A young woman slowly goes crazy after taking a job as the caretaker for an ancient New York home.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I just saw this and liked it very much. The film starts slowly bydesign, and misdirects you into thinking this will be innocent younggirl vs. ghost of devil worshipping former owner, but takes anunexpected 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 oldmansion location.
Like the best low or micro budget films puts bloated un-scary Hollywoodproducts to shame. Two severed thumbs up!
In the movies defense, I was not able to get through the whole thingbecause I didn’t have pins available to hold my eyes open through theboredom. It sounded intriguing – reminiscent of the original Hauntingof Hill House. It is filmed in black and white with very littledialogue (literally, no script). So the wide-eyed lead actress wandersaimlessly through the mansion and streets – we get the impression sheis already unstable – I don’t think the house is to blame, but I neverfinished watching it. A door slams in her bedroom – okay, I guessthat’s a ghost. A strange man appears on the street and she hassadistic and bloody flashbacks that go too quickly to decipheranything.
If gore, devils and bloody walls are your thing, you might like this. Iwas expecting more of a psychological thriller. I want my $ 6.99 back(seriously).
Darling is HORRIBLE! ….But in a good way…. Well, mostly….
Briefly, the story revolves around a rather odd young woman (whose backstory 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 tobe 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 inthe stomach and work on my viscera.) But although this movie has goreaplenty, I can almost overlook it (not easy in this case) in favor ofthe 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 scarierthan what you do see, and this is why I give this movie pluses as wellas minuses. I would give is a much higher rating if it had toned downthe gore factor. As someone who has always had a taste for horror, Ican honestly say that this movie had tremendous potential, but alas itwas just too gory for my tastes.
That being said, what I did like so much about this movie is that ithas elements of many of my favorites: It is reminiscent of Rosemary’sBaby in its setting, Carnival of Souls in the internal isolation of theprotagonist, Psycho in its black & white format, The Haunting in itscreepy use of sound effects and lighting, and The Innocents in itsraising of the question ”Is it her or is it the house?” Moreover, itfits right into the current trend in horror movies whose strength liesin their sense of tension and foreboding. One scene in this movie wherea door slams in a deadly quiet bedroom nearly gave me heart failure. Iknow that doesn’t sound terribly exciting, but THAT is the kind ofhorror I love!
Even though I feel that Darling borrowed from many of the greats, Istill feel that it was something very unlike anything I’ve ever seenbefore in its minimalist, stylistic, artsy rendering: The flashinglights and hallucinogenic imagery (which you are actually warned aboutafter the opening credits, something I’ve never seen done before in amovie), the music (sometimes just eerie, at other timesspine-tingling), and the editing (spliced with lightning fast, almostsubliminal 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 beindelibly etched in your memory.
Although I was, for the most part, impressed with the basic artistry ofthis film, my biggest gripe is my feeling that the movie can’t decidewhat it really wants to be. It’s almost like two movies in one,straddling the line between two sub-genres of horror: slasher/gorehorror smack dab in the middle, sandwiched between two slices ofstrictly psychological horror toward the beginning and again at theend.
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 toomany unanswered questions to the plot, chiefly concerning the identityof Darling’s oh-so-unfortunate victim. Was he just some random pick-upthat the protagonist was merely ”projecting” onto, or did he have anactual history in her past? Was the house really haunted or is our starjust a psychopath, or both? I actually viewed it twice, thinking that Iwould glean more the second time around, to little avail.
Oh, a word about the acting. There are few characters in the story, andlittle dialogue, but the movie is carried by the excellent actingability and facial expressions of the lead. There is a scene where sheopens up a door to a hitherto forbidden room, clutches her hair andscreams in horror – at what, we don’t know, but I thought that scenewas great! There is another scene at the end where you can almost seethe circles darkening under her eyes as she grimly contemplates whatshe ultimately does (which I won’t give away, but suffice to say I alsoloved the scene where she tells the owner of the house over the phonethat she’s going to become her next ghost story. Chilling!)
Despite the aforementioned (not insubstantial) gore factor, I waspretty impressed with Darling and would love to see more movies likethis from this director.
In a genre filled with clichés and poor acting, Darling is a breath offresh air. Never before has a film made me feel the way Darling made mefeel. A dreadful experience from start to finish, and I mean that inthe best way possible. Following the story of a girl who loses her mindDarling is anything but a cookie cutter horror movie. Starring LaurenAshley Carter who shows she is a magnificent actress. Shot in black andwhite which feels so perfect for this movie I can’t even imagine itgetting the same reaction in color. A grim eerie soundtrack makes upfor a substantial lack of dialogue. The quick flashing imagery mayoverburden the viewer at times, but it serves its purpose in making youanxious and distressed. By the end of the film I too nearly felt asthough I’d lost my mind along with the girl. If you’re looking forsomething truly different and harrowing, I surely recommend this work.
I did enjoy this movie but after watching and remembering the originalthat i truly loved ,i was looking in the credits but i could not find amention of Roman Polansky’s 1965 movie ”Repulsion” with CatherineDeneuve of which this is obviously a remake, there are even a fewfrench songs (one with Edith Piaf) in the sound track not to mentionthat is was shot in black and white (as was the original). I enjoy arevisit of great movies, it sometimes give a new twist to a good plotor treatment but do not pretend that this work is original!Intellectual integrity where are you?
Just my 2 grains of salt
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’reinto such productions just watch Repulsion from 65 and have some timewell spent.
Some of the scenes seemed random, maybe they had a secret meaning, andmaybe 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 tryingto offer some closure or what exactly? I mean you are left with alittle over half of hour of..explaining the broken mind?
Anyway, all in all, it is not something to recommend, from my point ofview, with so many other good ones out there, leave Darling for alonely and curious night at most, when you want to see what the fuss isabout, cause it will bore you and leave you completely unsatisfied.
oh I was so disappointed in this. it was laughably predictable. theacting was overwrought and amateurish. how can washing your hands lookso overtly dramatic? I’m quite prepared to deal with style oversubstance, but it sucks when there is neither going on. looked likesomeone 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. Ithought by having Larry Fessenden in it, it wouldn’t be all bad. I wasso wrong. oh Larry, what the hell? I guess the 60 seconds he was in itwas probably the best part so there’s that.
avoid at all costs.
The film is essentially a hodge-podge of classic 60s horror referencesand imagery mixed with modern-style jumps and scares to keep you onyour toes. Does it always work though? No, it doesn’t. While most ofthe jumps are well-coordinated and add an essential level of terror tothe atmosphere, there were others that felt impatient and cheap,deflating the room of suspense and tension. I still give this 8 starsbecause the cinematography is incredible and Lauren Ashley Carter is atrue star. The screenplay is also quite good, with the story broken upinto several chapters for the audience to easily understand her descentinto madness. Overall, this horror film made me and my friends screamas well as kept us up at night, which is the goal of the film.
Its nice to see a film maker do something different that works – andworks well.
This film isn’t the usual offering of horror/thriller fare. The wholestory is not handed to you on a plate, and you have to fill in some ofthe blanks yourself. Intentional or not, it seems to work.
I think this is a film the viewer will either love or hate.
No doubt this was made with the psychological thrillers of the 50s and60s in mind, with a bit of film noir thrown in to complete the mix.
Lauren Ashley Carter plays the main character in the film. In fact,apart from a few short appearances by other characters, she is thefilm. And what a character she is. Sweet and adorable yet… well itsbest to watch the film.
There were a couple of things that could have done with a bit moreexplanation, but no film is perfect.
I for one will certainly be on the lookout for Lauren Ashley Carter inthe future.
Shot in black n white, arranged in non-chronological order, andevidently influenced by Roman Polanski’s Apartment Trilogy (especiallyRepulsion), there is no denying that Darling is a stylishly directedfeature but in its overambitious attempt to homage the notable horrorclassic, it ends up becoming an overbearing & convoluted mess.
Set in New York, the story of Darling follows an unnamed young womanwho agrees to house sit at a large mansion that appears to have anotorious past. With nothing to do & unable to kill time, she begins tolose her grasp on reality as the extended exposure to the isolationthat abounds the empty mansion triggers her descent into madness.
Written & directed by Mickey Keating, Darling is his tribute to theatmospheric chillers of the 1960s but the film lacks an identity of itsown. Throughout its 78 minutes runtime, it applies tricks such assporadically cutting to maniacal frames, screeching noises for itsscore & mindless meandering but all its intricacy lies only on thesurface, for it is hollow from the inside.
The monochrome filters, confined setting & clever use of camera domanage to bring an unsettling element into the picture but thenarrative is simply out of focus and fails to capitalise on that. Theonly one who is actually able to redeem something out of this wholeclutter is Lauren Ashley Carter who tries her best to make hercharacter work and chips in with a violent performance.
On an overall scale, Darling finds its filmmaker succeeding atreplicating the look of Repulsion but he is unable to add the samelevel of thematic depth which turned that psychological horror into agenre classic. Deficient in numerous storytelling aspects & pretendingto be something it isn’t, this artistic endeavour bounces all over theplace yet in the end, finds itself not far from where it started. Skipit.
This is the kind of love or hate flicks because it’s a slow mover andnot 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 turnit off but for me that’s a reason to keep watching because the redstuff looks more darker in black and white. But there isn’t that manyred stuff to catch so it’s the story that must do it.
And the story is simple, a haunted house, a new caretaker, an newpossession and an victim. Excellent performed by Lauren Ashley Carterwho I have seen in a few horrors before. Is this a horror, well, it’snot scary and it doesn’t offer the creeps but it is still worth seeing.After watching another James Wan flick about ghosting and possessions Imust say that this here attracted me more then the over-hyped Conjuring2. Of course youth will not see this at any change and if they do theyI guess would be more scared then the usual teenage horror.
The horror lays in the fact that a body has to disappear so a hammerand saw is used and that is the most gruesome part especially the toothpart.
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
”Darling” follows an out-of-touch young woman who gets a job housesitting in a large New York mansion that is reputed to behauntedthat’s about all I can say without ruining the rest of thefilm, as it really is that paper-thinly plotted.
Writer/director Mickey Keating seems to be a serious film student, asthe movie is entirely based on Polanski’s ”Repulsion,” and has shadesof ”The Shining” and ”Diabolique” worn on its shoulder at all times.This is perhaps the most frustrating thing about itthe fact that itlacks its own identity.
The film is nicely shot and has some great closeups which areaccentuated by the black-and-white cinematography, and the setting hasan off-kilter, claustrophobic vibe that is more or less effective; Idid, however, find the flashy jump-cuts and strobe effects to beoverwrought. Lauren Ashley Carter plays the lead of the picture, andeven looks like Catherine Deneuve; her performance is solid, whileBrian Morvant plays a male counterpart who takes on a vital role in theproceedings. The film has a downbeat ending at its 76 minute runningtime, but it’s a conclusion that seems apparent from the opening scene.
Overall, ”Darling,” though a technically well-made film, lacks bitebecause it seems too preoccupied with paying homage. A meatier filmcould have gotten away with this, but the narrative here is far toobasic and skeletal to offset a cache of cross-references. The result isstylistically effective, but unfortunately rather dull in all otherareas. 4/10.
I liked this movie and I think others will also. This reminded me ofPolanski’s repulsion. A black and white art house flick with a twilightzone feel to it. This blurs the line between mental deteriorationnightmare’s and reality. Lauren Ashely Carter was top notch maintainingan innocent look even when she’s doing something wrong. This film takesme 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 ifthey used the infamous Hershey Syrup as blood? If anyone knows pleaselet me know, being black and white one cannot tell. Mickey Keatingmight be going places. This is a good way to spend 78min. You won’tregret it!
Talk about a movie that tests your patience. Well, that’s sure as hellnot the recently released, exceedingly atmospheric horror flick”Darling”. No, your patience won’t be tested……because it’llflippin’ be TORTURED all to shreds! Good GOLLY does it take an ETERNITYfor 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 evokethe feel of late ’50’s/early ’60’s Hitchcockian suspense as his blackand white film lens depicts present-day New York City, together withthe story’s main characters, as though what we are witnessing issomehow suspended in time during this bygone era. Keating also borrowsheavily here from Roman Polanski’s ”Repulsion” and Stanley Kubrick’s”The Shining” in terms of plot, structure, vibe and effect. In stepwith what is an apparent homage to the classics, Keating gives agrotesquely macabre nod to Audrey Hepburn in what may best be describedas a perverse version of ”Breakfast at Tiffany’s” on a bad, and I domean RANCIDLY bad, acid trip.
Lauren Ashley Carter (whom Keating also directed in 2015’s equallyoffbeat horror mystery ”Pod”) does what she can in the title role. Andshe’s really pretty effective as a lonely young woman gone nuts, orrather even MORE wacko, as would appear to be the case in ”Darling”.There’s even a Sean Young sighting (remember her, kids?) as a supercreepy matronly type name of ”Madame”. EWWW-HEW-HEW-HEW. But in theend, it’s all been done before.
And enormous quantum leaps better than it’s done here, darlin’.
Like visiting The Museum of Modern Art, Darling needs to be approachedfrom the right state of mind to connect with it. Its value lies more inhow its story is told rather than the details of the narrative itself;a kind of filmmaking that hearkens back to expressionist films of the1920s. It’s exciting that micro-budget indie filmmakers are now able toreach audiences via steaming services and attempt these kinds ofartistic explorations that you simply won’t see from largerproductions, let alone Hollywood.
The story is simple and classic: A young woman takes a job as acaretaker of a haunted mansion and weird things begin to happen. Butthe film only uses the narrative as means of providing us withfamiliarity while focusing our attention on its visual presentation.
And Darling is all about the visuals; the script can’t be more than afew pages. Long periods pass with a single, well-composed shot creatinga sense of wonder and uncertainty in the viewer. The choice of black &white cinematography allows the camera to always be in control,reminding us that everything we see is slightly unreal, especially whenmoments of powerful violence happen. If it were shot in color, the gorewould have been the message and distracted us from the artisticstatement.
Darling is not for everyone, and horror film aficionados may bedisappointed or consider it pretentious. And it does start off slow: ittook the first 15 minutes for me to relax and not try to rush it.
Lauren Ashley Carter is captivating in the lead role, appearing innearly every shot. She conveys a shifting range of emotions causing meto feel sympathy for her seeming innocence then later repulsing me byher brutality. She gets the avant-garde nature of this production andfinds the right tone in every scene.
Look for Larry Fessenden (Habit) in a bit part toward the end.
I recommend Darling for the vision it attempted and mostly succeeded atpresenting us with. It’s not a typical horror film, but something to bewatched and admired for its beauty and simplicity.
I can say without fear of contradiction that DARLING will not be foreveryone. 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 appropriatelyanxiety-inducing, it is shot BEAUTIFULLY, and Lauren Ashley Carter isphenomenal (every bit deserving of her cult favorite status). My onecriticism is the score – if it isn’t stock music, it is certainlyclichéd. It is not distracting enough to detract from the rest of thepicture, however. If you have an open mind and are willing to take insomething a little different from what you’re used to, check it out.
Darling follows a woman as she moves into a new house where she slowly,and violently, goes insane.
I watched this movie on Hallowe’en night, unsure exactly what I wasgetting into. I’d been curious about it, but never did I expect this.
Let’s start with the performances. They’re good. The supporting cast isfine, but nothing to write home about. The shining star in all this isthe leading actress, Lauren Ashley Carter. Right from her opening sceneshe was fantastic. The way she delivers dialogue in particular wasgreat, and although she didn’t talk much, watching her perform was atreat.
The story itself is subtle and engaging. There’s a level of mysterythat surrounds the entire atmosphere of the film. Not only that, butthe character of Darling herself is very interesting. As the movieprogresses you as the audience begins to realize that this isn’t thebeginning of this woman’s struggles, but rather a continuation. It’sclear that Darling has had a troubled past, and the series of newevents unfolding before her in her new home set her mind off in thedirection it seemed to have been heading already. Not only that, butDarling acts similarly to a real person in her situation. She begins tofear herself and what she’s becomes, and expresses that in scenes thatare both very powerful and a little on the hard side to watch.
Now, let’s get into the most effective aspect of the film: the horror.This is an unnerving and genuinely frightening movie, and I don’t saythat often. I’ve been unsettled by a few horror films, but Darlingtakes the cake for being actually scary. The movie briefly shows imagesand scenes that are assumed to be Darling’s thoughts, and while somepeople would call this a cheap horror gimmick, I say otherwise. Theimagery shown is often somewhat unnerving and vague, and onlyprocessing each image for a short second just adds to that. No, theyaren’t jump scares, there isn’t a loud sound to go along with each one,nor are they all that sudden. They become a regular occurrence, but thedirector Mickey Keating knows exactly when to use each one.Furthermore, there are a handful of scenes that are just plain hard towatch, made all the more effective by the character we have now come tocare for. It’s a movie you have to see for yourself, but trust me,there are some genuinely unnerving scenes, one in particular involvinga bathtub.
Overall Darling is not only horrifying but also well-acted and well-written, with an interesting story and great characters. In the end I’ddefinitely recommend this movie.
Firstly, I would not class this movie as horror, more a PsychoThriller. 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 thebeginning of the movie, and we are then reminded of this half waythrough by another character, in case we have forgotten.) seemsincidental.
My ”Pretension Alarm” started ringing straight away, and there wereseveral reasons.
1) Filmed in black and white. Not necessarily a bad thing, look atCarnival of Souls among others. Here it just serves to amplify thedullness of the story. 2) Separated into ”Chapters”. As there is noreal change in the story, or jumping to a different location, or even achange of scene sometimes, this seems superfluous. Perhaps they aretrying to fool us into thinking we are watching something intelligentby reminding us of books. 3)Throughout several scenes there is Frenchmusic playing in the background, á la Edith Piaf. Although the locationis never detailed, apart from a brief glimpse at a characters drivinglicence, it looks like 1960’s New York. So why French music? It doesnothing 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 thecamera from varying distances, with various expressions (Although notthat varied) inter-cut with flashes of screaming faces, whilediscordant music screeches in the background. 5)Very little dialogue. Alot of the time is taken with the girl alone in the house walkingaround, so the lack of dialogue is unsurprising, but most of what isincluded is painfully clumsy, so this is probably a plus. 6)The endingis predictable within the first 5 minutes of the movie.
I could sum up the plot of this film in three sentences, and wouldprobably have a sentence to spare, and still not be missing anythingout. But no spoilers
As you can tell, not a fan of this one, it tries so hard to be artfuland avant-garde, but is just Pretentious Claptrap.
Right off the bat, Mickey Keating’s latest film Darling shows realpromise. For starters, it is visually stunning: the lighting, setdesign and black and white cinematography (while imitative) are trulyimpressive. His shot compositions even of New York City even rivalWoody Allen’s famous, yet overrated opening of ”Manhattan”). It’sundeniable that Keating and company know their craft pretty well, andthat has to be applauded. However, the overall end product is lackingin many crucial areas for me, particularly its narrative trajectory andplot, which borrow heavily (I use that word kindly) from earlyPolanski’s ”Apartment Trilogy”,among other films in the ”female losinggrip on reality” (i.e. Carnival of Souls) subgenre. Obviously, anybodywho has been schooled in these films can clearly see thatKeating’seffort is really just a modern, pimped-out mashup, but with apretentious, student film-like executionthat lacks a unique vision or agenuine exploration into the pathology of it’s lead character. In otherwords, Darling looks great, but gives audiences very little to process.
I could have forgiven the film’s plagiaristic nature if it hadsomething authentic, unique, or timely to say about its hinted-atthemes of isolation, female sexual repression, mental illness, urbanalienation, or anything for that matter -but it doesn’t. The film is anexercise in style and, well, literally nothing else. I am not convincedKeating has any idea who his main character is, or truly even cares;she is merely a prop (admittedly a very lovely one). Instead of givingaudiences any type of backstory, Keating relies on the now-exhausted”descent into madness” theme; borrowing heavily from 1980’s TheShining’s exploration of the murky area between mental and metaphysicalchaos. However, here this approach is really just used as lazy devicesto demonstrate Keating’s technical virtuosity, while allowing him torevel in his giddiness over the entire filmmaking process. However, thefilmmaker’s ego ultimately compromises the integrity of the film,rendering it a hollow shell devoid of meaningful content.
In addition to its shallow and derivative vibe, Keating’s film ishampered by a seriously flawed and unconvincing portrayal of Darlingherself, played by the purportedly budding indie ”star” Lauren AshleyCarter. Without beating around the bush, I can only say that Carter’sperformance simply belies any credibility and comes across as wooden,self-aware, and curiously arrogant. I couldn’t help but imagine hertrying to stay in character, while making a valiant attempt to adhereto Keating’s rigid physical instructions, with a ”step-by-step”dutifulness (literally, it seemed like she was walking an invisibletightrope the whole time). Watching her, I got the sense that Keatingwas directing her based on shot construction and lighting schemesrather than character development or story advancement.
While throwbacks have become a dime a dozen these days, few recentfilmmakers seem to pay proper respect to their original sourcematerial. One recent exception, Ty West’s ”House of the Devil”, is agreat example of such a tribute-film done well; in large part becauseit maintains its own voice and sensibility, despite its heavy nostalgiafactor. Rather than a knock-off, West’s film serves as a genuine,from-the-heart homage that doesn’t take itself too seriously, whilestill being a highly sophisticated production that tells a story.West’s film knows what it wants to be and pulls it off: a sentimentalnod to a time period that was a golden age for low-budget Americanhorror cinema. Unlike Darling, it also profits from the likability,naturalism, and relatability of its main character played wonderfullyby Jocelin Donahue (her character is also given very little back story,but she brings infinitely more depth and conviction to the film thanCarter. While both films end on shocking and unexpected notes, West’sfinale is not so ambiguous as to leave audiences scratching theirheads. The pervasiveness of this type of forced ambiguity is one of themany ways in which Darling misses the mark.
After watching Keating’s film I was compelled to go back and re-visitthe films that clearly inspired it. Watching Catherine Deneuve in”Repulsion”, Candace Hilligoss in ”Carnival of Souls”, or morerecently, Angela Betis in 2002’s underrated ”May”- and I couldn’t denythe undeniably stark contrast between the craft of those memorableperformances and Carter’s here. It became clearer to me that theresimply is no subtlety or nuance in Carter’s performance or Keating’sfilm as a whole. Alas, Darling completely lacks the particularcombination of ingredients that made its progenitors so enduringlyeffective. In the end, Keating’s film is just a series of random shotsand jarring noise that are devoid of context or purpose.
It’s really too bad, because as mentioned earlier, Darling is a visualfeast; and given a more original script, clarity of purpose, andeffective lead, it might have been something truly inspired andinfluential in its own right.
Be careful reading the reviews on this one, I watched this with theadvantage of having never seen ‘repulsion’ and it must be said I seldomif 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 themovie delivers quite well. It is slow, (ie: at times bludgeoningly so)but is very atmospheric. The wife and I both watched it all the waythru which says much as we often will gong movies before the halfwaypoint (mutually.
Desperately striving to match movies of a bygone era it does not alwaysfall short, a good watch, probably more-so alone at night and during adistant storm…
There is an additional scene midway thru end credits don’t forget tostay that long if you make it to the end.