I found out about this movie while watching a re-run of "Dominic Dunne: Power, Privilege and Justice" and the movie was being made at the time. With an acclaimed director, star cast and director, and a good script...why wasn't it released to theaters in the U.S? Did the Durst family have something to do with it and if so, why would Robert Durst provide commentary???
BTW I thought this was a really good movie, and I'm VERY PICKY...
It's an interesting story that's poorly told, could have/should have been a lot better, Shame really.
share[deleted]
I thought the movie was very good. But in reading Wikipedia it seems that the owners of the movie, the Weinstein Company, didn't want to release the film (the rights were sold). So without a big production company behind it, "All Good Things" didn't get any promotion that I know of. And as a result it had less than $1 million in box office.
The film comes in two styles, the first part slowly builds up tension in a relationship like "Rosemary's Baby". The second half of the movie is more like a documentary.
Maybe that shift in styles bothered the Weinstein Company. But again, I didn't mind that "All Good Things" was unusual and enjoyed it.
BB ;-)
it's just in my opinion - imo -
Well, its popular or so it seems in my neck of the woods. I just got it from my library and it has like 60 something requests.
I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Savior.
I saw the movie last night, felt it was very good. TWC has been having financial problems for a couple of years, and had to sell a few of their movies off to other companies for distribution purposes, and it seems like that happened with All Good Things.
What strange replies you got for this one... Apparently some people think it was a hit just because it was theatrically released somewhere and people put holds on it at a library to check it out for free.
I don't think this would have been a hit just because it is a bit cerebral, and odd in places...and Ryan Gosling is so convincing at such a rotten character which I think might turn off some of his "Notebook" audience.
Still for it to get dumped in a few art house theaters and abandoned is pretty bizarre, especially when another studio had tried so hard to market "Blue Valentine," which isn't exactly mainstream either.
and Ryan Gosling is so convincing at such a rotten character which I think might turn off some of his "Notebook" audience.
because the movie is really terrible and would have been savaged by critics if widely released. it was the director's first attempt at a narrative feature and a lot of good actors seemed to go to waste in this style over substance dreck.
shareIt wasn't that bad, but I did expect more given the actors in it. But it had a feeling of Lifetime Movie of the Week, which is not a good thing when you have a movie starring Ryan Gosling and featuring Philip Baker Hall and Frank Langella.
I thinking Gosling was lucky it was buried.
I agree. Sadly, and with no fault of the cast, the film was terrible. Critics would have killed it, and I don't think it would have been popular with audiences either. Great story but it made for a surprisingly boring film.
shareI really liked it, and compared to the dismally depressing "Blue Valentine" if this movie had been marketed half as much as BV, I think it could have done a decent job at the box office, like at least 40 or 50 mill. But that's just my opinion.
Follow me on twitter @sydsmoviepicks
You are right.All good things was dameged by the bad propaganda by Wainstein Company after they lost the american rights due to their financial problems.Then in the awards campaign due to let the other Ryan Gosling movie emerge.I saw Blue Valentine:to even compare this movie to Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind(like I heard somewhere)it's just crazy.Plus the acting in Agt is far superior than in Blue Valentine.I definitely think that Bv is the most overrated movie of 2010 and it gained much accolades just because its distributor.Fortunately some critics didn't care about that.See The Hollywood reporter,Roger Ebert or Peter Travers and many more.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
"What strange replies you got for this one... Apparently some people think it was a hit just because it was theatrically released somewhere and people put holds on it at a library to check it out for free." Haha!
I've got to agree with Cornflakeboy20 here. I personally thought the movie was pretty good, but most IMDb posters should know that film quality doesn't have much to do with how well a movie does or how much it gets promoted. I think the main problem here is that movie audiences don't want to see Ryan Gosling as a wife murderer and Kirsten Dunst isn't popular anymore. I know I was shocked to see her hold her own against Gosling and I feel a bit bad for her since so many people didn't see this. It's also pretty hard to market a movie based on an unsolved murder, audiences want a better conclusion than that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
True, Gosling plays a lot of characters that are heavily flawed, damaged individuals.
I never heard of this film until 25 minutes ago when my friend started to watch via Netflix instant queue. Not a shocker it didn't see a wide release. It looks like a direct-to-video flick. So far the film isn't horrid but given the filmmaker and acting talent I would expect much more.
shareThis was on last night and so I watched it, I missed it in the theaters. I really thought that Ryan Gosling was very convincing as this psycho guy, he was scary. I think he should have been nominated in this movie instead of My Blue Valentine. The movie, itself, had some holes and some things that weren't thoroughly explained, but I thought the cast did a good job with what they had.
shareI thought it was a really interesting movie. I had never heard of it either and like many others, was wondering why it was so unknown. I personally loved "Blue Valentine" but have never seen Gosling in such an evil role. He has played flawd characters but in this he really did make you despise him. While I still think BV is the better film, I thought Gosling's performance was just as strong, if not stronger, in this flick.
Kirsten Dunst was great as well.
I suppose I meant Ryan Gosling as his career seems to be now. In movies where he was pretty off-putting in my opinion, like Lars and the Real Girl or Half-Nelson, he still comes off to audiences as the hero. I'd say post The Notebook, studios and mainstream audiences like to play him as the well-intentioned, passionate guy.
share"What strange replies you got for this one... Apparently some people think it was a hit just because it was theatrically released somewhere and people put holds on it at a library to check it out for free."