To me, this movie is perfection.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Although this movie starts off quite slow, it really builds suspense and intrigue all throughout. What I like about this film is that it sources on realism. The relationship between the two protagonists is in no way glamorized, as most Hollywood films do, but instead it shows something more raw. At first it seems that there is no real depth to Katherine's and David's relationship but as you keep watching you realize that the depiction of their marriage - lacking any deep and meaningful personal connection - mirrors David's character. Out of the two protagonists, David's character is the hardest to understand. What this film does well is keep his backstory to the minimum, but towards the end the little details that were revealed about his childhood, such as the death of his mother, all come into place. Another aspect of this film that adds to the overall effect is the use of flashbacks, from the courtroom where David is being questioned, to the actual events beginning in 1973 and on wards. Overall, this is simply a wonderful movie. It captured all the necessary aspects to recreate the true events that occurred surrounding David Marks and his trial. Without a doubt, watch this movie now. Especially if you're a lover of murder mysteries like myself.

Chronicles Gosling, son of wealthy New York real estate tycoon Langelia, who is linked to a series of murders. Great performances by all, but Dunst's brilliance brings a suiting yet odd romance to this crime-drama as the central character's wife. Loosely based on the life of accused murderer Robert Durst, but if you caught THE JINX (also by Andrew Jarecki), you'll know that the events are more authentic than most "based on"s. What makes the film so great is that it refuses to structure itself in a conventional manner and allows things to unravel in a very gradual, strange, and realistic manner. Its downfall is too much focus on the early life of Gosling's character, giving it a fatal uneven vibe.*** (out of four)

First time helmer Andrew Jarecki delves into the unsolved 1982 disappearance of Kathleen McCormack, the first wife of Robert Durst, heir to billionaire real estate mogul Seymour Durst. As if to avoid libel the character names were changed, even if the story itself is arguably the most dedicated reconstruction of events in memory. Natural dramatisation was introduced, while certain key plot points were given to present one possible version of events (an educated guess on behalf of writers Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling).Rich heir David Marks (Ryan Gosling) falls for lower class Katie (Kirsten Dunst), who aspires to become a doctor, and despite family protests of entering into a relationship outside of his class, marries her and together set up a low-key country life in Vermont and a shop "All Good Things". Despite happiness found in each others embrace in this reclusive hideout, David in cajoled and lured back by David's father, Sanford Marks (Frank Langella) to work for him in New York. Slowly the relationship starts going sour, as David's past catches up with him (forcing his wife to abort her pregnancy) and lack of sensitivity to Katie's needs pose question marks as to the sincerity of feelings. As paranoia creeps into the marriage the darker sides of David and Katie Marks relationship are explored, and one probability as to what occurred is put into the forefront...Jarecki delivers a confident and stylish movie, one however that falls into the trap set by his own artistic concept. Attempting to refrain from overtly accusatory tones, the movie lingers, hints, suggests, but is very economical with explicitly stating. This restraint ventures into all aspects of the movie, including reasons why the Katie and David distanced themselves from each other, as well as not implicitly pointing out David's psychological issues. Sticking to the most part to cold hard facts (only in the end 20-30 minutes are educated guesses directly presented) Jarecki draws the line to showing what is actually happening, often fading to black, and showing aspects of the past which are documented, such as Katie coming to her neighbours for assistance with a black eye, but never actually showing David hit her.This intriguing ploy does however tend to be self-defeating, as characters increasingly lack distinctiveness. Hints and clues form a somewhat oblique, but convincing version of events, but somewhere within this the story with regards to the why, are lost in the grey areas. Both Gosling and Dunst deliver fine performances, but they too have to always seem to take a step back and let the concept take control, not really affording them much space to truly develop the characters and creating a convincing well-rounded portrait of the relationship. This ambiguity makes for a tough watch and I found myself struggling to keep interested, and only once all the elements where set in motion and Katie disappeared did the movie pieces really start to come together into a bigger picture. The last 30-so minutes therefore make for good watching (albeit still ), but the path towards it is tedious and uneventful, lacking much needed cinematic magic.Nonetheless, this misfire shows the great artistic potential of Andrew Jarecki, as a director worth note for the future.

'All Good Things' is the only big screen feature film made until now by director Andrew Jarecki, who seems to have been involved previously with documentary movies, and we can feel this. Although he had for this movie at hands a splendid team of Hollywood actors who did a fine job he did not succeed to turn the juicy crime story upon which the film is based into a real compelling piece of cinema.The story Jarecki is using is the highly publicized and never solved case of the disappearance in the early 80s of the wife of a rich class New Yorker, involved in the murky real-estate business of his family in the center of Manhattan. Twenty years and two more bodies later he was brought in Court, but his guilt was never proved and today he walks free. However the film does not focus on the investigation, but rather provides a convincing (on screen) theory of the way things happen, of the motivation and reasons of the crimes. It's a dark story about moral misery and personal crisis in a family of super-riches. The problem is that it's hard to define and possibly the distributors had a hard time advertising the genre and the story of the film. Crime stories fans will find themselves watching for more than half of the screening time a family drama, romance (the film starts like kind of a 'Love Story') quickly turns into disarray and domestic violence, reality does not necessarily make into cinematographic truth.The best reasons to watch this film despite mixed reviews and not a very high mark on IMDb is however acting. Ryan Gosling can hardly do wrong on my taste, and here he is facing a complex role, in which he accompanies his deeply troubled hero from young age to late maturity, from the picks of the easy life of the New York socialites to the abyss of the life of a fugitive and transvestite. The even better news is that there is even better acting than Gosling's in this film and I refer of course to Kirsten Dunst's role as the loving wife whose dream of marrying the nice and rich guy slowly descends into nightmare, and to the veteran Frank Langella who injects character and complexity in the role of the family father who is much more than a (anti)-moral symbol. At the end of the day and of the film the artistic truth of this story comes from a different place than the factual truth.