Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Few things to like in ‘All Good Things’

About the movie
All Good Things
MPAA rating:
for drug use, violence, language and some sexuality
Running time:
Release date:
Diane Venora; Frank Langella; John Cullum; Philip Baker Hall; Kristen Wiig; Jeffrey Dean Morgan; Trini Alvarado; Ryan Gosling; Kirsten Dunst; John Doman
Directed by:
Andrew Jarecki

Guy in a trailer park kills his wife, you've got a news story.

Rich guy kills his wife, you've got a news story with a book deal.

Rich guy kills his wife then starts wearing women's clothes - now you've got a movie.

It's "All Good Things," very loosely based on the unsolved murder of the wife of an heir to a New York real-estate family.

"Things" stars Ryan Gosling as David Marks (all names changed), a troubled young man who's never gotten over the suicide of his mother, which he witnessed as a child.

His unsympathetic father (Frank Langella) sees his son's instability as weakness and pressures him to "man up" and join the family business (slum-lording).

David resists, and when he falls in love (with Kirsten Dunst), he retreats to the countryside, spending a few idyllic months as an organic-market operator.

Eventually, though, his sinister father lures him back to Manhattan, where old demons take hold of David's life and his mind, turning his marriage into an escalating nightmare that ends with his wife missing and presumed dead.

"All Good Things" has a few good things going for it - Langella makes a suitably vampiric patriarch, and Dunst is vividly vulnerable as the girl too slow to realize her husband is losing it.

Gosling, though, has the key role and is the movie's main focus. Long after the movie-of-the-week/murder-mystery elements play out, Gosling continues to explore Marks' mental deterioration, much of it occurring in the exile of a Texas apartment building, where he lives as a woman.

A woman who often dresses to kill (apologies to Brian De Palma), as those who attempt to blackmail or double-cross him learn.

"All Good Things" has its share of grotesque sequences but fancies itself a character study and is mainly concerned with examining what it sees as Marks' traumatized, diseased mind.

As fiction, it would be merely dull. But the movie purports to be based on fact, and its amateur psychoanalyzing feels insufficient, intrusive, speculative, self-serving.

The odor of exploitation hangs over it.

Daily News Film Critic
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
comments powered by Disqus
Latest Videos:
Also on Philly.com:
letter icon Newsletter