SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

HeadlinesExotic Boring

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

jery-tillotson-1 I had not seen this film since 1965 when I was a college student but remember how electrifying it was to see a young, charismatic Julie Christie at the beginning of her peak years. She's given some great scenes to show off her multi-faceted personality and she throws herself into the amoral model, Diana, who sleeps her way to the top. I can't imagine any other actress who could have done this without being repulsed by her naked greed and amorality. Christie had an inner radiance that makes her likable throughout this ground-setting import from London. England had become a hot movie center during this era, giving us such phenomenal movies like "Georgy Girl," "women in love," "Isadora," and many more. We can see this movie as a time machine which captures the raw energy of that era as our sexuality began to expand into new realms from the staid values of the past. This is a terrific movie to watch from time to time and watch an early phenomenon begin her golden career.

gahnsuksah Definitely a period film for those interested in identifying old cars, hairstyles and suchlike. One gets used to the black and white. Script full of silly egoistic banter with rather poor jokes (to us, anyway). I suppose the 60s were a bit like this movie but a lot seems just plain silly. A lot of facial expression shots that don't quite fit with the story development. Continuity suffers as a result of this. Was Julie Christie well cast? The Diana personality does not really fit her good looks and class - and she certainly comes over as a rather greedy and ignorant person who does not know herself at all. Her looking at herself in the mirror whilst kissing Robert (Dirk Bogarde) taught her nothing. Lousy relationships and trouble all round.

Tim Kidner I find it rather shocking that Darling was released in the year that I was born - it's dated, a museum piece, almost and I'm glad that I think myself as being more open and less sneering and cynical.My film bible, Halliwells, before its demise, awarded Scheslinger's 1965 film a rare maximum 4 stars - they usually only gave 2 or 3 films per year such a rating and so I was really looking forward to watching this, as Julie Christie was indeed a fine and attractive actress.However, despite its cleverness and swipes at the glamour and beauty industry in the swinging '60s London, it's just too clinical, hard and unapproachable. Diana (Christie) is immediately presented just as she's telling us (via an overbearing voice-over commentary) that she's no home-breaker, but has already dragged successful TV journalist, Robert (Dirk Bogarde) from his wife and children and is fully enjoying their affair.From here-on in, it seems to be one gentleman suitor to the next, all the way up to foreign aristocracy. Dotted about and in-between are some wonderfully strange characters and scenarios, often in exotic European cities. Some fairly wacky and bohemian partying scenes remind me somewhat of the great Fellini, as in his La Dolce Vita. On my second viewing, this time, I cannot quite 'see' the scene/s that warrants the DVD's 15 certificate. There's no actual frontal nudity, or swearing, though some of the adult orientated (including 'homosexuality is becoming a menace in modern society') sort of attitude back then, they are hardly applicable now.The crisp, stark black and white photography should be a reason for celebration but it's like having the main central living-room light on all evening - it gets rather overbearing and head-achy, especially over its just over two hour running time.There are some real moments within, though, but the Oscar that Christie swooped misses me somewhat and the script, also Oscar-winning doesn't seem to stand out particularly. Back in its day, though, I'm sure it was quite different - and scathing enough to be seen as something profoundly exciting, especially for a British film.Is it worth buying today? The transfer quality is superb, but as far as the actual film is concerned, it will fall into two camps. Those who would have seen it and films of the like back in the day and want to be re-acquainted, or want to replace a worn out VHS and those exploring this era of Brit neo-realist cinema, like me. There are some real gems in this genre but some haven't stood the test of time that well and some have. Sadly, 'Darling' slots into the former but if you want to sample the most influential of them, then it is a must. It's a reasonable price at least and you may well enjoy it more than I did - and it still IS a good film.

lasttimeisaw Julie Christie's Oscar-winning motion picture, at the helm of UK's soon-to-be Academy winning director John Schlesinger (for MIDNIGHT COWBOY 1969), anchored by two top-billing male co- stars Bogarde and Harvey, explores a young woman's uncertainty of pursuing her happiness, therefore comes into being a remarkable expedition and a vigorously incisive piece of work. "Being happy should be the easiest thing in the world, isn't it?", the central line underlies the tenor of the film, which starts as a commonplace love affair, after a struggle of hunger for fame and dismay of boredom, the girl eventually becomes the wife of a Italian prince, but the lush life doesn't complete her emptiness inside, her rueful aftermath has been a role model example of modern relationship-disillusion symptom. The original score from John Dankworth is additionally excellent, balances the roller-coaster adventures and is captivating alongside Christie's gallant performance, who is the sole nucleus of the film and consistently sterling in every scene and literally she is in every scene, Bogarde and Harvey are two prisms reflecting two vastly different desirability of men, both mesmerizing and realistic (as my first encounter with Laurence Harvey, his amoral womanizer representative is so dazzling and charismatic). There is a self-destruction undercurrent influences the entire film, maybe the specie of woman is notable for her instability and bewilderment of what her wants, while men are more predominantly clear about their limitations and their preys, which sounds plausible for me, and one cannot help feeling sympathy towards our leading lady's quandary, which could be tons of women peers' pipe dream, a princess in Italy, what a killing temptation, plus José Luis de Vilallonga is a decent and young-looking widower in the film, so one might wonder how many white flags will he receive facing all the female viewers, who might grudgingly slam Christie's fickle nature, but the truth is one cannot literally live in other person's shoes, especially if she is a woman. So the film renders us a marvelous answer, she has only herself to thank for her predicament.