Sweet, Sweet Lonely Girl

There is something here. Something that is not fully explored, but there is also hints and nods to classic horror movies. Like haunted house ones or ones with weird unknown old people in the same house the protagonist is in. Or are they really there? Or even better: who are they? Do we get to see that person? Not here, because the aunt who is helped by her niece here, does not like anyone to enter her room. Or do stuff in that large house of hers.

You could re-watch this and probably find things you didn't notice the first time around. Or at least see them in a different light. Then again you may already see a couple of things, especially if you are film savvy, the first time around. As stated above the potential is there, but it's not always fully explored. And I don't just mean tone-wise or in the form of getting rid of shells/clothes to bare something deep skinned. The movie does seem to play it safe in certain areas and yet there is a lot of subtext. There is a lot of things that you can interpret however you see fit ... What will it be?

Not quite certain of the horror or thriller elements here, but this does take us on a psychological journey with somehing creepy and supernatural underlying the plot of the film. This is a subtle film without much in the way of external scares. This is a slow descent into the psychology of a lonely but sweet girl and how manipulation can come from unlikely sources. Enchanting almost and worth a watch if you enjoy a slow burn film. Nicely produced for the retro feel.

This is gorgeously reminiscent of the art-house horror of the 70s, and everything from the camera work to the sound track was just perfect.

Well acted, well-filmed, and well-edited, and definitely worth a watch, but the film consistently made promises it couldn't keep. The ending is rushed, and while the conclusion was semi-satisfying, the path there was ragged. There were great evocative, repetitive images that never even got a nod as far as anything that could give them depth or meaning. And the jump from "here" to "there" was just a little bit TOO art-house, leaving far more questions than were required.

It seems that filmmakers are so afraid of dumbing down plot points that they leave them too abstract in an effort to be more arty or erudite. I think this film could have further explored some of the basic premises without risking its artistic integrity. And the jump to the final setup could definitely used a longer bridge. Instead of being left with the haunted feeling they were trying so hard to evoke, I was left a bit disappointed and hollow. I think it would have been less disappointing if the foundation hadn't been so well done. A bad film is almost easier to watch than a "should have been" film.

This is worth the watch for style alone. Just don't expect as much substance or depth as the opening seems to promise.

This atmospheric gem is comparable to the same-year film The Caretaker. Both are great bookends for scary-old-lady films made famous at first by Bette Davis. Creepy, artsy, with some sexual scenes but no nudity. No ghosts either.

I can't really comment on this movie, let alone give my review, because I don't know wtf I just saw, all I know it was really darkling loveliness, very much so , totally well written even though I have no idea wtf... lol, I can definitely say one thing, A.D. Calvo, this is his last film on his list of films but my first of his to see, I came here cause of the terrific! thespian Quinn Shephard; fell in love with the sweetness of an angel named Erin Wilhelmi in all her creepy lovely melancholic adorableness - just have to see it to actually believe this ending, what a ride, hella awesomely weird - I mean H.P. Lovecraft can't compose something this awfully creepy! But yet so cute all at the same time!