Darling (II) (2015) User Reviews

Darling Polanski

[maryann_blair · 6/10 · 9 August 2016]

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!

Brings back memories...

[zerlinde6 · 7/10 · 10 July 2018]

...of Maya Deren, the Russian experimental filmmaker from over half a century ago. This little gem invokes a feeling of dread that is even visible and audible in the incredible silence of NYC (which is eerie for me considering it's the city in which I was born and I've lived very close across the Hudson. I've even been in one of the old mansions across from Riverside Park-I've always had a bit of a sixth sense & I had some strange feelings while walking past some of these townhouse mansions. When I worked at a video post-production house years years ago, I was re-creating video for a very wealthy man. Some of the mini DV tapes (yes, millennials-I'm an old bag...ha) were messed up & I had to go to his mansion to get original dailies & re-create some of his audio narratives. I felt nothing strange about his home, but while I was walking from & to the train there were a few old townhouses that gave me the willies. The house in this film is just like those other houses. Feelings of dread, impending doom, melancholy, and evil are imminent, and sometimes some people pass them by & feel something is off-kilter. We see two different lighting effects used in this film: in using black & white, regular neon white overhead lights, which appear dreary & institutional on film and fits in with the question regarding Darling's "mental health," and Film Noir-esque shadow & light style of lighting which is the obvious choice for a mystery, and for when the "protagonist(?)," Darling becomes the femme-fatale, or the antagonist. The chapters give notice to the invitation of a very dark and evil being-mainly, they are the steps in a demon possession. Apparently, people who lived/worked there were either driven "mad" due to an evil presence. The question I ask: Is there a singular demon in the house (yet refers to one's self as "Legion," which is a hallmark of a demon), or is the house, in the words of Stephen King in Salem's Lot, "inherently evil?" You could ask the same of King's The Shining. Technically, I believe it was shot nicely. The shots of the City, portrayed in silence, and as the girl sinks into an inferno, shots of the City have begun to be portrayed upside down. I like the often creepy ambient music; it invites mystery and dread, especially when it's discordant. One thing which I felt was unrealistic was when Darling stabbed someone in the dining room with a knife (in case you were wondering, stabbing someone repeatedly would get quite messy...especially every time she pulls the knife out of him, which causes an unbelievable amount of bleeding. If you thought Quentin Tarrentino's huge blood squirts & spurts, many times due to decapitation, were inaccurate & over the top (as some believe), it would be an incorrect assumption. Also, contrary to popular belief, there were no pools of blood, no blood spatter (except on Henry), and the rug was clean. We see her cleaning the dining room's wooden floor later, yet it appears there's nothing to clean. No blood stain(s) on the carpet, still, AND the chair cushion, although he was stabbed while sitting in that chair-stabbed several times so we as the audience who have at least half of the necessary brain power or training to notice that there should have been a crapload of blood all over the carpet & chair, which is an extremely obvious (to me, anyhow, since I was a Media Arts major in college) continuity mistake since I have a number of very good things to say about this film. Firstly, yes, it may seem silly when Darling stabs the dude to death (the one who returned to her the upside-down cross necklace, about whom she seemed to have suspicions) & then, after she kills him he comes back to life & attempts to cut off her air supply & she awakens to realize she'd only had a nightmare, but it's a phenomenon we've seen occur in countless films & TV shows. I see traces of David Lynch in this film, namely Eraserhead. I haven't looked up the director of this film, & have no idea if he has a similar MO as Lynch, meaning the director of Darling could've explained the reason behind the film and/or the film, itself. If he does have similar habits when it comes to certain films he creates & due to more research & studies his work becomes less sophomoric, the director/writer could become the David Lynch of the millennial generation (if they have what it takes to know what good filmmaking entails). From what I saw in Darling, I can sense the filmmaker's ability to create ethereal & ambiently creepy scenes. I think the issue here includes weak character development, work needed on editing the length of certain scenes & shots in which no characters are speaking and the time drags (if shortened, a good scene that had to end up on the cutting room floor could've been either included or extended. As a sophomoric film by an aspiring experimental director, I give it a 7.

Definitely not a waste of time, tense, beautiful,but no surprises.

[VictorEchoThreeUND · 6/10 · 3 May 2017]

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.

What's behind door number one?

[drownsoda90 · 4/10 · 5 August 2016]

"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.

Human Echoes Rundown: Darling is terrifying, beautiful, and well crafted.

[hepodcast · 14 October 2015]

When people say a film has more style than substance, it's generally meant as a criticism. But in the case of Darling, it couldn't be higher praise. Darling is the story of a girl and a house. The girl has been hired to house-sit for a rich woman, and the house she's hired to stay in has a bit of a sordid history. "I probably shouldn't be saying this," the rich woman says, in a tone that says she's more than happy to be saying it, before launching into the tragic story of the previous girl who worked there and met an untimely end by hurling herself off the balcony to the street below. With that bit of ugliness planted firmly in our minds, the girl is left alone to look after things. Most of the beginning of the movie is taken up with the girl's exploration of the house. She wanders slowly from one room to the next, pushing open doors inch by inch, as if they were made of marble rather than wood. In another movie, this seemingly aimless exploration might become tedious or boring, but director Mickey Keating's incredible artistry keeps the tension high, even when nothing much is happening. The stark black and white images are haunting and beautiful, and the discordant soundtrack sets our nerves on edge. The plot, such as it is, begins to take form when the Girl meets the Man, a chance encounter that sets the soundtrack jangling, and split second images flashing across the screen, echoing the girl's visceral reaction to the man. Again the editing and soundtrack do most of the heavy lifting, putting us in the girl's emotional space, making us see this seemingly normal guy, as an awful monster. The girl follows the man to the place where he works, and when she goes back to the house all of her nightmares are about him. Lauren Ashley Carter is incredible in the role of the girl. She has almost nothing to say, and very little to do for much of the film, but her haunted and haunting eyes are more unsettling than a whole legion of monsters. She is less a character than an archetype: the Woman in the Haunted House. She does not behave in a way that makes logical sense for a human person, but that is all part of the atmosphere of dread which Darling is weaving. Darling walks a fine line between being an artsy experimental film and delivering a genuinely creepy horror experience. The bleak black and white images, the dissonant soundtrack, and the jarring edits, they all work together to create a real atmosphere of tension and dread. Of all the movies I saw at the Mile High Horror Film Festival, this was the only one that really and truly frightened me.

A remake but no mention of it

[maximebet · 6/10 · 13 April 2016]

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

Sean Young is the reason I watched it.

[Patient444 · 4/10 · 14 April 2016]

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 Feel Insane..

[crickwill · 6/10 · 6 November 2019]

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....

No

[octopusquid · 1/10 · 26 December 2016]

This movie sucks. Flat out. It's a shame to think about how much time and effort was put into this complete miscalculation of a movie. I understand it's a low budget film, but if you're trying to make a movie that catches peoples' attention and gets them wanting more, you have to realize that a movie like this is not the way to do it.

Borrowing heavily from Roman Polanski's "Repulsion," this "film" focuses on Darling, a girl with no name that's hired to watch over a giant, mysterious apartment while the owners leave town. Apparently some supernatural stuff happened in the apartment and it's caused multiple other apartment-watching girls from the past to commit suicide.

So yeah, of course she takes that job, it seems like it has a good reputation.

I swear, I watched this movie with subtitles on (as I do with all movies) and the caption "Eerie music playing" showed up like ten times. This movie was hilarious in its attempt to be tense and scary, when in reality it is an extremely mundane and unbelievably boring film. The main actress (a beautiful woman, I'll give her that) blankly stares her way through what feels like six hours, and this is a 78 minute film. The director clearly intended her to be a character that's as mysterious as the setting, but when she is given no character, barely speaks a word and stares into the camera for a grand total of fifty-five minutes, there is no takeaway there. The movie hopes that the musical score will make you feel scared and uneasy, but nothing happens in the apartment that would warrant an uneasy feeling. Through static, uninspired camera compositions, you don't feel like something scary is about to happen; you actually feel like this is the worst student film that ever won Best Prize at the high school film festival.

I was in utter awe at how far they dropped the ball on this one. There's even a completely pointless subplot where the main girl stalks a man and goes on a date with him only for it to end horribly wrong but at that point during the movie, I was already clocked out and asking for my money back, even though I rented this from a library. When the "twist" is revealed that she's actually just an insane girl, it's not a surprise because you already knew that from her staring at everything for minutes at a time!

Please, stay away from this movie. It's a practice in endurance, and it is not an easy one. If you watch it just for the cute actress, fine, do that. She's cute. But if you're expecting a well-made thrill-ride with genuine horror and tension, you're better off watching "Halloweentown" for that.

P.S- there's an inkling of a great idea near the end where Darling opens "the room," which is the room that the homeowner told her to stay away from at all costs at the beginning of the film, but that, of course, goes absolutely nowhere and I hate this movie so much.

Spoilers follow ...

[parry_na · 6/10 · 4 January 2017]

Opening with some stunning panoramic shots of New York City, all crisp skylines and looming buildings, this film could have taken place in any era. Although there is no specified time in which these events are set, the style of décor and clothing seems to indicate anything from the 1930s to the 1960s. Filmed in monochrome, this provides a timeless and stylish David Lynch-ian study into madness.

In the middle of all this, little Lauren Ashley Carter as Darling is about to take on a job as Caretaker of a mansion. As soon as Madame says, "I really shouldn't tell you this, but…" the scene is set: the previous caretaker has met with an untimely demise … but Darling is assured she has nothing to worry about. No matter how artistically shot this is, and how wilfully playful some of it may be, an opening like that never fails to sound clunky.

And so, to the accompaniment of shrieking violins and jumping, jerky camera movements, we are invited to observe Darling very convincingly succumb to madness. And that takes up the bulk of the film – often without dialogue and very ably played by Carter, there is nevertheless a sense of 'is that it?' Even as she goes to great lengths to end the life of her new guest (played by Brian Morvant) and then nervously heaves his corpse into an empty bath, it becomes clear Darling's instability is all we're going to get in terms of story-telling.

Darling's alienation and severance from the rest of the bustling society is palpable, and Carter retains great presence as she continually slides further into her isolation (her eyes almost take on a performance of their own), the overall effect is one of intimate turmoil which appears to manifest from building itself.

To further distance itself from the trappings of normal filmed story-telling, this is split into six chapters – Her, Invocation, THRILLS, Demon, Inferno and The Caretaker.

Pretentious

[thelastblogontheleft · 3/10 · 15 March 2017]

This film was just too pretentious for me to really get into in any meaningful way. I felt like it was trying way too hard to be some kind of quirky, black and white art-house movie and wound up putting more effort into this contrived style rather than making a movie with any substance. Director Mickey Keating — who also directed Pod, which I reviewed recently, which has literally all the same main characters minus Sean Young, as well as the same music composer AND same cinematographer — definitely knew what kind of mood he was aiming for, but he forgot to put any deep thought into things like dialogue or getting a strong performance out of his characters. I'm not entirely surprised, since Pod had the same issues for me — a good shell of a movie but no substantial filling.

"Darling" (she is given no other name), played by Lauren Ashley Carter, is a mysterious young girl who is tasked with watching an old, beautiful apartment in the heart of New York City while its wealthy residents are away. She is warned that a previous caretaker threw herself off the balcony, and there is talk of the apartment itself being haunted. Throughout the short time that she is house sitting we watch her descent into madness before her tragic end.

** SPOILERS! **

I guess my biggest issue with this movie is, as I mentioned, the fact that Keating's focus on style and mood seemed to trump his effort to build a meaningful character with Darling. He had this great opportunity to delve into the topics of gentrification, urban isolation, the trauma of possible sexual assault, and mental illness, to name a few, but he seemed to prefer to simply have a pretty girl stare blankly into the camera. We really never get to know much about her aside from studying every facet of her face since she probably stares into the camera for half the damn movie runtime. I had high hopes when the movie opened up with some impressively stark shots of the city — it's a rare treat when a movie seamlessly blends genuine terror and character development with an abundance of aesthetic beauty — but alas, all I got were some cool upside down shots of skyscrapers and enough shock cuts to make me never want to see another one again in my entire life.

All of the mentions of a paranormal side of things — the apartment being haunted, the previous caretaker committing suicide, the mention by her date that a conjuring of the devil was once attempted in the building — are all sadly glossed over, despite the fact that they could have been interesting additions to the plot if they were explored a bit more. It does what many other greats before it have done — blurring the line and making us wonder what is truly paranormal and what is a product of spiraling into madness — but it just doesn't do it nearly as well.

The murder of her date was unexpected, and somewhat shocking to witness — him gasping awake unexpectedly and the subsequent suffocation with the plastic bag were particularly hard to watch. But ultimately, like most aspects of the movie — I mean, come on, it's broken into chapters for some inexplicable reason — I felt like it was trying a bit too hard.

Then the ending just gets plain cheesy, with her talking to Madame on the phone, hinting again at her past trauma, and saying "I think I'll become one of your ghost stories now" *eye roll*.

Overall, YAWN. Pretty to look at? Sure. But I would have preferred it spend more time making me think — or, hell, scaring me — than repeatedly juxtaposing her blank expression with a strobed shot of her screaming face.

ROOM MUST REMAINED LOCK

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 20 April 2019]

Darling (Lauren Ashley Carter) accepts a job as a house sitter at a residence that has a reputation of being haunted. She quickly begins her descent into hell with twists along the way and a mystery about a room. The chapter titles confirms her descent and voices in her head are classic schizophrenia film reproduction. There are some scratch marks early on "abyssus abyssum iavocat" which is "hell calls hell" or "one misstep leads to the next."

Things take off at about 40 minutes into the film. Until then, there is just build up with visuals that will repeat later in the film. It is a slow descent into madness like we saw in "The Shining" except not as entertaining. The film was done in black and white in order to give it a timeless effect. Vehicles in the street were mostly made blurred for the same reason. This is close to being a one man play, and is clearly not a film for everyone, but like "Eraserhead" will have its following. Ms. Carter did a bang up job.

Guide: F-bomb. Nudity (Lauren Ashley Carter)

And now for something completely different....

[lauralmhs · 7/10 · 11 April 2016]

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.

hot garbage

[kittingrrl · 1/10 · 14 April 2016]

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.

A Tedious, Overambitious & Convoluted Mess

[CinemaClown · 19 July 2016]

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.

Officially the worst thriller I have ever seen. And I have seen them all.

[wildsparrow16 · 1/10 · 8 April 2016]

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).

Ambitious Outing

[danielemerytaylor · 7/10 · 15 October 2016]

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.

It's different but that doesn't make it good.

[GiraffeDoor · 4/10 · 6 June 2019]

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.

shot in Black and White, worth seeing

[trashgang · 7/10 · 27 July 2016]

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

Pretentious Claptrap

[fatfil-414-451797 · 2/10 · 15 February 2017]

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.

Has a strong Repulsion feel with great acting

[dvspindl · 7/10 · 18 October 2022]

This movie is heavily Polanski-esque with a little bit of Hitchcock and Lynch as well, but I think it's a great effort. The acting especially was excellent. Lauren Ashley Carter had to hold down the film with very little to play off of, and she did an exceptional job, in my opinion. She was totally believable and creepy and crazy and all the things we wanted her to be in this role.

Darling reminded me especially of Polanski's Repulsion with the same kind of walls-coming-alive stuff. The themes of Darling also are similar to Repulsion., which might be why some ... ahem ... other (read: male) reviewers struggled with this movie.

This is definitely a thinking person's type of horror movie, where all the answers are not going to be presented on a silver platter, but the information/clues are all there if you're paying attention.

Some things are overdone; for instance, there are just a few too many sped-up shots of "Darling" staring, catatonic, down the hall. But the movie as a whole is short and sweet and keeps you engaged.

Too much borrowed, not enough new, in "Darling".

[jtncsmistad · 4/10 · 24 August 2016]

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'.

Excellent Indie Horror

[targosfan1 · 8/10 · 6 April 2016]

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!

Alright Darling? - Stylish, but mediocre psycho-horror

[ninjaalexs · 6/10 · 5 March 2022]

A young woman (Lauren Ashley Carter) takes the job of nanny in an old townhouse, rumoured to be haunted.

The film has garnered a lot of praise for its visuals and it's justified. It is a striking looking film with high contrast black and white photography. The plot is minimalist with minimal dialogue and relies more on atmosphere. The film draws comparisons to early Polanski, particularly Repulsion, but it's nowhere near in the same league. There's been a slew of indie demonic possession films like The Devil's Candy and A Dark Song and I honestly preferred those. For me beyond the art and sound design it's just a bit mediocre. It's not as complex or as intriguing as Repulsion, not as chilling as Takashi Miike's domestic horror, Audition. It also suffers from bad tropes of the time popularised by films like Paranormal Activity, which is an over reliance on jumpcuts and milisecond cutaways to messed up scenes.

I wanted to like this film more. In my opinion it has been overrated by horror fansites like Bloody Disgusting. The film is interesting. There has been a considerable amount of work and talent gone into it, but it just left me cold.

Fever dream of a quiet film

[jmbovan-47-160173 · 3/10 · 18 October 2020]

Quiet but twisted. It's established with some idea of witchery or possession. Or maybe it's madness. Who knows?! Who Cares?! Is more accurate. Style over substance but oh great style. But that's about it. Style.