If the real David Marks is currently living in Florida and not in prison, then how is it a movie like this gets made? Whether it's exaggerated or not, it doesn't make sense to me that a movie making such serious accusations about a man who was never convicted gets made while he's still alive?
shareSeveral answers:
1) It's not much different than people writing unauthorized biographies of current celebrities and politicians. Or tabloid gossip. Or when Law and Order has a "ripped from the headlines" episode. (which I think is VERY tacky, by the way) Actually, it's exactly like L&O's ripped from the headlines episodes.
2) If I recall correctly, the movie never shows David Marks committing an illegal act. It does show him on trial, which did actually happen. It allows you to speculate, to fill in the blanks, but you don't see him kill anyone. He did cop to one death in real life but claimed it was self-defense.
3) "David Marks" does not exist. The names have been changed. And the movie doesn't claim to be a documentary.
---------------------
Move out of my way or I will MAKE you move out of my way. --Sydney Bristow.
[deleted]
michaelflatley learn English instead of spilling your gibberish all over the internet. You look like an idiot.
shareI thought it was clearly showing him killing Malvern by bashing him in the head with a phone, then shooting him.
shareThat's no mystery. He did indeed kill that old man and was tried for murder for it, and acquitted.
The only thing that could be considered libel is accusing him of murdering his wife, but the movie doesn't do that exactly.
The old man killing Deborah is questionable...but really, would the real David sue over that, and open in court the facts of that execution? I think not.
I went to a screening tonight that included a Q&A with the director. He said that the real "David Marks" has seen the film and appreciated that it showed him as a human being. While he obviously didn't support some of the insinuations the film may make, he thought it was well done.
(However, his family did write an 8 page letter threatening to sue. Interestingly, most of the claims in the letter were minute details that the director had evidence to support... none of the claims were about the disappearance.)
Wow, cause I thought Gosling did such a great job at making him a real piece of sh&*(t (maybe not at first), and I was glad to actually have a cold-blooded character protrayed as a piece of sh^(t. He was a perfectly horrid little psychopath without the ability or desire to please or impress. Nice acting all around.
shareFunny I thought the movie made him look like a certifiable creep who had a hand in the murder of 3 people.
But I was surprised to find out that he did okay the film and even did commentary on it. Which also leads me to believe he's even nuttier than I thought. Only a sociopath could think this put him in a good light.
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all
The real David Marks made a commentary on the dvd with the director.
sharehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Good_Things_(film)
and here is the link to Katherine Durst MISSING POSTER and story on Susan's murder along w/ her photo (who was actually a mob figure's daughter) http://womenincrimeink.blogspot.com/search/label/Susan%20Berman
The whole story & more photos "here" (what the movie didnt tell) http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/robert_d urst/1.html
I look forward to that documentary on Durst soon.
shareYou pointed out that he was "never convicted." This implies that he was found not guilty. The truth is that he was never tried in the disappearance/murder. Not exactly the same thing.
Call me Katie. ;-)