S. Darko

source: S. Darko

Having not kept up with Big Love, I didn't know that miss Chase was so damn HOT! Especially when she's darting around in what basically amounts to mens' underwear and grandma's underwear. Okay, so yes, it is not as great a movie as DD. So effing what? On it's own, its a pretty decent movie, good production value and decent acting. And of course, it has none of the surprising plot twists that DD has, it doesn't have ANY actors of great fame, except for Berkely and Westwick and Berkely is kinda over the hill, by Hollywood standards (not my personal standards, but hey) But as a movie, it's good, there's sacrifice, and beauty, and suspense and sympathetic characters, and there's a kind of lazy laidback feel to the film that's damn appealing. Might not have worked without Daveighs huge attractiveness, though.

S. Darko - A Donnie Darko Tale.......the full title pretty much sums up the writers and directors thought processes when they decided to make a sequel to one of the most compelling, innovative and involving films of the last ten years. 'Let us focus on the younger sister......put her name up as the title....add Donne Darko too so that people will know it is a sequel - hell, no...let us shorten the name of the sister....so that Darko is mentioned twice..so that people WILL know it is a sequel...' It is just a shame that they did not put any thought into the script, the characters, the casting, the effects......all they did was rehash the best of Donnie Darko - BADLY!!!!! The scroll at the beginning sets it up when it mentions about the jet engine being untraceable, from the first movie....HALLO!!!!!! That matter took place in the Tangent Universe....the investigation in the Now Universe was never portrayed on screen!!!! Why has Samantha got the Time Travel book? Why does Samantha die - twice?? Why are the cast so two-dimensional that we don't really care about them or their actions? Why would Roberta Sparrows grandson be involved? There are numerous references to the first film - rehashed as I mentioned - basically word for word dialogue that seems so contrite as to not make sense, even in the context of this shabby movie. The effects are not up to scratch - what exactly are the meteorites for? How come the water spears are acting independently of their hosts, when they should be tracking the hosts path into the near future (as in Donnie Darko)? Why would there be a water barrier between Iraq Jack and Samantha atop the water tower? (Is she a Manipulated Dead at this point? Probably - but then she comes back to life!) Maybe in time and with several viewings under my belt I will come to appreciate this film more - I rate it at a two from ten film, purely for the audacity of the makers thinking they could match the original! Well, I think I need to go lie down to recover now.......

Seven years after a jet engine fell on her brother we find Samantha Darko on a road trip with her best friend Corey as they both want to escape their former lives. Their car breaks down in a small town in Utah and they are stuck there until their car can be repaired. Samantha of course has Darko superpowers and while she sleepwalks her time traveling zombie ghost girl self wanders around giving advice to the local nut (a post traumatic war veteran), and warning that the world is going to end in a few days. There is also the "Mystery of the Missing Boys" to be solved (spoiler: it's not) and a gaggle of weird characters to meet; the drunk teen who is brother to one of the missing boys, the nerd who is infected by a meteorite, the aforementioned crazy vet, the creepy motel manger, the priest with a shady past and his freaky girlfriend. The movie rewinds the time line twice so that we can see things happen differently, with no real logical effect or reason, and the second time is just a big * you to the viewer who has just wasted 100 minutes of their lives watching this piece of crap. Richard Kelly has nothing to do with this sequel (it's directed by Chris Fisher) but after Southland Tales I'd still like to blame him.

well, that was a waste of money, for me, for the producers, the cast and the whole world. The only thing that saves the movie from an absolute zero is the fact that the protagonist is pretty cute and walks around in her bare pajamas the whole movie (so that may turn into a sexploitation movie). NOTHING MORE. The movie completely fails in any attempt to evoke or fabricate any sort of emotion thru the whole thing. Yes, it tries so hard, it instantly makes you feel bad for wasting your time with slow motion crane cameras, characters looking into nothing with dumbass faces, bad acting, convoluted plot, total lack of meaning in any action and interactions, all characters are total gloomy posers and 1990s alternative music. Just as an example, like doonie darko, after the actress tries to show that she falls asleep, she sleepwalks, that pretty much gives an excuse for her to appear anywhere in town by a simple scene cut, dressed in her pajamas and conveniently close to the next nonsensical interaction with whomever. Thats the main mode of transportation in the movie by the way.

I'm a huge fan of the first film. That said, when I heard they were making a sequel, my first thought was simple: "Why?" However, I consider myself an open-minded person. I knew I'd watch the movie before passing judgment. My expectations were incredibly low, however. I figured that it would either be a poor attempt at cashing in on the first film's success, a cute film that made a decent attempt, or a surprise hit that blew my mind. The large amount of time since the first film made me doubt the first option, and the fact that Richard Kelly would not be involved made me doubt the third. So I figured it would be an okay film, worth watching once, and then forgetting about. The film finally came out, and I decided to rent it. I watched it with a friend, also a big Donnie Darko fan. My final verdict: I was indeed blown away. I will say that this film is not really on the same level as Donnie Darko. But it was far better than I had expected it to be. In terms of cinematography, the film is superb. In smaller terms: it LOOKS like Donnie Darko. You'll find fast-motion clouds, slow-motion parties, and upside-down, rotating shots. All of the rules of the first film are kept intact. Those who are very involved in the mythology of the film will likely not be disappointed. Everything about time travel, water, metal... all remains intact. My major qualm is that some things seemed directly lifted off of the first film. Of the now four people I know who watched both the first movie and this sequel, all four have found that to be its biggest flaw. But it does have its own story, and it's a beautiful story. The effects are wonderful, very beautiful. Overall, the movie is worth watching. I expect a lot of people will cast it aside and hate it simply because it exists. Good for them. But this movie is a good continuation, a great sequel (considering the original mastermind was nowhere to be found) and it was put together by true fans, for true fans. Where Donnie Darko blew my mind out of this world, this movie at least blew my mind out of my chair. That's more than can be said for a lot of films. In short, this movie is not Donnie Darko. It is what it is, and it is good.

OK I'm with Andy, though I don't think his post contained enough anger, or enough tears to fully explain this movie. Anyone who has seen the first can see plot twists (sorry... "twists") coming from a mile away, not only did the movie completely rip off the first one, it started all over again halfway through and ripped it off a second time. The whole thing looked low budget, as if it was made to feel like it was made around the same time as Donnie, as if someone wanted it to be a cult classic years ago, though it never could or should be. Anyone who thought "oh this could never be like D Darko, it must be completely different" is sadly mistaken. The thriller of Frank was replaced by some sort of horror, badly done at that, and what relevance did frank have at all to S Darko? Dialogue was terrible, semi rehashed lines from the first, and don't even get me started on the soundtrack... Anyone who even mildly enjoyed the first movie should stay away from this one, or at least make sure you drink the whole way through the dragged out, overly long story so that when you pass out you wont remember a thing in the morning and we can all pretend that it never even happened.

When I watched this movie i was hoping for a Donnie Darko like movie, but i was expecting for something not even close. I was right : this is no Donnie Darko movie. It lacks what i think made Donnie Darko so good, and that is the message and the state of spirit one could be set on. Also Donnie Darko was a little darker then this movie, which i also enjoyed. However, all in all, this movie is not that bad as long as you are not expecting to see the second part of Donnie Darko. I couldn't get a greater message from this movie. The characters seem a little shallow and not that well defined. The rabbit like face, copied from Donnie Darko movie, doesn't really has his place in this movie. There are a lot of questions remaining unanswered by the end of the movie, which made me feel empty and unsatisfied. I also did not get why Sam had to die twice, or what she came to realize by the end of this movie. I think who is to blame for this poorly made movie are the writers and maybe the director. I have seen this movie once, which is OK i guess since i had to see it, but now it is time to see again one of my top movies(if not number 1) and one of the best movies of all time : Donnie Darko.

I know I should have found this to be an abomination, but it's really not. I was very pleasantly surprised. I definitely didn't expect to like it so much. I really liked Daveigh Chase here too. My only beef is the finale. It seemed like it was going somewhere else, somewhere better, but it didn't. Definitely recommended though. I'm sure the die-hard Donnie Darko fans will hate it, but the casual ones (like myself) should be able to enjoy it. I loved the cinematography and the music. It's very stylish and trippy. 8/10 (B+)

I may be one of the few people who will actually admit this, but I don't at all care for the first Darko movie. I thought it was ultimately pointless and a total waste of time for a story that never really went anywhere and doubled back on itself far too much. Much like this film, I'm sure there will be people who moan about how I "just don't get it". No...I get it. It's just stupid and irrelevant. S. Darko may as well be a carbon copy of the first film in terms of setup and execution (although I'm not sure if it's meant to be a true "sequel", so it's hard to call it the second film of the series). Basically you've got a group of actors whose job it is to appear wooden and bland while certain elements of the story are rewound for no reason and changed. I guess i just don't see the point in having certain events happen just so they can be backed up and changed via "time travel" or whatever the hell the plot vehicle for this is supposed to be. I mean typically you watch a movie things happen and you commit them to memory so the rest of the story makes sense. You might as well not do that here because there's a good chance it's not going to matter later. Basically the end of this movie just left me wondering what the point of it all was. That's not always a bad thing, but in this case it just felt hollow and meaningless. Unless you're just dying to know whatever became of Donnie Darko's little sister it's probably best to avoid this.