Overall the movie is watchable because of its first 80 minutes Kirsten Dunst only and the last 30 minutes of the movie are completely ridiculous. Support work from Lily Rabe, Phillip Baker Hall, NickOfferman and Kristen Wiig is all strong and believable. The goodthings are soon to end. Jarecki, however, did have issues with piecing together the second half of the film. The motivations of this character, the object of the indictment, areaccounted for in the course of the story, as various traumatic andpainful incidents from his life are shown or recalled, and by allusionsto deviant mental conditions or sexual preferences that are not.
It was a good story with solid acting all around but the real question that you will want to ask at the end of the film remains unanswered in real life too which may in fact be the reason the film was made but its still frustrating to ask a question that remains completely unsolved even in the true life story on which this is based. But the screenplay and editing is horrendous. The film isn't perfect, but I found it to be a very interesting portrayal of a true story that will clearly blow your mind. Synopsis A love story and murder mystery based on the most notorious unsolved murder case in New York history. There arealmost noir elements to the film. I'm not saying that as a bad thing though.
Their chemistry is very believable and charming. It trudges along a familiar thriller route, before jumping forward in time, having Gosling aged and disguised as a woman, and a number of murders that do not go towards solving the main plot of the story. I recommendit to film lovers who wants something more then the usual crapHollywood has been giving us lately. Dunst provides what is easily her best screen performance ever. Known to be one of the most chilling police cases in Singapore, this mystery has two boys who left home for school in 1986, but both boys, who were said to be good friends, never got to school. The pans over to the beautiful dog at least provides a few limited moments of watchable screens.
The repetitive, melodramatic plot just kept going from bad to worse. Throw in a very wealthy New York real estate family, a never-discovered body, an executed friend, and a horrible childhood trauma and it is certain to draw the attention of filmmaker Andrew Jarecki. It's very effective, and at times, tough to watch. It was still interesting, but not nearly as good as the first half. In the film, Ryan Gosling plays David Marks, disenchanted son of Real Estate mogul Sanford Marks a powerful Frank Langella , who witnessed the grisly suicide of his mother when he was very young. He is the eldestson of a shady, demanding real estate mogul and seems uncomfortablefollowing in his father's footstep and getting involved in thisfinancial empire.
Though, the movie indicated that what had happened to her but it never fully fill out the gaps in the case. Dunst manages to shed her famous Mary Jane image to play this tormented character. Finally wilting under pressure from Sanford, the couple returns to the city and David joins the family business. Starring two of my favorite actors, this film had high expectations from me. Jarecki is almost clinical inhis approach. Although Kirsten Dunst was mostly a pleasure to watch, the direction was so slooooowww and painful that I felt like committing murder myself by the end of the first act, trapped watching awful mostly insane characters making awful choices. Whether these revelations are served up clearly or merely hinted at,they somehow fail collectively to satisfy as explanations for thebarbarism that emerges as the story proceeds.
He has a knack with dark family secrets. By the end, after some head-scratching about Marks' transvestism and the strange, fateful relationship he builds up with his elderly fellow- tenant, I felt the movie hadn't satisfactorily plugged the plot-holes along the way for it to flow as it should. However the sound editor seems to have nodded off during the production process because the background music just seems to come on and off at odd times. David Marks was suspected but never tried for killing his wife Katie who disappeared in 1982, but the truth is eventually revealed. Ryan Gosling is the stand out, like he is in most movies he partakes in. Its like the editor was tasked to make this into a feature length movie and doesn't have enough content.
His mother's death at a young age seems to haunt him. Although it prods you like a clichéd mystery thriller, it also intrigues you with the more disconcerting aspect of human nature. That said, I'm not sure the time-honoured device of flash-backing from the trial of the accused David Marks, with interspersed updates as matters proceed, best serves the flow of the film. The strength of the movie as a story lies in its focus on a webof characters and their relationships to one another, rather than onthe crimes themselves. We never really get to know why the main character starts to feel the way he does, beyond the standard he's upset that he's being pushed into a lifestyle he didn't want and doesn't feel the least bit appreciated by his dad bull crap.
At the end, the inner life of the putative killer remains obscure, a source of dissatisfaction for a movie that is about character. The romance never lifts up and so, the mystery grabs theaudience a little less. He does the best of what can be done with a character that isn't given easy material to work with. The acting in the film is tremendous. If he keeps playing husbands who treat their wives horribly, nobody will marry him.
The lighting is very low throughout the movie; however, this technique is ineffective as a mood setting. Ryan Gosling is going to have to start being careful. The main issue is probably the fact that it is based on a true story and there are so many stranger than fiction developments and points of interest that trying to capture real life can get messy when trying to also entertain. The story, taking placeover several decades, explores their growing relationship and how theweight of David's dark legacy makes it all spiral down. Since much of the real life story is still a mystery, Jarecki does a nice job in assembling pieces from the trial records.
Kirsten Dunst really put herself out there in the movie and I think it was her best performance till date. We never see actual violence, but only itseffects on characters, and their subsequent efforts to conceal thetruth, to escape from their situation, or to satisfy some personalneed. Since much of the real life story is still a mystery, Jarecki does anice job in assembling pieces from the trial records. Good Thing: I thought the movie was well shot, with a lot of night scenes, they handled the visuals in an interesting mood setting way. People talk about the chemistry between Dunstand Gosling but I was amazed by Langella and how he made these twoactors better in every scene he was with them.