| All Good Things Posted: This pains me, since there is something within this film that is so amazing I feel it needs to be regarded as such, but three stars, while not awful, is certainly telling to the quality of this film as a whole.
Does that make sense?
First, the movie. The film follows the true story (as much can be true in a film `inspired' by real events) of David Marks, a troubled young man looking for ways to rebel against a family that controls his every move (subconsciously, which is the best way). When David meets and falls for Katie, it seems as though his life may start to iron out. He walks away from his father `real estate' clutches and ventures off into a life all his own with Katie, but darkness erodes all happiness when David allows his father's manipulations to reel him back to New York, back into life in the Marks' family. All tumbles downhill, rather rapidly, when familial tendencies begin to separate David and Katie until, one day, Katie disappears.
For me, it is this point of the film where things start to just derail. I understand the whole `inspired by real events' angle, and so I encourage even the bizarre, but the `made for TV' way in which the films later scenes are shot take away from the terror one should feel and actually gives this film a `Lifetime' movie feeling.
The film does a 180, from decently engrossing thriller to complete disaster.
So, this leaves one thing to be discussed...the very reason for which the films first half is so stellar; Kirsten Dunst. I recently wrote an entry for my blog about the amazingness that was Kirsten Dunst in this film, and so I'm just going to quote that here (slightly doctored to reflect this review and not the article I initially wrote)....
"Then we have Kirsten Dunst, who just marvels with all sorts of layered emotional relevance in `All Good Things'. Talk about a brilliant performance in a really bad film. Kirsten plays Katie Marks, a real person (come on Oscar, why aren't you biting) who disappeared, `allegedly' at the hands of her deranged husband. The one thing that Dunst's character, and performance, has (in spades) is serious emotional collapse. One blogger mentioned that you could see Kirsten visibly age as she uncovers the truth about her husband. I totally concur with this explanation of her devastatingly real performance. As she slowly uncovers realities surrounding the family she's married into, you can see a hollowness erode her beautiful features. She remains human despite the dramatic overtones (she never resorts to Hollywood's overtly obvious understanding of melodramatic `emoting') and delivers a quietly natural performance. When she does unleash her suffering, it is with haunting desperation. She completely collapses within her character's knowledge. It's just a shame the film collapses the moment she leaves it."
Yeah, that pretty much sums it all up. She acts circles around the rest of the cast, including Ryan Gosling, who suffers from poor character development (the script seems to skeletal when all is said and done) and really bad makeup. I wish I could say skip the film, but you need to at least watch the films first half. The moment Dunst leaves the scene though, you can take your exit as well. The film just can't recover from such a tragic loss. |
0 comments:
Post a Comment