उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I liked this movie and I think others will also. This reminded me of Polanski's repulsion. A black and white art house flick with a twilight zone feel to it. This blurs the line between mental deterioration nightmare's and reality. Lauren Ashely Carter was top notch maintaining an innocent look even when she's doing something wrong. This film takes me back to a different time. It also sends off a different feel to it. You get a little Hitchcock mixed with a lot of Polanski. I wonder if they used the infamous Hershey Syrup as blood? If anyone knows please let me know, being black and white one cannot tell. Mickey Keating might be going places. This is a good way to spend 78min. You won't regret it!

Um, well I guess as a sufficiently elegant,black and white two hander it was effective.Like a studied, gothic chamber piece with frenzied horror type cross-cutting, yes, it borrowed from perhaps at least 10 other properties you could think of but if you can ignore that and just immerse yourself in its mere running time of 78 minutes, it does comes across as fairly assured and comfortable in its own skin.Short on sense, long on style - this is one of those films where the plot mechanics are just thrown in as a secondary device....simply, she's losing her mind. Crackers. Mad as a snake. Hell, let's all just go along with her for the ride, it's not all that far from being an E Ticket....

"Darling" follows an out-of-touch young woman who gets a job house sitting in a large New York mansion that is reputed to be haunted—that's about all I can say without ruining the rest of the film, as it really is that paper-thinly plotted.

Writer/director Mickey Keating seems to be a serious film student, as the movie is entirely based on Polanski's "Repulsion," and has shades of "The Shining" and "Diabolique" worn on its shoulder at all times. This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about it—the fact that it lacks its own identity.

The film is nicely shot and has some great closeups which are accentuated by the black-and-white cinematography, and the setting has an off-kilter, claustrophobic vibe that is more or less effective; I did, however, find the flashy jump-cuts and strobe effects to be overwrought. Lauren Ashley Carter plays the lead of the picture, and even looks like Catherine Deneuve; her performance is solid, while Brian Morvant plays a male counterpart who takes on a vital role in the proceedings. The film has a downbeat ending at its 76 minute running time, but it's a conclusion that seems apparent from the opening scene.

Overall, "Darling," though a technically well-made film, lacks bite because it seems too preoccupied with paying homage. A meatier film could have gotten away with this, but the narrative here is far too basic and skeletal to offset a cache of cross-references. The result is stylistically effective, but unfortunately rather dull in all other areas. 4/10.

Be careful reading the reviews on this one, I watched this with the advantage of having never seen 'repulsion' and it must be said I seldom if ever watch a movie in black and white especially if modern.

Having said that I'm an avid Horror fan and taken at face value the movie delivers quite well. It is slow, (ie: at times bludgeoningly so) but is very atmospheric. The wife and I both watched it all the way thru which says much as we often will gong movies before the halfway point (mutually.

Desperately striving to match movies of a bygone era it does not always fall short, a good watch, probably more-so alone at night and during a distant storm...

There is an additional scene midway thru end credits don't forget to stay that long if you make it to the end.

And good thing I did so, because she only appeared for a few minutes!! For me this movie did not work, had very little to offer and if you're into such productions just watch Repulsion from 65 and have some time well spent.

Some of the scenes seemed random, maybe they had a secret meaning, and maybe my eye is untrained but it did look strange. Even the structure, going so fast for the climax and then taking its time to end and trying to offer some closure or what exactly? I mean you are left with a little over half of hour of..explaining the broken mind?

Anyway, all in all, it is not something to recommend, from my point of view, with so many other good ones out there, leave Darling for a lonely and curious night at most, when you want to see what the fuss is about, cause it will bore you and leave you completely unsatisfied.

Cheers!

I did enjoy this movie but after watching and remembering the original that i truly loved ,i was looking in the credits but i could not find a mention of Roman Polansky's 1965 movie ''Repulsion'' with Catherine Deneuve of which this is obviously a remake, there are even a few french songs (one with Edith Piaf) in the sound track not to mention that is was shot in black and white (as was the original). I enjoy a revisit of great movies, it sometimes give a new twist to a good plot or treatment but do not pretend that this work is original! Intellectual integrity where are you?

Just my 2 grains of salt

Darling is HORRIBLE! ....But in a good way.... Well, mostly....

Briefly, the story revolves around a rather odd young woman (whose back story we unfortunately know nothing about) who takes a job as a house- sitter in an old New York City mansion reputed to be haunted.

I ordinarily hate blood and guts in my horror, preferring my horror to be of a more "psychological" nature. (I would rather have a "horror" movie get into my head and work on my nerves than have it punch me in the stomach and work on my viscera.) But although this movie has gore aplenty, I can almost overlook it (not easy in this case) in favor of the aspects of the film that got to me on more of a cerebral level.

I've always maintained that what you DON'T see is infinitely scarier than what you do see, and this is why I give this movie pluses as well as minuses. I would give is a much higher rating if it had toned down the gore factor. As someone who has always had a taste for horror, I can honestly say that this movie had tremendous potential, but alas it was just too gory for my tastes.

That being said, what I did like so much about this movie is that it has elements of many of my favorites: It is reminiscent of Rosemary's Baby in its setting, Carnival of Souls in the internal isolation of the protagonist, Psycho in its black & white format, The Haunting in its creepy use of sound effects and lighting, and The Innocents in its raising of the question "Is it her or is it the house?" Moreover, it fits right into the current trend in horror movies whose strength lies in their sense of tension and foreboding. One scene in this movie where a door slams in a deadly quiet bedroom nearly gave me heart failure. I know that doesn't sound terribly exciting, but THAT is the kind of horror I love!

Even though I feel that Darling borrowed from many of the greats, I still feel that it was something very unlike anything I've ever seen before in its minimalist, stylistic, artsy rendering: The flashing lights and hallucinogenic imagery (which you are actually warned about after the opening credits, something I've never seen done before in a movie), the music (sometimes just eerie, at other times spine-tingling), and the editing (spliced with lightning fast, almost subliminal scenes of horror). Honorable mention goes to the lovely, ghostly, "haunting" images of New York City which pepper the film.

There are scenes from this movie (some gory and stomach-churning, others just plain creepy and genuinely frightening) that will be indelibly etched in your memory.

Although I was, for the most part, impressed with the basic artistry of this film, my biggest gripe is my feeling that the movie can't decide what it really wants to be. It's almost like two movies in one, straddling the line between two sub-genres of horror: slasher/gore horror smack dab in the middle, sandwiched between two slices of strictly psychological horror toward the beginning and again at the end.

Another fault I found is that while I have no problem with "open-ended" movies, or movies that leave the viewer wondering, there were just too many unanswered questions to the plot, chiefly concerning the identity of Darling's oh-so-unfortunate victim. Was he just some random pick-up that the protagonist was merely "projecting" onto, or did he have an actual history in her past? Was the house really haunted or is our star just a psychopath, or both? I actually viewed it twice, thinking that I would glean more the second time around, to little avail.

Oh, a word about the acting. There are few characters in the story, and little dialogue, but the movie is carried by the excellent acting ability and facial expressions of the lead. There is a scene where she opens up a door to a hitherto forbidden room, clutches her hair and screams in horror - at what, we don't know, but I thought that scene was great! There is another scene at the end where you can almost see the circles darkening under her eyes as she grimly contemplates what she ultimately does (which I won't give away, but suffice to say I also loved the scene where she tells the owner of the house over the phone that she's going to become her next ghost story. Chilling!)

Despite the aforementioned (not insubstantial) gore factor, I was pretty impressed with Darling and would love to see more movies like this from this director.

oh I was so disappointed in this. it was laughably predictable. the acting was overwrought and amateurish. how can washing your hands look so overtly dramatic? I'm quite prepared to deal with style over substance, but it sucks when there is neither going on. looked like someone watched some old French flicks and I thought "I can do that!" no sir, no you can't. I'd rather watch some old white zombie videos. I thought by having Larry Fessenden in it, it wouldn't be all bad. I was so wrong. oh Larry, what the hell? I guess the 60 seconds he was in it was probably the best part so there's that.

avoid at all costs.

Shot in black n white, arranged in non-chronological order, and evidently influenced by Roman Polanski's Apartment Trilogy (especially Repulsion), there is no denying that Darling is a stylishly directed feature but in its overambitious attempt to homage the notable horror classic, it ends up becoming an overbearing & convoluted mess.

Set in New York, the story of Darling follows an unnamed young woman who agrees to house sit at a large mansion that appears to have a notorious past. With nothing to do & unable to kill time, she begins to lose her grasp on reality as the extended exposure to the isolation that abounds the empty mansion triggers her descent into madness.

Written & directed by Mickey Keating, Darling is his tribute to the atmospheric chillers of the 1960s but the film lacks an identity of its own. Throughout its 78 minutes runtime, it applies tricks such as sporadically cutting to maniacal frames, screeching noises for its score & mindless meandering but all its intricacy lies only on the surface, for it is hollow from the inside.

The monochrome filters, confined setting & clever use of camera do manage to bring an unsettling element into the picture but the narrative is simply out of focus and fails to capitalise on that. The only one who is actually able to redeem something out of this whole clutter is Lauren Ashley Carter who tries her best to make her character work and chips in with a violent performance.

On an overall scale, Darling finds its filmmaker succeeding at replicating the look of Repulsion but he is unable to add the same level of thematic depth which turned that psychological horror into a genre classic. Deficient in numerous storytelling aspects & pretending to be something it isn't, this artistic endeavour bounces all over the place yet in the end, finds itself not far from where it started. Skip it.

Admirable attempt at stylized macabre that doesn't go anywhere.

There is an atmospheric approach to the imposing, lonely city but the plot is that unfortunate combination of too subtle and hysterical.

I can say without fear of contradiction that DARLING will not be for everyone. It is an art-house horror film (presented in black and white, no less!) with a very slow build-up and an ambiguous story. I, however, quite liked it. I thought the pacing was appropriately anxiety-inducing, it is shot BEAUTIFULLY, and Lauren Ashley Carter is phenomenal (every bit deserving of her cult favorite status). My one criticism is the score - if it isn't stock music, it is certainly clichéd. It is not distracting enough to detract from the rest of the picture, however. If you have an open mind and are willing to take in something a little different from what you're used to, check it out.

In the movies defense, I was not able to get through the whole thing because I didn't have pins available to hold my eyes open through the boredom. It sounded intriguing - reminiscent of the original Haunting of Hill House. It is filmed in black and white with very little dialogue (literally, no script). So the wide-eyed lead actress wanders aimlessly through the mansion and streets - we get the impression she is already unstable - I don't think the house is to blame, but I never finished watching it. A door slams in her bedroom - okay, I guess that's a ghost. A strange man appears on the street and she has sadistic and bloody flashbacks that go too quickly to decipher anything.

If gore, devils and bloody walls are your thing, you might like this. I was expecting more of a psychological thriller. I want my $ 6.99 back (seriously).

Firstly, I would not class this movie as horror, more a Psycho Thriller. The fact that it takes place in an allegedly haunted house, (which is set out for us very clearly by the home owner right at the beginning of the movie, and we are then reminded of this half way through by another character, in case we have forgotten.) seems incidental.

My "Pretension Alarm" started ringing straight away, and there were several reasons.

1) Filmed in black and white. Not necessarily a bad thing, look at Carnival of Souls among others. Here it just serves to amplify the dullness of the story. 2) Separated into "Chapters". As there is no real change in the story, or jumping to a different location, or even a change of scene sometimes, this seems superfluous. Perhaps they are trying to fool us into thinking we are watching something intelligent by reminding us of books. 3)Throughout several scenes there is French music playing in the background, á la Edith Piaf. Although the location is never detailed, apart from a brief glimpse at a characters driving licence, it looks like 1960's New York. So why French music? It does nothing but detract from what little action is going on. 4)Constant (and I mean A LOT) of cut away shots of the girl staring into the camera from varying distances, with various expressions (Although not that varied) inter-cut with flashes of screaming faces, while discordant music screeches in the background. 5)Very little dialogue. A lot of the time is taken with the girl alone in the house walking around, so the lack of dialogue is unsurprising, but most of what is included is painfully clumsy, so this is probably a plus. 6)The ending is predictable within the first 5 minutes of the movie.

I could sum up the plot of this film in three sentences, and would probably have a sentence to spare, and still not be missing anything out. But no spoilers…

As you can tell, not a fan of this one, it tries so hard to be artful and avant-garde, but is just Pretentious Claptrap.

This is the kind of love or hate flicks because it's a slow mover and not that much is happening but it do has the love or hate arty gravy.

Being shot in black and white this is already a reason for many to turn it off but for me that's a reason to keep watching because the red stuff looks more darker in black and white. But there isn't that many red stuff to catch so it's the story that must do it.

And the story is simple, a haunted house, a new caretaker, an new possession and an victim. Excellent performed by Lauren Ashley Carter who I have seen in a few horrors before. Is this a horror, well, it's not scary and it doesn't offer the creeps but it is still worth seeing. After watching another James Wan flick about ghosting and possessions I must say that this here attracted me more then the over-hyped Conjuring 2. Of course youth will not see this at any change and if they do they I guess would be more scared then the usual teenage horror.

The horror lays in the fact that a body has to disappear so a hammer and saw is used and that is the most gruesome part especially the tooth part.

Worth picking up if you are into horror just for that particular scene, and clocking in at 77 makes it easy to watch

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 1/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

Talk about a movie that tests your patience. Well, that's sure as hell not the recently released, exceedingly atmospheric horror flick "Darling". No, your patience won't be tested......because it'll flippin' be TORTURED all to shreds! Good GOLLY does it take an ETERNITY for anything to happen in this thing. And then when it FINALLY does, you're like, "All that interminable build-up to THIS???"

Writer/Director/Co-Producer Mickey Keating clearly is trying to evoke the feel of late '50's/early '60's Hitchcockian suspense as his black and white film lens depicts present-day New York City, together with the story's main characters, as though what we are witnessing is somehow suspended in time during this bygone era. Keating also borrows heavily here from Roman Polanski's "Repulsion" and Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" in terms of plot, structure, vibe and effect. In step with what is an apparent homage to the classics, Keating gives a grotesquely macabre nod to Audrey Hepburn in what may best be described as a perverse version of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" on a bad, and I do mean RANCIDLY bad, acid trip.

Lauren Ashley Carter (whom Keating also directed in 2015's equally offbeat horror mystery "Pod") does what she can in the title role. And she's really pretty effective as a lonely young woman gone nuts, or rather even MORE wacko, as would appear to be the case in "Darling". There's even a Sean Young sighting (remember her, kids?) as a super creepy matronly type name of "Madame". EWWW-HEW-HEW-HEW. But in the end, it's all been done before.

And enormous quantum leaps better than it's done here, darlin'.

I just saw this and liked it very much. The film starts slowly by design, and misdirects you into thinking this will be innocent young girl vs. ghost of devil worshipping former owner, but takes an unexpected turn i doubt anyone will see coming.

The camera is always on the lead actress, often in serious closeup, which must have been a challenge for her but she eats up the camera. Lovely black and white photography, sharp direction, great creepy old mansion location.

Like the best low or micro budget films puts bloated un-scary Hollywood products to shame. Two severed thumbs up!

Well, here is one way to ruin a really great concept. I wanted to like this movie, the plot and setting sounded wonderful to me. But it is so cheap, obvious and stiffly acted that I couldn't even continue watching it to the end. By the same people who produced House of the Devil? REALLY?

References to Polanski may be accurate, but I would say this is closer to Repulsion than The Tenant, the latter of which I consider a deeply disturbing horror film that doesn't get less scary despite its age. Repulsion is still solid but more of a character study, and yet I must confess that Polanski did ten times better with the film I consider to be the least interesting of the Apartment Trilogy, compared to this mess.