Far from perfect, but impressive acting and an adequately intriguing story push it along. Gosling's character never really gets the transformation that he needed which makes the film struggle in the 3rd act. The 3rd act is also marred by the awful makeup used to age Gosling. It looks awful and takes you out of the story to an extent. Luckily good acting makes up for a number of the films' flaws.

A good character portrayal from Gosling. After reading some other reviews, it seems I enjoyed this one a bit more than the majority, but still nothing fantastic.

David Marks is truly effed up if the details of this story are anything to go by. Interesting but I think they should have focused more on his twisted state..or maybe tied it closer to the actual events? Worth a look.

Unjustly maligned for not capturing some of the weirder facts of the underlying true story, All Good Things presents a narrative that's weird enough: Any more kink and the whole film would leave us grasping for a character with whom we could identify. As it stands, All Good Things is an entertaining 100 minutes that captures the essence of three different time periods, keeps us guessing and manages to find some essential truth in even the most alienating of protagonists.

Falls apart whenever Kirsten Dunst isn't on screen. She's the light in the darkness of this movie about cold, cynical, miserable people.

Huge piece of shit. Jarecki has no idea what he's doing or what kind of story this is supposed to be. The stupid text based ending was really unsatisfying and just makes you feel like you wasted 100 minutes of your life (you did). If Kirsten Dunst didn't show her glorious rack it could be a 0 for me.

This movie was really depressing.

The ending is one of the most laughable things ever, but Kirsten Dunst shows her wonderful breasts and that I cannot fault.

Kirsten Dunst is the only sign of life in this otherwise soul-dead movie.

Dunst is pretty, though a lousy actress.

A real missed opportunity because this is such a powerful story...it just didn't translate to the screen all that well. Definitely nowhere near the greatness of Jarecki's freshman film, Capturing the Friedmans.

The first 30-40 min is a good drama, the rest is CHAOS !!!

Thought that it built up really well to a certain point and then lost its way. It was so tightly edited and made, and then I just started wondering what the hell is going on? It was at this point that the movie lost like 20 points for me. It's sad really because Gosling did a great job, and I even liked Kirsten Dunst.

Started off really promising but eventually fizzled out into a mess of a movie.

The script for All Good Things becomes almost visible, via short, sharp, plot enhancing scenes. Trying desperately to sneak past the viewer casually, but invariably they end up awkward and contextless. Goslings character all but disappears half way into the film, about the same time the screenplay begins heavily implying the the Marks' had their way with McCorkmack. These suggestions arise in either blatant scene choices and dialogue or in more subtle symbolism.

This story is inspired by true events, and boy must fiction writers be truly inspired by this story. It is so surreal, that it is hard to comprehend that this actually could have happened. With that said, the actual movie doesnt hit a home run. It never slows down to make you fully understand Goslings character, but instead tries to be a full blown thriller. Decent performances by all three leads, but this could have been great had it just focused more on David Marks and his demons!

"It takes more than a little ambiguity and amateur-hour psychoanalysis to make Gosling's cipher the basis of an engaging screen drama." - Andrew Schenker

I give "All Good Things" the same score as "Jackass: Number Two" but I definitely prefer the latter.

This film had no direction, and thats what you get for picking a "true" story with no true conclusion. Can't believe Gosling touched this. Pass it up.

Not bad, but serious pacing issues keep it from being a truly engaging drama. The summary on Criticker is wrong, but I think I would prefer that version to the real movie :)

Thought it lacked good screenwriting and pacing. The story starts off strong but then evaporates into nomansland and it's impossible to give a shit. Jerky polaroid images of a childhood; really?? Still somewhat enjoyable though for the single reason that Ryan Gosling is a very, very magnicifent actor and it's always a joy to see him perform.

I agree with krf7. This could be nice story to tell. The pacing was jerky and there was several big holes in it. Sometimes director created nice mood, but over all I was very disappointed the output.

I love the movie, but the scenario is a little bit bland. The acting of Ryan Gosling is perfect as usual.

With little care for any characters, the eerie plot seems more hollow than thrilling. Gosling's character development was hardly explored. And this True story was too ambiguous to leave any sort of impression.

#11#, story, Kirsten D, R Gosling