Good performances can't save it
I was at a screening of this over the weekend, and for everyone talking about Oscar buzz, save your breath.
Kirstin Dunst gives what is probably the best performance of her career. While that could be considered faint praise, I thought she was genuinely good in her role. Maybe not Oscar good, but she wasn't a detriment to the film.
The film itself is a mess. Poorly written, horribly paced. Gosling, who I have loved in everything I have seen him in, just doesn't have anything to work with here, which I think can be blamed on the writers and directors. They include two framing devices, one of which never adds anything to the movie and is a pathetic attempt at a fakeout, and the other doesn't become the least bit interesting until the last 10 minutes. Frank Langella gets a stock character and does as much as he can with it, but there isn't much there.
The script underscores every point it is trying to make in the most blatant, ham-fisted way possible.
For those who know the story this is based on and think that it is too fascinating not to make a good movie, keep in mind that the things that make it such a great real-life story don't become relevant in this film until the last 20 minutes or so.
Far too much time on a mediocre story presented in a way that shows no talent for narrative, subtlety or tone. It will get savaged when it comes out, and that will negate any chance of nominations for the actors.
Beware the According To Jim-ization of America. "Good enough" is not the same thing as "Good"