Mr. Gosling's performance was "close," but "not as good as the real thing," Mr. Durst told The New York Times' Charles Bagli and Kevin Flynn, who have covered the Durst case since the late '90s. “Parts made me cry,” added Mr. Durst, who showed up on set during the filming and saw the movie at a private screening arranged by Magnolia Pictures.

During production of All Good Things — "part researched docudrama that claims to point to the truth," according to Messrs. Bagli and Flynn — the lawyers for the Durst Organization promised to sue upon the film's release. At issue was Mr. Jarecki's depiction of Seymour Durst as an instrument for criminal businesses in old Times Square. "[The filmmakers] can do whatever they want, but to misrepresent somebody's life story when there are live relatives around strikes me as—um—his right, but hitting below the belt," former Manhattan borough president Ruth Messinger told The Observer earlier this month.

With the film slated for theatrical release this week, the Durst Organization has pivoted away from legal action. “Fortunately this movie will be seen by so few people that litigation would be superfluous,” Douglas Durst told The Times.

Earlier: Seymour Durst Did Play Tennis: Otherwise, New Film Gets Lots Wrong About Real Estate Lore