“All Good Things” is a film that can definitely make viewers feel awkward, to say the least. Criticism came flooding in from all gates leaving vibes from both the positive and negative end of the spectrum being that the film takes the audience on an interesting journey. Reviews came and went, leaving pieces of work that were considered either a success or failure.
Tonight at the Movies’ Laurie Curtis gave her opinion on Andrew Jarecki’s film in a review that works from all perspectives. She begins by explaining that the driving force behind the plot is, no shocker here, money. The events portrayed are real life, and it’s necessary for Curtis to give the reader an overview to spark interest in what’s to come without giving too much detail and ruining the movie. She then carries on by paying attention to the director, Andrew Jarecki, and the main characters Kirstin Dunst and Ryan Gosling. She states that Dunst captures the innocence of the woman she is portraying while Gosling is eerily able to take on versatile roles. Giving insight into the actors’ performances is a pretty important piece to the whole review puzzle. No one is going to want to see a film without understanding why the actor was chosen for the part, and anyone who doesn’t particularly care for the main character isn’t going to waste the twelve bucks if they have no real insight into the film whatsoever.
What really makes her review successful though is her use of emotional reaction to the film and the way she words it. People are affected by money and love, which in some positive or negative way will eventually touch everyone. Curtis understands this, which creates the mood of the movie, and she conveys it by using entertaining phrases such as: “they both put your hair in end and are elements that enable this drama and its thriller quality. In both scenes you are kept guessing and very disturbed.” By showing the reader she had an emotional experience, they understand that there is depth to the film that could potentially spark interest.
On the opposite end of the review spectrum, Matt Joseph, of We Got This Covered, wasn’t as convincingly successful in his writing. He began by explaining that the film is one probably unheard of, with use of choppy sentences that send you into an immediate state of boredom. He continues by giving a play-by-play synopsis that does nothing more than ruin the movie for the reader, leaving not much for questioning. Besides saying that almost everyone except Gosling gives “good” performances, he doesn’t give detailed insight into the actors’ performances. He uses some form of the word “creepy” multiple times and seems to lack an emotional understanding that’s on the same level as Laurie Curtis. He also puts himself in the review for no real reason, which does nothing more than make you wonder, “Why?” It seems that towards the end, he beats around the bush in a confusing way that needs to be reread over and over again to understand what he’s saying. Someone reading his review would most likely pass on this movie because there’s no sense of creativity that would make the film appear to be a stand out flick.
Laurie Curtis: http://tonightatthemovies.com/indexhold/?p=5803
