Art of Darkness (2012) User Reviews

A series of bad character choices somewhat mar this thriller

[mac-ginty · 4/10 · 19 November 2013]

A man and his wife are falling on hard times financially, the husband may be about to lose his job. He persuades his wife to take a modelling photo session and a private residence. Does he get the full address, of course not. She is promptly kidnapped by the photographer who keeps girls tied to tables before ,,, you can see where this is going.

A low budget British horror movie that has plenty of eye rolling moments and some minor gore. It starts slowly with some pretty dreadfully stilted dialogue before plodding on to an uninspired climax.

The main problem is the characters behave in a manner that will make your eyes roll at times, I'm loath to give examples as they would be spoilers.

I have given it four out ten basically it is not ineptly made and may may be worth a watch if you like women in peril movies without it turning into torture porn.

Fairly adequate horror movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 5/10 · 11 May 2019]

I stumbled upon the 2012 horror movie "Art of Darkness" (aka "Art House Massacre") by sheer random luck. I hadn't heard about the movie prior to picking it up. But the mere fact that it is a horror movie is actually sufficient to draw my attention. And the movie's cover art was also interesting enough to make me give it a go. Yup, I didn't read the synopsis on the back - I rarely do.

First of all, I must start off by saying that "Art of Darkness" actually turned out to be more interesting that anticipated. And by that I mean after having watched a few minutes it was clear that this wasn't a major Hollywood produced movie, so expectations were set given that fact. And it turned out that director Steve Laurence managed to make something of the movie with the limitations that were.

The storyline in "Art of Darkness", while it was hardly anything innovative or groundbreaking within the horror genre, turned out to be entertaining enough, and that made the difference.

Emily Baxter, playing Liz Richards, carried the movie quite nicely with her performance. While the rest of the cast wasn't as particularly outstanding or memorable as she was. I am not saying they were poor or inadequate, just that Emily Baxter was the most memorable.

There were a few gory scenes in the movie, which were actually quite nice. Just a shame that the movie didn't have more of such, because it would definitely have spruced up the movie and brought it out of the mediocre rating it landed on for my part.

The movie didn't feel prolonged or boring, as it had a nice pacing to the storyline and there was always something happening to keep the movie going. However, it is hardly a movie that incurs a second viewing.

Could have been a good story.....

[ant36au · 1/10 · 2 August 2017]

...but it wasn't,it was just plain awful.Everything about this movie was wrong,from the script,to the acting,music and cinematography.The acting can be only described as below mediocre at best,I've seen better acting from the old silent movies,at least they had a reason for bad acting.The dialogue was abysmal,that can only be blamed on the bone idle script writers who took what could have been a good script and burnt it then replaced it with this complete rubbish.I wish that could give it a 0,but a one will suffice.Stay well clear of this tripe and save yourself watching this horror of a movie.