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...
Point taken in that there are big stars and a true story with which many are familiar. But it's slow. I was amazed how good Kirsten Dunst was. She can act. Don't know why she isn't in more main stream films. She's pretty, young, and can really act.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I didn't know about it until I came across it on Netflix. I also had no idea about the real case it was based off of. I don't know why I had never heard of either.
shareIt supertanked because it was a deeply flawed movie and the Weinstein Company realised they had a mongrel on their leash, thus the 18 month delay in releasing the thing in the first place. Never a good sign when movies are shelved, while distributors seek the best release window.
The first couple of acts build interest in a modest manner, but crucially, the so-called close relationship between David and Deborah is never really backgrounded or fleshed out. We are told about it, rather than actually see evidence of it. Similarly his mental issues just seem to suddenly start occurring, well after he's married. Surely she would have had some early warnings.
The final act is almost surreal and appears like it's part of another film, with David running around cross-dressing, whilst trading scoobies and gun practice with Malvern Bump. Also weird editing as for example when a shot of a subway train is inserted for no apparent reason, followed by Seymour picking up a phone, putting t to his ear, then putting it down again.
Quite honestly, I can understand the punters staying away in droves. This ain't no Zodiac!🐭