejoin the family business. Though against their wishes, David and Katie flourish in the city. They have a lovely little apartment and a house in the country by a lake to retreat. By day, David is a collector of rent in some of the seedier areas of Manhattan. By night, he is a devoted husband. As time goes on, however, David becomes mentally and physically abusive. As the relationship rots, Katie wants out. After 11 years of marriage, she disappears forever.

Though never charged with her murder, David flees New York for Galveston, Texas. His behavior becomes stranger and stranger. He takes a room in a boarding house but wishes to hide his identity. He comes up with a fake name and even dresses as a woman. David finds himself in court after more deaths swirl around him. It is here, in the year 2003, that he retells his whole story to a jury of his peers.

Gosling’s character turn was impressive, though nothing from him surprises me. This man does his homework and brings his A-game for each film he does. Gosling’s transformation of Durst is subtle and not so subtle at the same time. He morphs his character over 30 years, but simultaneously, he has slowly become more and more peculiar as a man and terrifying as a husband. It was a sharp and significant turn, one that could only have been pulled off by an actor of his stature would have been able to pull. It was unfortunate that his performance was lost in this muddled mess of a story.

There was a decent score to this movie, which contributed to its eeriness. The music changed as David became a weirder, darker, and more paranoid person. The backdrop of the movie successfully changes as time progresses. The images of Gosling and Langella alone were impressive, and how they aged over the two decades was perfect. Gosling’s David didn’t age well. He was a decent-looking young man, but he wasn’t the most attractive person to look at as he retold his story in a court of law 18 years after we met him.

Ultimately, however, All Things Good needed to be more straightforward and leave much to be desired. As I mentioned at the start of this review, by the end of the movie, we would have taken any ending. What we did not want was to be left sitting on the edge of our seats. This movie has flaws. The flaws, however, get in the way of the storytelling. We don’t have all of the facts, and that hurts. It’s like the George Clooney movie The Perfect Storm. We know that six men went to sea and never returned. We don’t know how they died. The events from the moment they left the dock until the final scene comprise the storytelling part of the “true story.”  This is unfortunate, as this was a perfect movie. However, if it’s just guessing what happened and then calling it a true story, well, that’s just not fair. The same can be said about All Good Things. See it if you are a fan of Ryan Gosling. Skip it if you are not.

Plot 6/10

Plot 6/10
Character Development 6/10
Character Chemistry 6/10
Acting 6.5/10
Screenplay 6/10
Directing 6/10
Cinematography 6/10
Sound6/10
Hook and Reel 6.5/10
Universal Relevance 6/10
63%