i've seen this movie discussed into the ground on other message boards, but i never read any of the posts because i didn't want any pre-conceived notions when seeing the movie. well, we finally saw it last weekend via Netflix, and the only way i let it go out of our house was under the assumption that we would buy it next time we went DVD shopping.

yes, it was that good, IMO. i was one of those movies that i could watch quite a few times. it leaves a nice pile of questions unanswered and makes you think quite a bit. i was dying to watch the commentary tracks, but we wanted to keep the queue moving, so i won't be hearing those until we purchase it.

i've got some specific thoughts on this film that will include spoilers, but i thought i'd request some thoughts from any/all of you on it first.

so...anyone care to re-post their thoughts on it?

I hate to say it, but I found it to be enthralling in certain moments but wildly uneven overall. It felt very much like the film of a promising first-time writer-director who had a million ideas and favorite movies he wanted to nod to, but didn't ever quite figure out the perfect spine to hang his skeleton on. Sometimes it's coming-of-age, sometimes sci-fi, sometimes horror, and I guess it just left me feeling confused as to what it was trying to accomplish by the end. I would be curious to hear what it was specifically that you liked about it, i.e. what specific things you got out of it.

Alexhead wrote:I hate to say it, but I found it to be enthralling in certain moments but wildly uneven overall. It felt very much like the film of a promising first-time writer-director who had a million ideas and favorite movies he wanted to nod to, but didn't ever quite figure out the perfect spine to hang his skeleton on. Sometimes it's coming-of-age, sometimes sci-fi, sometimes horror, and I guess it just left me feeling confused as to what it was trying to accomplish by the end.

you know, just for shits & grins i looked up Ebert's review of the movie, and he says almost exactly what you just said, eventually settling on **½ or something. that's disappointing, i thought it deserved better. but, even if it left you feeling like you weren't sure of what you just saw, i guess that's almost a good thing - meaning you'll probably want to see it again. it's also gotta bode well for his future.

at any rate, i loved the film, although i can see where you're coming from. it does jump around, and there are many moods in one place.

********* SPOILER ALERT ***************

to me, the whole film revolves around one central question - if you were given the opportunity to see how your choices and presence have changed those around you, and you knew you could make things better given the chance, would you go back and make the one change that would make everyone else's life better? everyone's life ends up being "better" after he's gone:

the english teacher - she doesn't get fired;
the gym teacher - her system of beliefs doesn't get rocked/she can continue as leader of Sparkle Power;
the motivational speaker - for obvious reasons;
the girl next door - she doesn't end up dead;
his family - again, lack of dead-ness;

the only person i can't figure out is the fat asian girl who only says "shut up". although there does seem to be one turning point for her that would not have happened after the end - when Drew Barrymore comes outside after getting fired and screams at the top of her lungs, then gives "advice" to the girl. at that scene the girl is wearing her angel costume - all white and pure. after that, no more white. like somehow she was corrupted by seeing that. but, i don't think it's that simple with her - there's a key scene earlier after DD trashes that school where we have a wide shot of the front of the school with her sitting at the left "hand" of the demon-dog mascot statue. she is the only person in the shot. i'm certain this is symbolic of something, but it hasn't hit me yet. i need another viewing.

another person that was confusing was DD's mom. through the whole movie, she is sort of reserved, always with that plastic smile on her face, especially when talking about DD, always there supporting her family, and usually hiding her bad habits (smoking) from them. but in the end, when he is dead, she is off to the side, away from her family, by herself standing under a tree smoking with this look of lucidity about her, blankly waving to the girl. it's like she is at some kind of peace since DD is dead.

then there is an entire other aspect of this movie that fascinates me - the time travel/projected self thing. this has always been a subject that i'm into, and i think they cover it beautifully in this film. everything about it. but again, more questions remain - like grandma death. it seemed like the whole movie was pointing to the fact that she kept going to her mailbox looking for the letter from DD that would eventually come. but, the last time we see her, she's still just standing there looking. i thought for sure at that scene there would be some kind of closure, but that was left open. perhaps her sole purpose in the film was to deliver the "Every living thing dies alone" prophecy. again, more viewings are in order.

also, expert editing in this movie. on the disc, there's like 20 deleted scenes, 90% of which really needed to be removed. i'm usually a guy that likes deleted scenes put back into the movie, but in this case many of those scenes would cheapen the film. for instance, there's one (extended) scene with his parents in the hotel room where they talk about a guy named Frank that they both went to h/s with, and how troubled and destined for doom he was, "...just like our Donnie." that was waaaaaaaay too much force-feeding, and it deserved to be cut. probably seemed like a good idea on paper, but again - expert editing. along the same lines the cut scene with his therapist about the placebos - just unnecessary and would have brought down the point.

and yes, the enigma of Frank. he gets progressively closer to DD as the movie goes on, as they march towards destiny. but, is his eye damanged (in the theatre) from the upcoming gunshot wound, or is it from the bathroom where DD was stabbing him "through the veil"? i think the timeline here could be significant. again, more viewings.


********* END SPOILERS ****************


plenty of reasons i'm dying for the commentaries on this. i'd love to hear the thoughts behind some of the things in this film. this is one case where i hope it's not all technical in nature - i want them to discuss the underlying themes. i'm betting that because this was a first effort, it's very close to home for the director and very personal. i'm hoping he puts his all into the commentary. i don't want spoon-feeding, just thoughts.

plus, i never got that he was trying to make blatant "nods" to any films. it just seemed that, like you said, he may have been trying to say many things at once, and was clearly influenced by certain filmmakers/films and not shy about letting that influence show through. nothing wrong with that, IMO.

at any rate, i can't wait to see it again. and again.

I'll be quite honest and say that you've obviously done a lot more towards weaving the tapestry together than I have. In broad strokes I had a feel for what was trying to be said, but with the plethora of characters and different situations going on between them (almost Robert Altman-esque if you think about it), it did get a little convoluted for me to work out. I'm sure I would benefit from a repeat viewing as well.

agreed about the Altman thing.

but, i think it also helped that i had zero preconceived notions of what this was about - i had never read nor heard thing one about it at all. this is what really benefitted me, i'm sure. much like how i had never gotten into TP until after seeing FWWM, which i consequently loved.

here's some great trivia about DD i just found out:

• The film was shot in 28 days - the same length of time as Frank's doomsday countdown.
• In the beginning of the film, when Donnie is walking back home in the morning, his mother is reading Stephen King's "IT," which is about a small town tormented by the epitome of children's fears that usually goes about in the guise of a clown. Later, towards the end of the film, a character is hit by a car. The passenger gets out and is dressed like a clown.
• The opening of the film is a tribute to Last Temptation of Christ, The (1988). The idea of Frank appearing to Donnie as a rabbit came from Harvey (1955). Many similar lines of dialogue (as well as concepts and events in the story) appear in the morality play "Everyman," written anonymously in the 15th Century.

/me runs off to look up "Everyman"

i'm jonesing to see this again...

FYI, I shared your spoiler warning-bracketed comments with someone on another board I frequent who's trying to unscramble his head after watching this last night, he passes on his thanks!

cool.

Which Donnie Darko Character Are You?

The link's not working.

TC wrote:cool.

Which Donnie Darko Character Are You?

Previous to this, I never knew I was a woman. Or a redhead.

You are Donnie Darko! You are confused and mentally unstable but you are a truly great guy who just wants to love, be loved, and not die alone. "I promise one day everything will be better for you."

I guess that's good... ?

Now the link works. I too got Donnie Darko for my character.

Dragging this one up, because I bought the Director's Cut DVD last night.

I only so the original cut once, so I can't make a direct comparison, but to me it looks like at least one of your deleted scenes that would "cheapen the movie" was inserted back in. The scene with the therapist saying to Donnie that he can stop taking his medication, that it was only a placebo anyway was there, and I thought it felt out-of-place. Especially when an earlier scene of the therapist with the parents talks about doubling his medication??

I don't remember seeing all the excerpts from Grandma Death's book before. Were they there in the original? What struck me about them and what makes me question it is your comment on how people were different. At the end of the movie, the book states how people are affected differently by the timeline change and that some will remember more than others what had happened or "didn't" happen depending on how you look at it. Then we cut to all the people affected by it, some "remembering" the events that didn't take place.
How much they "remember" isn't clear, but both the motivational speaker and the gym teacher experience great shock. The girlfriend doesn't seem to remember anything but has a "deja vu" type feeling.

One thing I didn't see, was how Donnie got back to his bed. One minute he's on the hilltop with his dead girlfriend in the car, and the next he's climbing into his bed 28 days earlier?? I thought I had remembered him making a leap of faith type action in the original, but didn't see it last night.

More rambling. What's the deal with the scene transitions? All of the eye dialation and tiny computer text and images just confused me. The eye I can see (it being a window to the soul), but what's with the images and text?

Maybe I'll watch it again with the directors commentary running.

yeah, the commentary explains directly why he chose some of the things he did. watch it with that and then let's discuss some more.

here's what i said on a different board:

as far as the director's cut, there are some things about it that bother me. when i watched all the deleted scenes on the first release, i thought "man i'm glad they didn't put that in there. that's too much spoon-feeding". when i saw them in the director's cut, i felt the same way. i really wish that scene with the parents in the hotel discussing his old friend frank wasn't in there. but whatever. the new cut DVD isn't a wank-fest just to cash in, there are some great things on that set. i LOVE the commentary. i love the home-made "making of" documentary. great stuff.

ok you haters, what's not to like?

Alexhead wrote:I hate to say it, but I found it to be enthralling in certain moments but wildly uneven overall. It felt very much like the film of a promising first-time writer-director who had a million ideas and favorite movies he wanted to nod to, but didn't ever quite figure out the perfect spine to hang his skeleton on. Sometimes it's coming-of-age, sometimes sci-fi, sometimes horror, and I guess it just left me feeling confused as to what it was trying to accomplish by the end.

Also sounds like the new one is in a similar vein, i.e. all over the map. Again, I'm interested to see Southland and will probably revisit DD at some point, but my recollection of the latter remains pretty disjointed. It didn't quite justify the puzzle-dissection that it demanded of the viewer, I guess I'd say.

ok, well for your re-viewing, keep in mind that i'm anti-the director's cut, except for a completist.

Not 100% sure but I think we watched the theatrical cut. I seem to recall us saying "hm, maybe if we watched the director's cut we'd get more out of it."

Alexhead wrote:Not 100% sure but I think we watched the theatrical cut. I seem to recall us saying "hm, maybe if we watched the director's cut we'd get more out of it."

and you would - too much, to be exact. i dislike being spoon-fed a film.

Donnie Darko sequel S. Darko starts shooting May 18
Wendy Mitchell in London
09 May 2008 05:00



UK-based sales company Velvet Octopus will be launching sales in Cannes for S. Darko, billed as the sequel to the 2001 cult hit Donnie Darko. Fox has already taken North American rights.

Daviegh Chase reprises her role as Donnie's younger sister. The cast for S. Darko also includes Ed Westwick (Son Of Rambow, Gossip Girl), Briana Evigan (Step Up 2) and Justin Chatwin (Dragon Ball).

Ash Shah's Silver Nitrate and Newmarket Capital are producing. Los Angeles-based Chris Fisher, who previously made Nightstalker and Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders, will direct. The budget is pegged around $10m.

The story picks up seven years after the first film (and Donnie's death) when little sister Samantha Darko and her best friend Corey are now 18 and on a roadtrip to Los Angeles when they are plagued by bizarre visions.

Fisher said in a statement: "I am a great admirer of Richard Kelly's film and hope to create a similar world of blurred fantasy and reality."

Producers have spoken to Richard Kelly about the project but he is not involved in any official capacity at this stage.

Simon Crowe of Velvet Octopus added: "I think there is a new generation of cinema-goers who will be very excited to see this film."

Crowe quipped to ScreenDaily: "Donnie's not in [the new film] but there are meteorites and rabbits."

The project starts shooting May 18.

Two other new projects that Velvet Octopus are selling in Cannes are Sam's Story and Garfield's Fun Fest.

Sam's Story, directed by Miriam Kruishoop, will star Neve Campbell and Gabriel Macht (soon to appear as Frank Miller's The Spirit) in the story of a party girl who grows up and falls in love with a single dad. The UK/Nethlerlands co-production is produced by Black Book's San Fu Maltha with Molly Hassell. It will shoot this summer.

Garfield's Fun Fest is a continuation of the cartoon cat adventures, this time full CG animated (not a live-action combination as with the recent Fox hits). The US/Korean production from The Animation Picture Co. is directed by Mark Dippe and Kyung Ho Lee. Jim Davis wrote the script with the Altiere Bros. The voice cast features Frank Welker.

Velvet Octopus' Cannes sales slate also includes UK genre film Cockneys vs Zombies, Demian Lichtenstein's $25m Relentless 3D starring Karl Urban, animated projects The Legend Of Spyro and Outback 3D, Gabor Csupo's The Secret Of Moonacre (now in post) and Emily Young's Veronika Decides To Die starring Sarah Michelle Gellar (which starts shooting May 12).

http://www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyA ... &Category=