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.

jghbrown ..now you lie in it.This is what Robert seems to be telling Diana as he packs her off back to her self-made prison on the Isle of Capri, where she performs the role of the beautiful face which "represents" the wife of Prince Cesare Della Romita. The role is so superficial that he (the prince) boldly tells Diana he is visiting his mother when in likelihood it is a mistress who will receive the benefit of his charming company. His children blow goodnight kisses at her from a safe distance while she dines alone at a vast table served by a parade of solemn servants.Yet superficial is exactly how you could describe Diana herself. She is immature. She tells lies, most especially to herself. She hardly ever seems to finish anything she starts. She flits like a butterfly from one man to another and tells herself it is all good clean fun. One minute she is shedding tears over her pet fish ("poor little things"), the next she is trying to stab them with a knife (finally she and a drunken Malcolm poison them and apparently find it hysterically funny).The only one of her acquaintances who seems to be normal and in any way sincere is Robert. She is a little afraid of him because she knows that he sees through her. However this doesn't stop her from picking him up and dumping him several times. Until he finally grows weary of it (despite his inability not to love her), probably realizing that she will never change and that life with her would no doubt be a pile of pain. If you're out fishing and you happen to land a conger eel into your little boat, the best thing is to get it overboard as quickly as you can even if it hurts.The main characters and the decadence of the world which they inhabit are brilliantly portrayed. Though of course the movie seems dated in some respects, the themes are timeless. Recommended.

donwc1996 Julie Christie is Darling and no one in the film even comes close to taking her crown away. She is devastatingly wonderful in every minute and you cannot take your eyes off her. Movie-making is a mystery there is no question about it but the greatest mystery is how the perfect script, perfect star and perfect director come together to produce such a perfect gem as Darling. I doubt a character in any movie has been written to match Darling. She is truly unique. No matter what she does you continue to adore her, to find her utterly charming and totally without guile. Alice in Wonderland, kind of. The descriptions right here at IMDb are completely wrong. I have no idea who wrote them but they miss the mark totally. They really need to take another look at the film. It's impossible to really define Darling she is so elusive, like a beautiful butterfly that brightens the day for an instant.

Robert J. Maxwell Julie Christie dazzling and pulchritudinous. Dirk Bogarde, as far as I know, never turned in a poor performance. This production doesn't exploit his knowing smirk but he's fine as the lover who's live-in is gradually losing her interest in him. Laurence Harvey equals his performance in "Room At The Top" and has never been better than he is here. The supporting cast are all professionals.The writing is cute. "I was born at an early age." "You're a man after his own heart." "Ah, I thought I caught the scent of Prussic acid." John Schlesinger's direction is subtle and arch, but the arches fall because, essentially, there is no plot.This story of Julie Christie as a model in magazine ads who rises to the top, bumping into loving and/or lecherous men (and women) on the way, was released in 1965 and presumably shot in 1964 when England was on the cusp of a cultural revolution. It probably carried a good deal of shock value on its release. I mean, an amoral, flighty heroine. A party in Paris that looks like the climactic and arid festival in "La Dolce Vita"; a soirée in Paris in which a dozen spectators stand around silently and watch the famous hostess strip and have the blocks put to her by a man who evidently has been hired for the occasion. There are quick cuts and overlapping narration.But it seems the film just rolls along alternating between major and minor shocks, hoping these will carry it. Whatever attracts one person to another is ephemeral. No one loves anyone else, though they may lust after them. The target is usually upper- or upper-middle class pretensions. The milieu here is the artsy world of London, not the ash cans and dustbins of the poor. That's a relief anyway.There are many virtues in this film but overall it's a dull movie. I never really cared about any of the characters, though I felt a bit sorry for poor, hard-working Bogarde as the typewriting schlub whose appeal for Christie is waning. But I've always respected and admired poor, hard-working schlubs because I know what it's like to be one. And, aside from its abundance of virtues, whatever weaknesses there are in the film can't compare to the recent output of Hollywood. We've come so far there's nothing left inside us to be shocked.