Here's a film with a perfect first hour and then a decent (but inferior) second one. Ryan Gosling stars as "David," a character based on Robert A. Durst, a real estate heir who has led a strange and violent life. Kirsten Dunst co-stars as "Katie" (Kathie Durst), David's wife. The film chronicles their relationship, from its charmed beginning to its sinister end (Kathie Durst is still considered a missing person by authorities). The other key member of the cast is a solid, in-his-wheelhouse Frank Langella, portraying a character based on Seymour Durst, a cold, intimidating, and powerful real estate magnate--and, it's clear, an awful, awful father.

The performances are nothing short of expert. Though not without gems (Interview with the Vampire, the first two Spider-Man films, and Marie Antoinette among them), Dunst's career has been inconsistent, and I believe it's fair to say she's not the most respected actress. But as the hopeful, doomed Katie, she delivers her best screen performance to date. She, with seeming ease and a natural touch, lets the audience understand this fairly complex character--a woman who knows her housband is troubled, dangerous even, but stays with him longer than she should for financial and social reasons. By portraying Katie as a flawed, uncertain, but warm-hearted woman, Dunst has created a character it's easy to root for and mourn. Then there's Gosling--I must admit, I was unprepared for how frightening his performance would be. David is a clenched fist of a man. Even at his most charming, it's clear his soul is a churning sea of anger, torment, and utter madness. Gosling is committed and fearless, following this deranged, despicable, and, at times, tragic character in surprising directions (he lives as a woman, for a time, in Galveston, Texas). Both Dunst and Gosling are in top form. The former's presence is missed during the second half, where director Andrew Jarecki (Capturing the Friedmans) also loses his way a bit. When the action moves from the '70s/early '80s to the year 2000, the film jogs to cover a bit too much (bizarre, complicated, violent) ground in a short amount of time. Perhaps this should have been a two-and-a-half-hour film; the case is expansive and it's obvious Jarecki did extensive research. The second hour is still involving (how could it not be?), but the Dunst-centric material is given much more breathing room.

Still, though, this film is well worth seeing, for Gosling, Dunst, and Langella's fine performances and because it tells a chilling, stranger-than-fiction story.

B+

I was surprised I liked this as much as I did. I agree Gun that this should have been longer, but this is still a damn good true crime story. The performances were great. I was especially fond of Dunst. This deserved a wide theatrical release.

8/10 (A-)

I found it interesting to read this, because I felt exactly the opposite. The film is every bit the typical Lifetime TV-movie for the first hour, and only in the 2nd part when sensation kicks in it becomes enjoyable for me.

The first part has a lot of Dunst, and no doubt I was impressed by her, and dare call it perhaps her best role as well (in truth I have hardly seen anything of her). Langella, and Gosling are also very good, and Baker-Hall simply makes every film he's in better. The wackyness of the story is made interested me to watch this, and it didn't disappoint in that area. The film could have been helped much better if it was shown from more than just what supposedly happened in the mind of Gosling's character. Where I mainly found a problem with the film, was the earlier mentioned Lifetime/ cheap feel of the movie. I'd blame that on the director.

What the film also does good, is that it captures the essence of the time it plays in well, from the environments, to the way people dress, and some cues of music. Where it ultimately falters is just the underdevelopment of the story. On the one hand this film could have just been quite bad, but because of the really strong performances from the lead cast, and the way it gave a rather enjoyable look what supposedly happened it's barely good. The story has the potential for a better depiction with a better director anyway.

B-