Vino G. Bastian
Darwin
Overview
Darwin, a senior photographer who consistently uses a manual camera, is shocked to discover the appearance of a woman's shadow in every photo he takes. Soon, the woman's figure appears in real life, terrorizing him. Pia, Darwin's girlfriend, decides to investigate the woman's identity. It turns out the woman is Lilies, an outstanding student who once studied at their university. When Darwin's friends die one by one, Pia is convinced this is related to a 'sin' Darwin committed in the past.
Cast
12 people
Reviews
5 min readThe Ghost in the Machine
I’ve seen this trick before. A photographer develops a roll of film and finds a face in the frame that wasn’t there when he clicked the shutter. The face belongs to someone dead—or soon to be.
The camera, that supposed instrument of truth, becomes a liar, a thief, a witness to something it shouldn’t have seen. It’s a premise that’s been done to death (pun intended) in horror, from The Ring to Shutter’s own 2004 Thai progenitor. So when I sat down to watch Herwin Novianto’s 2025 remake, I braced myself for déjà vu.
What I didn’t expect was the way the film’s most interesting haunting wouldn’t be the ghost in the photographs, but the ghost of its own making—the weight of expectation, the specter of the original, and the quiet, creeping sense that this story might not have needed to be told again.
The first act moves with the efficiency of a well-oiled jump-scare machine. Darwin (Vino G. Bastian), a photographer with the kind of stubble that suggests he’s perpetually three days away from a midlife crisis, starts noticing a woman’s silhouette in his developed photos.
At first, it’s just a smudge, a trick of the light. Then it’s a face, pale and indistinct, hovering over his shoulder like a bad conscience. The film leans into the tactile pleasure of analog photography—close-ups of fingers winding film, the chemical tang of the darkroom, the way a Polaroid develops in real time.
There’s a nostalgia here, not just for the medium but for the idea of photography as something physical, something that can be held, manipulated, even cursed. It’s the film’s most effective trick, grounding its supernatural horror in something tangible.
But then the ghost steps out of the frame and into the world, and that’s where things start to unravel. Not because the scares are bad—though they’re often telegraphed with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer—but because the film seems unsure of what kind of horror it wants to be. Is this a slow-burn psychological thriller about guilt and memory?
Audience Opinions
Audience 4.5/10
"A watchable yet redundant remake that delivers a few decent scares but falls short of the original’s tension and emotional impact."
The film’s polished look, decent pacing in parts, and a handful of effective jumpscares keep it from being a total misfire, and some viewers appreciate the updated setting and the way the ending wraps up the protagonist’s arc. latestnetflix.com's view is that at the same time, the story feels formulaic and sometimes confusing, the ghost effects and makeup undercut the fear factor, and the soundtrack and drawn-out backstory sequences weaken the atmosphere, leaving many to prefer the Thai original.
What viewers praise
- Occasionally strong scares Several jump moments and late-movie set pieces, including a ladder sequence, manage to be tense and startling.
- Polished visual presentation Cinematography and general production values look professional, giving the film a clean, modern horror aesthetic.
- Modernized adaptation Updates the original premise to a contemporary setting with some small narrative tweaks that a portion of viewers find engaging.
- Satisfying final payoff The fate of the lead character is seen as deserved and brings a sense of closure to the story.
Common complaints
- Feels unnecessary as a remake Adds little that is new or essential compared to the Thai version, leading many to see it as a weaker retread.
- Weak horror atmosphere Scares are described as unmemorable or even unintentionally funny, never building sustained dread.
- Distracting ghost effects CGI and makeup for the ghost often look cheap or overdone, making the spirit more cartoonish than terrifying.
- Mismatched music choices Background music, including soft or melodramatic cues, frequently clashes with tense scenes and kills suspense.
- Cluttered and uneven story The plot follows a familiar template but is padded with overly long backstory, questionable character reactions, and timeline choices that confuse rather than deepen the narrative.
Recommended for
Indonesian horror remake followers Curious fans of the 2004 Shutter Casual supernatural thriller watchers Completionist Asian horror collectors
Full Plot (Spoilers)
Spoiler warning
This section contains the full plot, including major story reveals. Overview above stays spoiler-free.
Buzz & Rumors
Public reportsThey sold the ghost in Cannes, then shot the sin in Jakarta
On May 18, 2025, Falcon Pictures used the Cannes Film Market to announce another Thai remake. Indonesian Wikipedia records the date. Kang Mak from Pee Mak had already worked. Herwin Novianto and Alim Sudio were back. Frederica produced. CNN Indonesia named GDH as the partner again. Alim said the hard part of remaking a 21-year-old camera haunting is that cameras changed. He also said he folded Indonesian bullying and sexual violence cases into the plot. The 2004 Shutter already ran on that plot. latestnetflix.com's view is that Falcon is selling the local version as the reason to look twice.
,
Kompas ran the first poster and trailer on September 18. Herwin, in a press note, said, "For me, Shutter is not simply a ghost story. It is about how a past secret can become a burden that haunts you, even when you try to forget it." Vino G. Bastian, playing Darwin, said he was glad to join, that he had to dig for deep emotion and sit through intense horror scenes, and that he hoped people would enjoy the remake. Frederica told CNN Indonesia the studio was happy to share first images of a horror that would be intense, emotionally gripping, and visually seductive. She called the film a tribute to Banjong Pisanthanakun and a way to carry Southeast Asian stories to a new crowd. Herwin had already directed Miracle in Cell No. 7 with Vino. This is that pairing in a darker register. ,
The analog camera is the alibi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOx_Nm-9XyM
Darwin still shoots film in a digital decade. Pia, Anya Geraldine, is the girlfriend who wants to stop the car. TMDB 1475372 matches the Wikipedia logline. They hit a woman on a quiet road and leave. A female shadow moves into every frame, then into the room. Pia traces her to Lilies, Niken Anjani, a former student. Friends start dying. The hit-and-run is the cover story. The older sin is what Darwin's circle did on campus, and what he photographed instead of stopping. Runtime is 89 minutes. Original language is Indonesian. There is already a 2008 American remake with a different cast. This file is the Jakarta one. Falcon's official trailer, tagged for a 30 October cinema date, is on YouTube. , ,
Netflix lists it as a TV-MA Indonesian horror with English subtitles, starring Vino, Niken Anjani, and Anya Geraldine. Wikipedia puts the platform date at 27 February 2026. No salary figure leaked. No public feud. The talk is remake math. Thai original, Hollywood copy, then Falcon and GDH doing it again because Kang Mak printed money. Herwin's quote is the tell. Interviews sell guilt. The stills still do the jump. If you came for the 2004 shoulder ghost, that is here. If you came for a new scandal attached to Vino or Anya, the press kit did not hand one over. , ,
Entertainment rumors and trivia aggregated from public reporting. Treat speculation as unverified unless a cited source confirms it.