Cool News
Richard Kelly - DONNIE DARKO re-release, Frank The Bunny Action Figure, KNOWING and more!
Hey folks, Harry here... I think anyone that's seen DONNIE DARKO can agree that Richard Kelly is one of the most talented first time genre filmmakers in the industry today. And at the very least the film is a huge cult fave here in Austin, where everytime the Alamo Drafthouse shows it... it seems to sell out. Having read KNOWING, BESSIE and DOMINO from Richard Kelly's brain, I can say with great confidence that we've only seen the opening chapter. When Tony Scott shoots DOMINO, folks are going to lose their minds. KNOWING... if Fox Searchlight would just move forward on it, we'd get to see the second Richard Kelly film, which needs to be out right now! The mood of the country is very primed for a film like KNOWING, at least I think so. And BESSIE... BESSIE would be one of the great "WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT" movies of all time. One of those flicks that just kicks your head clean off. HOWEVER, in the immediate future, I have to say, I'm very much to seeing DONNIE DARKO with it's original music from the SUNDANCE time period in... along with it being the director's cut, the way I originally saw it. I think. And having a FRANK THE BUNNY toy... Yes please... NOW!
Donnie Darko Director's Cut Rerelease, Book, Frank the Bunny doll
Donnie Darkobook, figurine, special edition re-release announced atSan Diegoscreening
Richard Kelly, writer-director of Donnie Darko, attended a special screening in San Diego where he announced an upcoming book and Todd McFarlane figurine based on the 2001 cult classic, as well as a potential theatrical re-release in March of 2004.
The Q&A session, following a4:00showing on Sunday the 19th at Madstone Theaters onFrazee Road, was arranged by the San Diego Film Critics Society, who awarded Kelly Best Screenplay in 2002 while he was inEurope. The casual crowd filled three-fourths of the theater, an excellent turnout for an otherwise poorly advertised event. As much as 1/4 of the audience had never seen the film.
Immediately following the credits, Kelly, in jeans and grey T-shirt, made his way to the stool in front - he had intended to present the film, but his car had broken down and he had to borrow another. Following a brief introduction he immediately began taking audience questions.
* When asked how he marketed the unusual script, Kelly thanked his producing partner Scott McKittrick, who had shopped it to an assistant at a major agency, which led to him being signed with Creative Artists (CAA). Initially only the screenwriter, Kelly got his chance to direct when Jason Schwartzman of Rushmore fame showed interest and became attached to the project. He passed it to Drew Barrymore, who approached Kelly's agent at ShoWest and met with him on the set of Charlie's Angels. He offered her a part; she offered to produce.
* Kelly compared Darko's cul-de-sac ending to "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," the Twilight Zone episode based on the Ambrose Bierce short story about a man about to be hanged who, in his final moments, imagines himself surviving and escaping.
* He sites Steven King, Philip K. Dick, Camus, Kafka, Graham Greene, and Dostoevsky as literary influences. He admitted not having read any of them since high school English and not knowing which way to pronounce Camus.
* HeÃs a big fan of Kill Bill and Quentin Tarantino, who he met at the premier. Also a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson and Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman. Apparently, when Kaufman turned in his draft of Adaptation, everyone inHollywoodwanted to kill him. Kelly tells another story about a screening of Being John Malcovitch: a producer who passed on it walked out claiming sheÃd ìdodged a bullet,î and, later, at the Oscars, talked about how it was one of her favorite films of the year.
* The concept of the screenplay began with the jet engine. It was inspired by the urban legend of the block of frozen urine that falls from a plane and strikes a man dead - an idea, Kelly pointed out, that was also used in an episode of Six Feet Under.
* When asked about his struggles filming Donnie Darko and whether he expects his struggles to get worse, Kelly clarified that filmmaking is always a struggle. "There's always 20 bozos who'll screw it up," he complained. "They're not in it for the art at all; to them it's just a business." He discussed his next film, Knowing, which has been caught in legal entanglements; principal photography won't begin until early next year, due in part to the film's $15 million budget. (Darko, which was made for more that a third less, failed to earn back production costs.)
* On the scripts he is writing for other directors in the meantime, Kelly claimed he considers it work-for-hire, though he emphasized the importance of owning and protecting one's material until it is set to go into production. "They can cast Carrot Top," he warned. "You're fucked."
* When asked if he intended the faculty in Darko to be so blatantly incompetent, Kelly reiterated that the characters are supposed to be archetypes, but, yes, Kitty and the principal are "clearly nitwits," while the teachers played by Barrymore and Noah Wyle are the liberal progressive types he admired growing up in Virginia. If Darko has any message, he concedes it would be that public schools and suburban life in general can be so pointlessly damaging that it's no wonder kids are shooting up their schools.
* Most of the throwaway details in the film were written in the script - right down to the "God Is Awesome!" T-Shirt. Kelly admitted admiration for directors like Ridley Scott and Terry Gilliam who emphasize details, and pointed out that technicians appreciate it when you're real specific.
* Patrick Swayze is the nicest man in the world. The infomercial was shot on his ranch; his wife showed them his recording studio and brought out his "80's clothes." Swayze was very enthusiastic about the project: ìHe wanted to take a blowtorch to his image."
* Kelly got to USC on an art scholarship, and changed his major almost immediately. He got into the film department on the strength of his writing samples, and intended to continue as a screenwriter until his peers told him he was most defiantly a director. His dad was a scientist at NASA, and his whole family has a background in architecture and engineering, and after all, ìa director is an architect.î
* The Donnie Darko book - not a novel, more like a production book, like the Matrix coffee table book - is already available inLondonand contains the screenplay, including unproduced scenes. It will be available in theUSshortly.
* When asked, he defended Cherita, the plump Chinese girl, by comparing her to the Mike Yanagita character inFargo. All he does it hit on Marge and lie about his marriage - the studio should have cut the scene, Kelly claims. But when Marge discovers that he lied, it makes her wonder if sheÃs easily lied to - prompting her to question Jerry Lundegaard a second time. Yanagita was secretly crucial. Kelly failed to explain why putting on CheritaÃs earmuffs was an important stage in the development of DonnieÃs character, but claimed it was anyhow.
As he got up to leave, the SDFCS representative reminded him of his special announcement: he is in negotiations with Newmarket Film Group to re-release Donnie Darko next March, including more pop music removed since it was shown at Sundance, and, more importantly - it will be a DirectorÃs Cut. He claimed it may include stuff not available on the DVD. He did not specify how wide it will be distributed.
The SDFCS rep also reminded him to tell us that McFarlane Toys is working on a Frank the Bunny doll.
Kelly, though appearing tired, was willing to sign DVD covers and chatted with fans as they left the theater.
Madstone will continue showing Donnie Darko until the 23rd.
Jeff Fries
-
+ Expand All
-
Also I'm a fan of Richard Kelly :) Can't wait for his next project.
-
Firs... wha noooooooo beatn again!!!
Nice to see great talent in the industry making films that MATTER - Kelly/jonze/QT/PTA/Fincher etc
Death to the Hacks!! -
It's up there with FIGHT CLUB, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, CHASING AMY, MOULIN ROUGE, KILL BILL, GHOSTBUSTERS, SE7EN and JAWS!
-
What a fucking incredible movie!
-
I sent it less than two hours ago.
-
And the worst thing about that film is that its so-called "hero", in allowing himself to "heroically" be killed in order to "save others" from his own wake of destructiveness, actually allows a child molester run rampant in his community for who knows how long. The least the motherfucker could have done was leave a note for the cops that says "Patrick Swayze is a pedophile - look his basement." Fuck DONNIE DARKO.
-
I hope this guy gets more work. Did Donnie Darko turn a profit after the DVD, cable, and television rights were negotiated? I don't think a film's money trail ends at the U.S. box office take. Anyone? Anyone?
-
Oct 20, 2003 7:03:40 AM CDT
ER - Mosquito - WATCh the film again - You'll notice that in the
by silentbobafett2
-
AICN needs more of these type of reports. It's pretty funny that in the UK DD took 3 or 4 times it's US box office. A rerelease might work but marketing the film is damn tricky.
-
I like that you put Moulin Rouge up with Donnie Darko, they're both on my lists of favourite films as well. :) I am really excited about a possible re-release of the film, I never got to see it in theatres in the first place and this could be a whole new experience!
-
almost impossible to market but glad it's getting a re-release. bunny doll would be cool
-
I'd just like to thank you for pointing out how clueless some movie viewers (and Talk backers) can be. You've aptly demonstrated the mindset of an individual that 'misses' so much of the feel of the last seens. I'm sure you do this, not because you in fact missed it, but just to teach others how someone MIGHT react if they were so unaware. So I say Kudos to you Mosquito! Everyone, let's give him a big hand.
By the way, what was the name of the uncle that molested you? -
Is that really necessary? LOL. Hell, I love the film, but these talkbacks can be dangerous places. Let the guy have an opinion.
-
Ok, truthfully, I think the guy is entitled to his opinion. It's just not a Monday morning if I can't rattle someone's cage though. In case it matters to anyone I rarely post anything without at least one tongue in my cheek. ;-)
-
OK then. I gotta calm down.
Just saw KILL BILL three times this week....it's like caffeine! -
By the way, silent. I haven't seen Moulin Rouge or Kill Bill but I'll give a big thumbs up to the other movies. Well played.
-
...I'm off to bed. Ogi, go and rent, nay, BUY Moulin Rouge now! lol. Kill Bill just gets better "every single time I see it". Next up, LOVE ACTUALLY - seriously, are you American's excited about this film? It's gonna rock!
-
Am I the only one who've seem HUGE holes on Donnie Darko's script? Someboy...please????
-
Can someone explain that 'cul-de-sac' comment.
-
It's been months, I need to see it again. Not sure I completely have my head around it after multiple viewings but I love it anyway. I love the Mike Yamagita comments as well - kinda wondered why he was in Fargo myself, but since the Coens can do no wrong I assumed their reasons were pure. Saw Intolerable Cruelty at the weekend - OK, so it's a different vibe from their other stuff, but it is very funny, and worth seeing just for that poster in the background saying "let N.O.M.A.N put asunder". Lots of Coen timing and touches, more Clooney doing Their Work, and a really "It Happened One Night" feel I thought. ANyway, a little off topic but I thought I'd better say it before I started getting slagged off for liking it, thereby starting a flame war which could derail a talkback dedicated to the mightiness of Donnie.
-
If you look at the final sequence, where everybody's waking up from this time-warped dream, briefly remembering their fates in that other timeline, Swayze's character is falling apart. All the fear of people discovering his guilty secret is bubbling to the surface, and in the supplemental material on the DVD, it's reveal the guy dies that same year. I think it's suicide. So, the molester doesn't get away with it. Far from it.
-
'nuff said!
-
Oct 20, 2003 10:15:54 AM CDT
Harry damit - you write your thoughts as if we are all in your h
by theginger twit
-
Oct 20, 2003 10:23:11 AM CDT
You like time travel films... keep an eye out for one bring made
by theginger twit
-
...I went around to every booth at the recent "Heroes Aren't Hard to Find" convention asking if anybody had one. All I got were blank stares. I saw DD earlier this year and became OBSESSED with trying to figure out what it meant. It's the mark of a really great film if you simply cannot get it out of your head for days after watching it. I'm glad that it is starting to get the attention that it deserves. Am I the only one who finds it sad that Richard Kelly made such a terrific film, yet still can't afford a car that doesn't break down on the way to a screening? Give the man a salary and let him make some more films!
-
Oct 20, 2003 2:40:46 PM CDT
"I think anyone that's seen DONNIE DARKO can agree that Richard
by spike fett
Seeing as how I can count the number of first-time genre filmmakers in the industry today on one hand, this is faint praise indeed.
-
You have to have been molested to think that pedophiles are bad? And, why don'tyou explain the ending to me since I obviously don't get what you get?
-
I don't see how the end of the world is prevented by the new timeline. Shouldn't there still be trouble in the universe considering that the same jet engine from the future crashes through the darko house? How does he change anything if everybody still dies when the universe collapses? Can somebody please explain this?
-
I don't see how the end of the world is prevented by the new timeline. Shouldn't there still be trouble in the universe considering that the same jet engine from the future crashes through the darko house? How does he change anything if everybody still dies when the universe collapses? Can somebody please explain this?
-
I don't see how the end of the world is prevented by the new timeline. Shouldn't there still be trouble in the universe considering that the same jet engine from the future crashes through the darko house? How does he change anything if everybody still dies when the universe collapses? Can somebody please explain this?
-
The film shows that Swayze is caught after Donnie sets the blaze at his house. By choosing to let himself be killed at the end of the film, Donnie doesn't set that blaze. And, since Donnie doesn't think to leave a note or make a call to the cops, which would have been simple, how long do YOU believe it will take him to get caught? This is a moral question, about a movie where the main character supposedly makes a moral decision to save lives, and seems to forget about a pedophile's sex dungeon. And, don't anybody give me that shit about it being on the website. As Tarantino once said, "If it isn't in the movie, it didn't happen."
-
I'm looking forward to more of Kely's work, but I have to say, I don't think he communicated the intent he claimed on the Donnie Darko DVD commentary through the film very well. I got the Whole Bierce reference, but the time travel elements seemed just another element of the character's dementia. On the commentary, however, Kelly talks as though it should be obvious that this is a movie that examines time travel, not a picture about death and acceptance of it, which what I got from the first viewing. I still think it's a fascinating film, but I don't think he quite the point he intended across.
-
...Kelley would have been better off not trying to explain this film at all. David Lynch doesn't say shit about what his movies mean, and they're probably better for it. By saying what the movie "really" means, he essentially kills the ability of the audience to interpret it in a way that is meaningful to them. I had my own ideas of what DD was about after watching it, but after listening to Kelley's DVD commentary I felt like, "Oh, well I guess I'm an idiot because I didn't get any of that at all." DD before listening to commentary: 7/10. After commentary, 3/10.
-
First off, I love this movie.
Now...a very intelligent friend of mine who happeneds to be athiest doesn't like this film because he feels it is religion-based - "When the end of the world comes, I can breath a sigh of relief, BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SO MUCH TO LOOK FORWARD TO" - and I didn't really know what to say. Do you guys think the movie is pro-religion? Why or why not? To me, thats not a bad thing...but it doesn't seem like that type of movie. -
Donnie Darko is such a great movie. I cant wait to see the directors cut. I hope they cut out some of the Drew B. scenes. Her character didnt need that much screen time, but I guess when you put up the money you get the last say.
-
Oct 20, 2003 6:11:15 PM CDT
"I've seen 'Donnie Darko' three times,absolutely loved it,and st
by ribbons
That's the problem with geek culture. That ISN'T the hallmark of a great film. Intricacy doesn't invariably co-exist with faultless quality; there are plenty of great movies that are more or less straightforward, and there are some convoluted-as-hell stories that aren't really very good at all.
-
There really should have been some passages in Roberta Sparrow's book quoted within the actual movie. It all sorta kinda makes sense if you read the excerpts from the book on the DVD, but if I'd seen it in the theater I'd have been kinda lost. I think the movie would have been a lot better received if those essential pieces of the puzzle had been put on the table for the audience to decipher, instead of having them buried in the DVD supplemental features.
Also, I disagree that more of Drew's scenes should have been cut. The whole Watership Down subplot in the deleted scenes was really good, especially the "you and Frank can read it together" line. His dad's speech about what assholes people are was also priceless - I really wish it had stayed as well. It is one of the few movie that actually HAS worthwhile deleted scenes. -
There are many ways to interpret the ending, and in my favorite explanation (the one that I feel fits the best) it doesn't make sense for Donnie to leave a note for the police about Jim Cunningham. Here's my explanation: Donnie returns to the past and ends up back in bed(whether he had control over doing so or not is in question, but not relevant here). Everything that happened until then in the movie is erased as Donnie travels back, with the memories of the people involved taking a little longer to fade. The memories do fade, however. The memories suddenly seem more like dreams than anything else--aspects still linger, but the details are fuzzy. Donnie lays his head on his pillow and smiles as if he has awoken from a bad dream to realize everything is ok. For the other characters, the dreams were less vivid than they were for Donnie. They only remember small parts. Cherita remembers being respected. Miss Pomeroy remembers making a difference to (at least some of) her students. Frank remembers being shot in the eye. Kitty remembers the realization that her trust in Jim Cunningham had been shattered. Jim Cunningham remembered being exposed and being forced to confront his wrongdoings. The point of the whole sequence at the end showing everyone in bed is to show what they've taken with them from the alternate timeline. Even though the timeline isn't lived out, their lives are all affected by their "dreams." Donnie Darko opens everyone's eyes through his actions and then gives them a second chance by sacrificing himself.
-
The cinematography is dark and murky; the film's dialgoue relies on '80s nostalgia and discussions of pop-culture, like every other post-Tarantino indie film that can't put intelligent dialogue into its characters' mouths; the Drew Barrymore character seemed to exist solely to give Drew Barrymore something to do (and I hate Drew Barrymore); and, the only sequence I thought was well-directed was essentially a Tears For Fears video (another "Richard Kelly loves the '80s" sequence). And, on top of all that, heroic Donnie leaves a pedophile on his own recognizance.
-
You can't leave a note, the universe you would leave the note into is going to be destroyed and so would the f** note!
The point of the movie is that a Tangent Universe is created because of a freak accident that is caused by the airplane propeller going into a wormhole. Donny is the Living Receiver elected to fix the problem. That receiver can be guided by the deads and has magic powers. At the end of the movie, Donnie uses his magic powers to move the propeller away from the worm hold it falls into. (Lack of special effects here makes this impossible to understand to the viewer). So the properller takes another direction, avoids creating a tangent universe, and just plain falls on Donnie's house, killing him -- not that this was necessary in any way.
For the solution of the film, it's explained in the DVD, read the online book.
The pedophile (no actuall 'molestation' is discussed, afaik) isn't even a important point in the story, and hardly something to dismiss the movie upon. It just goes to show that some people just don't care about movies and instead gets blinded by periferal details that happen to upset their morals. We don't need the movie to tell us pedophiles are bad!! We knew this already.
other discussions and optinions can be found here and many places
http://www.gnovies.com/discussion/donnie+darko.html
-
Yeah, you're right about 'Donnie Darko.' You should probably think about being more careful when you make that distinction, though. I mean, rewarding what we don't understand because of our guilt over not understanding it is the reason we have black dots hanging up on museum walls.
-
"At the end of the movie, Donnie uses his magic powers to move the propeller away from the worm hold (i assume you mean hole) it falls into." So if the engine misses the worm hole, why does it still go back in time with donnie? With Donnie being dead that means the same thing happens all over again, (but just without Donnie), and the same airplane is going to be in the same spot with the worm hole. Whether or not the people remember what happened last time doesn't matter because the universe is still going to end. Now you could argue that Donnie did the best he could under the circumstances, he followed all the clues, but he still failed preventing the end of the universe. Richard Kelly did not communicate what he meant to, and as a result, probably made a better movie.
-
The movie is not about time travel, it is about parallel universes. The jet engine falls through a kind of worm hole that creates a tangente universe and falls on donnie's house.. in THAT universe, the tangente universe. What Donnie Darko achieves in the tangente universe is sending the jet engine BACK though the workhole, back to the Main Universe. The jet engine then falls at the exact same place (his house), but in the main universe. It isn't the fact that the jet engine falls on his house that causes the problem. It is between the sky and the house that the engine fell into another universe. In that tagente universe, there was no plane, so that's why no one undestands where the jet engine came from : it doesn't belong there. The plane only exists in the main universe (i.e. the real world).
Now that the jet engine is fallen on the ground, the story will not start again -- the time/space continuum problem occured while the jet engine was mid-air.
-
pretty much represative of a concensus about about what the story is :
http://nihildum.com/donnie.darko.html -
The way I see it, a tangent universe is created when DD is saved by some kind of divine intervention, and in this timeline DD is given a chance to take the world apart and figure out how it works, much like the children in the story that flood the house. In the normal timeline, DD dies and whether or not the jet gets caught in the wormhole in this new timeline isn't even certain, and even if it did, it won't result in the universe being destroyed, it will carry on as usual, except DD will be killed. The better question is why wouldn't DD continue on his tangent timeline just because the jet engine is sent back. He's already survived it in this timeline. But since this whole tangent universe has been created by some divine force, it gets discontinued once it serves its purpose. I never saw anything that led me to believe DD had magical powers. When the jet engine is sent back at the end of the movie it crushes him like it was supposed too, because no divine intervention saves him this time. I guess another way of looking at it is that DD does have superpowers and sent the jet engine back in time to change everything, which opens a whole other paradoxical can of worms. I'm guess I'm gonna have to watch the bonus features on the DVD to figure out what you people are talking about.
Either way this movie kicks ass even if the storyline isn't 100% leakproof. I think the themes, like how darkness, fear and suffering are an important part of growing up, and life in general, are more important than nitpicking tiny plot wholes. -
Oct 20, 2003 10:32:45 PM CDT
That bastard Dave Poland has seen Revolutions, but won't give up
by grammaton cleric
C'mon AICN spies...holla if ya hear me.
-
I see that you're very upset about all this and while it's amusing to me, I have concerns for you. First and foremost, it's a movie. Don't pop a vein over it. "Much anger, I sense in you..." I think that, as other talkbackers have pointed out, the end of the movie does indicate that everyone has a special knowledge that things were once different. Frank touches the eye in which he was shot during the other time-line for example. We see the pedafile (and WOW you may want to see someone about your issues on that one) crying in what appears to be self loathing and realization. My advice to you is just go watch the movie again. At the last few minutes, you may want to turn the sound off and just watch the actions of the people, unrelated to the song. I do believe that you may see that Patrick's character knows that it's wrong and must be fixed. The reason Donnie doesn't try to fix it is because the journey of the movie shows him that his job is to NOT fix it. He's just supposed to let go and accept the fates. You can't fix a world you aren't supposed to be a part of.
Have a nice evening. -
Oct 20, 2003 11:16:16 PM CDT
Interesting interpretation Ulcer, but I don't think it is quite
by smeg for brains
The way I see it the engine falls from a plane that doesn't exist YET. The engine falls from the plane and through a wormhole, traveling through time and landing in the past, where it should have killed Donnie, but didn't. I think that it didn't kill him because he was somehow sensitive to the space/time disturbances caused by the wormhole activity, and the confusion that this caused him made him move from where he was supposed to be at that moment. By him not dieing when he was meant to he ended up living a life he wasn't supposed to, and causing the deaths of both Frank and Gretchen, who weren't supposed to die. Basically space/time was coming apart because he was causing things that weren't meant to happen to actually happen, and by going back in time and dieing he fixed that. Since the wormhole was a natural occurance, the jet engine was meant to go back in time and kill him, even though it seemed like a very strange and unnatural thing to humans, because we see time as a straight line, and can't fully understand things like wormholes, and naturally occuring time travel. So I think that the film theorizes that there can't be parrallel universes created from any particular universe, and that any unnatural change in space/time starts to cause a differen't universe to form inside of the already existing universe, which ends up destroying both. All choices do not result in a parallel universe being "created", but rather their is already an infinite amount of parellel universes in existance that account for every possibility ever, and every combination of all results and possibilities ever, and they are all preexisting, and follow a specific course to their natural end. When this course is disturbed a new alternate universe is branched within the existing one, and begins to grow inside it until both are destroyed. And actually the formation of this alternate timeline within the preexisting universe was part of that universes set course, and in another almost exact universe Donnie didn't go back and die, and that universe came to an end, as it was meant to. It's just that the story was set in our universe, and ours was apparently tho one where he chose to go back and fix it by dieing. Of course this all has nothing to do with religion, because no matter how we humans like to pretend that we know what the hell is happening around us, we can't even begin to dream that we are even capable of understanding what the universe really is, or how it works. Actually I think Athiests are as bad as religious wackos, because they also claim to know what the universe is all about. Saying that there absolutely is no god is just as bad as saying that you know 100% for a fact that there is one. Both are just people claiming to know what they can't possibly. That is why I say Agnostics unite, and show everybody that they are all wrong!!!
-
the website which served as a somewhat sequel towards DONNIE DARKO donniedarko.com, revealed that the patrick swayze character actually commits suicide. everyone knows everything after the film ends, so not being able to live with himself the molestor dies, cuz everyone knows his secret. so you can sleep safe now.
- 81666 -
Gonzo as Jake Gyllenhaal, and Rizzo the Rat as the demented rabbit. Oh, and Miss Piggy as her twin, Drew Barrymore. www.rockithardcore.com
-
In Richard Kelly's universe, pedophilia is easily conquered as long as you feel really, really, really sad about it. Sorry, dude - that still doesn't get Donnie off the hook. I saw the movie, and SWAYZE DOESN'T GET CAUGHT AT THE END, because Donnie isn't there to burn his place down. The "you can see by his face that he's changed man" defense just isn't good enough. That does not guarantee the safety of Donnie's community, including his little sister, who's still within that guy's reach after Donnie's death. At the end of the day, you're simply conjecturing that he gets caught after the house lights come on. Whereas, I have cinematic proof that the guy doesn't get caught. Because, if you don't SEE him get caught in the movie, if you don't even see the cops driving up to his house, HE DOESN'T GET CAUGHT. I win.
-
Does it actually say in the movie anywhere that the 'real' Universe is threatened? I was under the impression that it was only his tangent timeline that was going to end in 28 days or whatever. I don't remember anything about the two universes destroying eachother. Is this just what you took from the movie, or is this from other websites, DVD features, etc.?
-
You waste two hours of your life watching pointless drivel. There is such buzz surrounding this movie on line that I had to check this it out. What a surprise another nonsensical, pretentious yawnfest. These kinds of impossibly intricate hack jobs are praised by psuedo intellectuals based on a fear that they might not "get it" much like so called cultural elitists profess to understand expressionist modern art. IT'S A CON JOB PEOPLE! Even if this movie made sense it would still have sluggish pacing, disjointed narratives, terrible cinematography, rampant silliness, useless characters (Drew Barrymore and her whole subplot) uneven dialogue and aside from Swayze, poor acting.
Although maybe the fanbase of this movie like it so much because they identify with the young, smart, troubled misunderstood loner. Much in the same way they gushed over the good but vastly over rated RUSHMORE -
At the very end of the movie, after the Mad World Sequence, there is a shot of the jet engine being pulled from the darko's lawn, and it has a red spiral on the tip.
-
I don't want anyone to be disappointed, but I can see that trading posts with Mosquito really isn't going to serve any purpose. So I'm going to go ahead and just stop the insanity. Watch as deftly I lay this to rest...
Mosquito, I'm very happy that you've found a movie that makes you so passionate. I only hope that you find another that is more to your liking. I respectfully disagree with your opinion and I hope that you can do the same for me.
The rest of you, quit snickering. You'll just hurt his feelings. -
I haven`t seen the Sundance version, but part of my enjoyment of the film was the 80s music. So don`t screw this up! Especially don`t do a "Blade Runner`s Director`s cut" on our asses, Richard!
-
...a big 'Get Well Soon'...
-
er, richard kelly wrote exclusive material for the site as a bookend, to make sure you know what happens in DD's universe. such as noah wylie's character's death by car accident. but, if you wanna see it that way, you're denying yourself more depth of a story you're just denying. but ah well, no skin off my back.
- 81666 -
I've owned Donnie Darko since they dropped the DVD price ($9.95), and had previously rented it on video. I'm since become Donnie Darko's pimp, whoring the movie out to everyone I can get to watch it. I've sat through the thing myself about a dozen times, and I have to agree that as much as I love it, the flick's got serious flaws. A viewer should not desperately need to visit visited a film's web site to resolve chunks of a movie's story, for starters. The movie I saw the first time (and prefer to remember) had nothing to do with alternate dimensions, and everything to do with existential angst.
The fact is, the main reason I love Donnie Darko is that every person I show it to comes away with an entirely different perspective than I had, and pretty much no one sees it the way Kelly had it in mind. My father thought it was a depressing look at the last thoughts of a profoundly disturbed young man, and dismissed all of the fantastic elements (meaning the 99% of the movie) as simply being a delusion. I had lengthy discussion about religion and the nature of the universe with my sister. Conversations with friends tend more toward how the film was crafted, and the time-travel elements we all felt dominated (as opposed to dimension hopping). It's at least as much fun talking around the movie as watching it (or seeing the heads of dumb people explode when they can't begin to grasp it).
Random stuff:
The movie got terrible distribution thanks to it's plane crash theme immediately following the 9/11 attacks. That's why it only made $3.50 off one person seeing it at a matinee (actually, it made about $500,000 domestic).
Excepting that crappy wannabe rock song during the party, DD has one of the best soundtracks ever. Since it isn't available commercially with the source music, I just burned my own. "Under The Milky Way" is a transcendant piece of music. The only change I know of had Sparkle Motion dancing to "West End Girls" by The Pet Shop Boys instead of "Notorious" by Duran Duran. The Boys wanted too much money, and I can't imagine the scene working any better than it did, anyway.
I have to respectfully disagree with Karl_Hungus. While I found Richard Kelly's commentary track a tad pretentious, the movie itself has the necessarily deliberate pacing of "American Beauty". Both films subtly (and sometimes not so) showcased the depressing resignation of suburbia, and the secret lives lived behind it's domesticated facade that keeps it's denizens going. In fact, the basics of both films are so similar, you'd have an easier time convincing me that Kelly was simply coasting on Alan Ball's wave that telling me either film was anything but sublime. You could say the same thing about The Pixies and Nirvana. I don't claim to understand every word of the lyrics, and I've probably got misconceptions about whole songs, but the thoughts and moods they invoke are still qualify their efforts as works of art. Basically, even if a body only gets the gist of "Donnie Darko," they can still come away with more than most movies offer.
I think the acting in "Donnie Darko" was solid throughout, and have no misgivings about Drew Barrymore's work in the film. My only problem lay in the fact that where I once thought Jake Gyenhall had done a fine job creating such a daffy character, I now realize he's always like that. It especially got on my nerves in "The Good Girl," a truly overrated film that plays like a gender-swaping rip-off of (oddly enough)"American Beauty." Oh, and I agree that "Rushmore" was just okay. "Tennenbaums" was better.
By my understanding of the story, based on Kelly's comments, the psychiatrist's dialogue, and the website, the Tangent Universe's existence would have destroyed all of reality. By sealing off the wormhole, Donnie negated the Tangent Universe, thus saving our own. Of course, being a tangent universe, it begs the question, "Did anything else deviate reality within the parallel?" Considering the fact that Jim Cunningham's kiddie porn dungeon was never found after his suicide in our reality, maybe he was only a pedophile in the Tangent? Besides which, I figure that after "travelling in God's channel" and surfing the wormhole, Donnie probably had some insights into Jim's near future that we meer viewers were not privy to. Something to look forward to? What's worse, leaving a pedophile to run lose for 28 days, or killing all the little children of the world with a temporal paradox? Also, the bond between all the dreamers in the "Mad World" sequence was to me incinuated even in my first viewing. -
Naeblis' as well. Smeg For Brains, the problem with your theory is that it's clearly shown that Frank (acting as an agent of the force that compels Donnie's actions throughout the movie) is the reason Donnie woke up before the engine hit. It seems to me the Tangent Universe was created to allow the doomed Donnie to fix a temporal anomoly in the real universe. Or maybe Donnie is the wormhole that sends a jet engine from a parallel universe, because one never falls off in our universe, and just had to be guided to take the necessary action to save both realities. What appears to be a temporal anomaly to a viewer watching this movie might actually be an unexplainable circumstance in two seperate realities ("Where'd that engine come from?" in Reality A, and "Where the hell did that engine land?" in Reality B). I think all the sci-fi/fantasy elements, coupled with the editing, cancelled out "Donnie Darko" being a pro-religious movie. Not only isn't their a specific deity/theology pointed out in the movie, but the intervention even being divine was severely played-down in the theatrical edition. Besides, anyone so hyper-sensitive and reactionary as to be averse to "Donnie Darko" because of it's mild religious intimations have bigger (psychological) issues to worry about. I wish you could use paragraphs in talkbacks, and I agree that this was a rare DVD in having deleted scenes you actually wish were in the original. Hell, it's rare just in having deleted scenes that aren't a chore to watch.
-
So I take it that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are still alive and kicking, as are Thelma and Louise.
-
Why is it that everyone's theories are wrapped around the whole time travel issue. Taken as a restructuring of "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge," the movie is fucking great. Of course Donnie Doesn't solve the pedophile issue. Prhaps it was merely constructed in his fevered brain, as the death of his girlfrind the would be. The point of the movie than becomes that he accepts death (his own) for reasons that feel right to him, rather than just passing into madness. I'm sorry, but applying a time travel scenario to what's on the screen is utter horseshit. That doesn't work for me because, as everyone has so deftly pointed out, the meaning in Donnie's actions is dissolved.
-
Coincidentally, I recently viewed that Twilight Zone. Heh. Moving on, lets hit the highlights: 1. Donnie doesn't meet the girl until after the tangent universe comes into being, so I doubt he could even be aware that she exists prior to his death. 2. Donnie's theological questions dominate much of the film, and theology is the reason why the physics teacher has to cut their conversation short. Donnie asks him a question that speaks to (I'm working from memory here) the existence of God, and the teacher responds that he can't answer that, as it could cost him his job. I came away thinking that the movie was saying that, yes, there is a God, and that God chose Donnie to save the universe. 3. Regarding the pedophiliac. I understand MM's sensitivity re: this matter, but here's a defense of Donnie. The kid's, what, 16 years old? He's assaulted by thugs, sees his girlfriend run over, commits murder, and saves the world, only to wake up in his bed seconds before the engine hits. He's struck with the realization that he will not, in fact, die alone, and that everything's going to be ok. Now, in the few moments prior to his death, if he neglects to write a note (which would require him to get out of bed, find a paper and pencil, write at a desk, and get back in bed in time to die), I think we can chalk it up to the overwhelming nature of what he's experiencing and cut him a break. 4. Once all the mental masturbation is over, one of this film's primary selling points is its compassion for its characters. We can go on all day about the sci-fi/existential crisis angles, but what makes this picture stand out from any number of other mindfuck-pictures is the characterization. We belive in the Darko family, and we want them to be ok. We believe in the teachers, in the girlfriend, even in Frank. We feel their sadness, and we care, and we want to make them all better. That's what makes this a great movie. 5. Kudos to all for keeping this TB relatively civil.
-
Yes, everything you're saying makes sense....if you still see the movie as sci-fi/time travel. He meets the girl after he begins his death march. He gets involved with Swayze, again after begining down the path. as in Owl Creek when the character begins falls into the stream below (I'm talking about the story byt the way) up until the moment he sees his wife again, all of that world is a fiction withing a fiction. That's my take on DD. I'm no disagreeing with your assesment of the facts in terms of your take on the movie, I'm saying I disagree with the movie being onlt perceived as a sci-fi piece. 'I mean you guys are all correct in saying as sci-fi, it's total horseshit. But as a meditation on death, I think it's damn fine. That said, however, to each his own. If you though the flick sucked ass, hey man, I don't like mayonnaise. So, don't kill the messenger.
-
Oct 21, 2003 9:33:06 AM CDT
But the engine fell in the future, which is why there was no pla
by smeg for brains
That is the only reason that there appears to be no plane for the engine to fall from. It hadn't flown over yet. It's all about time travel, and another timeline forming after the anomally caused events that weren't supposed to happen. All the other stuff I said is just my interpretation of how that could have happened. If it is all about parrallel universes, then why does Donnie spend the entire movie trying to understand the real possibilities of time travel? It's all about time travel, and him realizing that the engine came from the future. Frank is the reason that Donnie moves, but it isn't really Frank, it is Donnie's halucination, which I think is caused by the flaws in space/time which are disturbing him somehow. He is seeing images of the future that he will have, but isn't supposed to because he has now become a disturbance in the universe himself. After the engine crash Donnie is just a big cosmic mistake that the universe is tryng to sort out. He is where he isn't supposed to be, and this is what causes the universe to become unstable.
-
For I do believe he was abused as a child given the way he's continuing on with his whole - not incriminating or burning the child molesters house down makes this an immoral movie crusade.
It's a *film* - Patrick Swayze didn't really moleste or watch children being molested for his role. -
It seemed that the mother and sister were on the plane that lost the engine while on their way back from "Star Search" in the alternate timeline. IS that the source of the jet engine? If so, the engine is a product of the alternate time line. So wouldn't it stand to reason that the engine was the object out of place and not Donnie. The universe killed Donnie by mistake. Also, by falling on the house and initiating the alt.universe, doesn't this indicate the alt.universe existed already? I am definately going to have to pick up a copy of DD for my own. I disagree with some posters about Drew Barrymore. I thought her character was great. She and Noah Wylie were great as the down-to-earth teachers vs. the entrenched out-of-touch administrative types and the extended version of her scene after she has been shitcanned is great. I think the message mentioned in the commentary about "losing them" is correct.
-
Once again, I find myself agreeing completely with Smeg (and AlexanderDumbass) and thinking MosquitoMarch is a schmuck (just as in the lively debate over 'Radio' last week). The only plot hole I see in the film is the question of where the jet engine came from in the first place if not from a parallel universe. The plane from which that engine fell landed safely in the 'main' timeline, so that engine had to have come from outside the 'main' timestream. This doesn't hold with the notion that there cannot be two parallel universes crossing paths without destroying the universe--if that's the case, then yes, both timesteams shown in the film (DD dead or not dead) will end in total annihilation no matter what he does.
On the subject of time travel problems in movies, the only movie that, in my opinion, has ever presented a totally internally-consistent theory of time travel is the first Terminator. The first film posits that the past is immutable--by going back in time to kill Sarah Connor before she can give birth to John Connor, Skynet only ensures his birth (because John's father Reese would never have been in 1984 had he not chased the Terminator back in time) but it's own creation (via the essential deleted scene that shows the R&D guys from Cyberdine pulling the Terminator's circuitry from their hydrolic press, acknowledging that it is way beyond anything they've ever seen). This all works perfectly, makes total sense. Then Terminator 2 comes along and completely changes the rules--now suddenly the future is totally mutable--kill the black scientist and derail the program to develop Skynet, change the future. And none of that bullshit about how you can change the specifics of what happens--who lives and dies, etc--but the net result will be the same because time self-corrects. That's bullshit--that's not the rules as presented in the first movie, and if Ah-nold in T2 says Skynet was designed by the black guy and the black guy dies before he can produce his research, then Ah-nold doesn't exist. He's changed the future, which runs 100% contrary to the rules presented in the first film. Sorry, this is off-topic of Donnie Darko, but the time travel argument seems to be prevading this thread so I thought I'd toss this out and see if anyone can offer me a good explanation for the revised rules of T2. I loved Donnie Darko, even if there are some plot holes. And focusing on the phedophelia storyline is silly and irrelevant--who gives a damn about what this guy is up to when the state of the universe is at stake? I found the douchebag religious nut teacher more offensive than Swayze anyway, just because she was such a pain in the ass. Doesn't mean I found the ending dissatisfying because she was still alive. Who cares? -
I don't think that the engine came from the future or was part of an alternate timeline. That's Kelly's thing. what I'm saying is, in the last seconds of his life, the story we see unfolds in Donnie's mind, not in any reality, alternate or otherwise. That's why I keep bringing Bierce back into it. The article suggested thet the story in question ("Owl Creek") played a part in forming the story for him. Well, that story is all about the illusion of life in the moment of death. The guy sees all of this stuff happening as his neck is breaking, killing him. I think that that's what Donnie is experiencing. Yes, I understand that we see the mother in the house when the engine hits it, and then we see her the next day as Donnie's body is being taken from the house, but there is a division of time. after the engine fall's from the plane, we cut back to Donnie, laughing at the whole mess. That said to me that he was seperated already from and finally understood what was happening to him. That his whole search for the truth of this alternate timeline was just an illusion he created for himself in order to accept his own death. In that much, I think it's also a criticism of religion. I liked Barrymore and Whyle's character's as well, but, and this may sound crazy, I though that the stiff assholes were more clearly fleshed out.
-
I don't think that the engine came from the future or was part of an alternate timeline. That's Kelly's thing. what I'm saying is, in the last seconds of his life, the story we see unfolds in Donnie's mind, not in any reality, alternate or otherwise. That's why I keep bringing Bierce back into it. The article suggested thet the story in question ("Owl Creek") played a part in forming the story for him. Well, that story is all about the illusion of life in the moment of death. The guy sees all of this stuff happening as his neck is breaking, killing him. I think that that's what Donnie is experiencing. Yes, I understand that we see the mother in the house when the engine hits it, and then we see her the next day as Donnie's body is being taken from the house, but there is a division of time. after the engine fall's from the plane, we cut back to Donnie, laughing at the whole mess. That said to me that he was seperated already from and finally understood what was happening to him. That his whole search for the truth of this alternate timeline was just an illusion he created for himself in order to accept his own death. In that much, I think it's also a criticism of religion. I liked Barrymore and Whyle's character's as well, but, and this may sound crazy, I though that the stiff assholes were more clearly fleshed out.
-
Oct 21, 2003 2:27:36 PM CDT
I just wanted to add my $0.02 that Donnie Darko rules
by mynamedoesn'tfit
A wonderful movie and I can't wait for Knowing. SUCH A BIG FAN! Haha.
-
Sorry for flaming you MosquitoMarch--I had you confused with someone else from that 'Radio' talkback. I apologize! I loved what you said in the Radio thread, so it's my goof. Sorry brother.
-
Okay, so maybe Mosquito March is continuing to make a case for something nobody's interested because he wants to start a flame war. Maybe. Maybe, "this is AICN, a site for real men." Yeah. Keep telling yourselves that. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that he really did get molested as a child. You're using his aversion to pederasts as comedy just because he doesn't like 'Donnie fucking Darko?' What the fuck is wrong with some of you people? News flash guys: if that's the case (which it's most likely not, but it's the principle of the thing), his feelings on the matter are more important than how completely you appreciated the genius of Richard Kelly. It's too bad there's no time travel in real life, let's see how responsive you are to that type of humor when it happens to you or someone you know.
-
Donnie Darko was a marginally entertaining movie...if you listen to the director's commentary on the DVD, even the director doesn't understand half of the plot and he wrote it. It has achieved slight cult status just because it made so little money at the box office. I give the filmmakers an A for effort, but a C as far as the final product goes. The bunny was cool looking though and McFarlane is swell for making an action figure ot it.
-
Donnie Darko didn't sacrifice anything except his life in an alternate universe. According to the director in the commentary (who is inconsistent and clueless sometimes), he tore the engine off the plane and sent into the "tangent universe". So big deal, he killed himself in another universe and everyone still stayed dead in his universe including his lame girlfriend and Frank. He didn't sacrifice anything at all.
-
Oct 21, 2003 8:31:52 PM CDT
Well the way I see it about the time traveling engine...
by smeg for brains
Wormholes are a natural occurence, so the plane hitting a wormhole, and it's engine coming off and traveling back in time through the wormhole is totally natural. It would seem insane to any person because we see, and experience time as a straight line, but defying that straight line view is not necesserily unnatural. The plane would be flying over that spot at that moment whether Donnie's mom and sister were on it or not, so it isn't really a paradox. It's just that they were on it, but if Donnie had died they probably wouldn't have been on it. The plane would have still been there either way. I think that the opening of the wormhole in the past effected Donnie for some reason (maybe he was sensitive to space/time in ways we can't understand), and caused him to see Frank. He shouldn't have seen him, because he was supposed to die before he would ever get the chance to see Frank in the bunny suit. This is what made Donnie break out from his role, or I guess destiny, and triggered the alternate timeline. The only reason I came up with the theory that there couldn't be two timlines existing in the same universe is because the film sets up the end of the world scenario, and it is the best way I could think of to explain why an alternate timeline forming would destroy the universe, not that I actually believe that is how the universe works. I don't think we can comprehend how the universe really works. That is fine with me, because knowing humans if we did figure out the workings of the universe we would just wind up screwing the whole thing up.
-
give the film a second chance!!
- 81666 -
Oct 21, 2003 11:32:02 PM CDT
JRKerr you are hilarious! Keep up the good work of telling us a
by smeg for brains
Is it very mature to go into a talkback of a film that you already don't like, and aren't interested in, and then try to tell people discussing it who you ALREADY KNOW LIKE SAID FILM that they are wrong for liking it? No. We all just chose to ignore such an asshole, and talk about the film that we like. If you or Mosquito Dipshit don't like the film then who gives a shit? Certainly not me. Also, "murky cinematography" is the type of comment that any shitmouth could pull out of their ass to try to sound intelligent when discussing a film.
-
Thelma and Louise drive into the damn canyon. We watch them clasp hands and say they don't want to get caught. The freeze-frame happens in mid-air, and their intent to die is more than clear. Butch and Sundance also make a similar, clear decision to die. These are totally different cases. All we see in DONNIE DARKO is a *bummed* Swayze. Well, you know, Jeffrey Dahmer said he felt genuinely bad about what he was doing from the very beginning, but that didn't stop him from killing a bunch of people and eating them. And, he sure as hell didn't go hand himself over to the police. Anybody who would buy that Swayze's character seeks help for his problems after the camera stops rolling is supremely naive, and trying valiantly to cover up for a filmmaker whose selfless hero really isn't all that selflessly heroic.
-
Instead of admitting that Kelly fucked up, you guys ridicule people who may or may not have been sexually abused as children, and then say "it's only a movie" while people around you are declaring it a work of pure genius. Well, if you are gonna call it genius, it had better be genius. Especially when the lead character makes a morally-based decision. And, a filmmaking genius would have put a lot more thought into what he was writing about with that molestation subplot. And, I'm not on a crusade - I just know what's right and what's wrong, and the movie is wrong. And, if you don't see that it's wrong, YOU'RE wrong. Or, just a jerk.
-
Oct 22, 2003 12:55:16 AM CDT
ebonic_plague: If you have more important things to do, by all m
by mosquito march
-
Oct 22, 2003 12:57:42 AM CDT
81666: If Kelly can't finish the story IN the movie, he's a bad
by mosquito march
-
Oct 22, 2003 1:39:04 AM CDT
Smeg For Brains: If you don't care, then, why do you care?
by mosquito march
And, if I was talking about LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and said it was "murky", I'd be "pulling it out of my ass". DONNIE DARKO is a fuzzy murk-fest, visually, and you know it. At the very least, the video transfer was dreadful.
-
Kelly is either stupid and didn't realize he didn't truly solve that problem, OR, he just threw the child molestor subplot in there as seasoning, just because it was something else really disturbing that he could add to his mix. Either way, he ultimately didn't really care if he handled a very realistic problem in a realistic manner. I have a problem with that. Apparently a lot of you people don't, but I do, and I think it compromises the movie as a result. Just the way Maximus's careless dispatching of fellow slaves on his selfish journey to kill a deranged kid was unbefitting of a character actually touted as a "hero" in GLADIATOR. Unfortunately, the suspension of disbelief that I employ in watching science fiction doesn't extend to movie characters being allowed to continue victiming kids after the "hero" grins himself to death, as if he's truly solved all the problems that the writer of the story has introduced. The message at the end of the film is "things are okay, now, because Donnie generously sacrificed himself." Fuck that. A pedophile is allowed to continue doing what he's doing for as long as it takes him to get caught. (In reality, that character would probably just spend more money on heavier security, and a sprinkler system, so he could continue what he was doing undisturbed.) If you guys think it's okay to let a movie that *hinges* on a moral decision by its protagonist get away with sugar-coating an issue like that, fine. And, if the most adult response some of you guys can come up with to refute my accusations of this MOVIE is "Haha, you were molested!" I am very sorry for the people in your lives. If you think being outraged by that issue is funny, if you think that only someone who was molested can be outraged by piss-poor handling of the subject, your senses of morality are completely, thoroughly fucked. And, at the end of the day, all your defensiveness is in vain, because you know I am right. As far as we know from the film that Kelly made, Swayze may NEVER be caught, and nobody here can truly defend that point. And certainly not without being junior-high-school about it. Sorry, folks - Richard Kelly is a writer who apparently has to solve his storytelling oversights on a website after his movie's already been made. That's not genius. And, neither is DONNIE DARKO.
-
For once, I agree with Mosquito Marsh although he is deliberately trolling on some issues just to get a rise of you Darko fans. The internet is filled with freshman philosophy crap trying to intepret some amateur half-baked time travel mythology and now its spilled over into here. As one poster said, the DVD commentary and "time travel booklet" that comes with the DVD is needed to understand the time travel issue, and since its not in the movie, it leaves you annoyed and frustrated. Somehow Darko fans think this movie is smarter than they are. They're the same idiots who think George Lucas has always had some master plan for 9 Star Wars films written down somewhere, when in fact he makes the shit up as he goes, just like this film. Richard Kelly is not fit to wipe David Lynch's ass. He had the benefit of some decent direction and supporting cast. The story is fucking gay, interspersed with some 80's retro tunes to distract you from the gaping, plodding plot that substitutes for atmosphere. The antagonists in the film are criticized for being two dimensional and the director wanted it that way. One man's cardboard cutout is another man's archetype. This movies crammed way to much voodoo bullshit in it to be entertaining and its proponents claim to be more enlightened and have a higher midichlorian count that the rest of us. This is one film that you don't hate for what it is (interesting characters, good acting), you hate it for what its trying to be. Feces are little mice
-
I'm not going to try and get into some big struggle or attempt to exchange blows with others. I find there's nothing worse or more time-wasting. As far as things go with Misquito, I do know what you're saying despite the lack of first-hand knowledge of the situation. But tons of really terrible things happen in movies, hundreds of movie out there have murderers or rapists or perverts run loose even at the end of the flick with no real closure. Personally, I would be far more concerned with how this kind of thing goes on in real life as opposed to some fictional character you saw in a movie once. When others laugh and say someone is only senesitive to it because they were molested as a child are half-wits and should think before they type. But in the mean time, it's still only a movie, and in reality will have no real consequence as far as that subject goes. Love it, hate it, whatever.
-
Personally I always believed that the world coming to an end just meant that Donnie would die, period. HIS world would come to an end, not the entire world he lived in. Maybe I'll go back and rewatch it, and listen to the commentary track. Best Buy were selling it for under $10 so I picked it up but I don't think I've even broken the plastic on it yet.
-
Oct 22, 2003 11:03:32 AM CDT
You are all a bunch of petulent, badly educated children. Not fi
by dirkd13"
This site is probably one of the most interesting and informative film sites on the web yet all you wanky little talkbackers ever seem to do is waste your own small little lives having pathetically uninvolving arguments about bugger-all. Bring on the backlash!!
-
First off, I'd like to apologize to MosquitoMarch for refering to comments he made on the Radio thread--I had you confused with someone else on that thred. I actually quite agreed with your comments over there, so I apologize for that. I still completely disagree with you here on several points, but I'm not quite prepared to open up on you for your opinions.
I'm hearing a lot of people on this thread referencing David Lynch and holding him up as the standard by which this film should be judged. I for one have never understood the fascination with Lynch movies. With the exception of Blue Velvet, the guy has little apparent ability to design or pace a narrative, and refuses to explain his films as if that keeps things provocative, keeping the 'true' meaning of his films to himself. Well, this may very well be true--maybe all of his films to have some secret meaning that only he understands. I, however, think he just takes random disturbing images and cobbles them together in two-hour blocks and calls them films. His stuff has more in common with Bunuel and Dali than with any standard movie theater fare, yet he's achieved a surprising level of commecial acceptance. This doesn't change the fact that refusing to explain what your film means doesn't necessarily imply that it DOES mean something. Look at the ending of Tim Burton's embarrassingly lame Planet of the Apes remake--there's no defending that ending as anything other than a shitassed tacked-on mindfuck that has no basis in the film that preceded it. In defense of Donnie Darko, the fact that Kelly went ahead and attempted to explain what his movie meant might have been a misstep in that it opened up the mechanics of his plot to criticism, but at least it illustrates that the guy had something clear in mind. The same can't be said of most of Lynch's films. Doesn't mean they're bad--I very much like them. Mulholland Drive was awesome and very effectively disturbing, though extremely light on plot. Much of what is wrong with Donnie Darko in terms of plot inconsistencies is easily taken care of by the 'Owl Creek' explanation--if everything we've seen is some sort of moment-of-death fabrication in Donnie's mind, then the plot of the film itself--everything that occurs in Donnie's mind--is absolved of any requirements of a logical plot. It's all a dream that we're seeing through Donnie's mind. In that sense it's much like The Usual Suspects, where the plot may have some substantial holes if one really examines it, but the movie brushes all that aside with the revelation that the entire movie as we've seen it has been told through Keyser Soze's eyes--he's telling his version of the story, and making the majority of it up as he goes along, as revealed at the end. Same thing happens in Donnie Darko--if none of this is real, plot consisteny is irrelevant. And again, focusing on the Patrick Swayze-child molester shit is ridiculous. If that's the only level on which you were able to engage this film and the only issue that determines your perception of Donnie as a 'hero', then you must be a big XXX and Van Damme fan--perhaps you'd be more comfortable discussing the details of the latest Olsen Twins vehicle. I think that might be straight-forward enough for you. Let's remember that Donnie isn't presented as a Superman-esque do-no-wrong hero--he's depressive, misanthropic, borderline-mentally ill and suicidal. This is a fucked up teenager who, whatever else is going on in his head, is still every bit as horny as every other kid that age. If he makes the decision to spare the life of the girl he 'loves' (i.e. 'just slept with'), even at the expense of all the nameless faceless kids he's never met who might possibly be molested if he doesn't write a note before he FUCKING DIES BECAUSE AN ENGINE IS GOING TO FALL ON HIM, then I'm not quite ready to hold him personally accountable for the oversight. Let Jesus save everybody else--Donnie is out to save the people he knows and loves. Besides which, he has already demonstrated his inclination to do the right thing by burning Swayze's house down in the alternate reality. For him to go so far afield narratively to write a note before he's killed is just redundant--in terms of Donnie's morality, he's already done the right thing.
I do find myself agreeing with the fact that if it wasn't in the movie, it doesn't exist. I think some of these DVD and internet supplemental materials are horseshit insofar as they attmept to change the content of the movie by adding extra information--same with deleted scenes. As far as I'm concerned, they don't affect the final cut of the movie in the least, supplemental or not. By that logic, Jabba the Hutt is still a fat Scottish guy in a furry vest. Just my take on the matter. -
Oct 22, 2003 11:08:01 AM CDT
And if you want to be disturbed about child molestation...
by soundwave
...rent 'Happiness'. Now THAT'S a movie that warrants this discussion of pedophilia, not Donnie Darko.
-
...Darko knew he only had 28 days to live, so he acted without worry of the consequences of his actions. So he does the things he does with wanton abandon. At the beginning of the film we feel as if he doesn't care about anything. At the end he has numereous things he has grown to care about. The breach in his family is repaired, he cares about a girl, etc. He tries to improve life for Cherita. These are the actions of a terminally ill patient, making ready to depart the world with things in order, trying to understand the eternal question: Why?, or better yet, why ME?. The alternate timeline ends and all is for naught, except there is a residual memory for all those involved. The movie makes that much clear. Jim Cunningham goes free because there is no way around it. This is the moviemakers way of showing that the universe is not fair or just. The universe just IS. Another way of looking at it is that Donnie makes such a mess of the world around him to make himself FEEL like a hero. Like he is making a sacrifice for the betterment of others, a choice, that he is not just some poor schmuck that was dealt a bad hand and was unlucky enough to be under a jet engine when it fell. So he makes a mess of things and he makes the classic "I-wish-I-could-go-back-and-do-it-all-again. I-would-change-everything"-wish. Donnie even seems to go through the "stages" of dealing: denial, anger, etc.This movie to me is definately about psychologically coming to grips with death, which we all will feel is untimely when it happens to us.
-
Oct 22, 2003 11:58:53 AM CDT
Dontcha love it when some troll shows up in the middle our talkb
by frankcobretti
Not risin'. Just sayin'.
-
I wrote a much more detailed essay first, in which I addressed the whole "Donnie as a hero" thing, which by the way, I didn't see at all. He had no idea of what was going on. He seems to try to to do something. For example, the totes the girl's body around with him as if looking for a way to fix her or save her. He may have been bestowed some power, but unfortunately, the universe never got around to informing him of this fact. Donnie is merely the manipulated, even while he is, in turn, manipulating. If Donnie acts as a hero, it is purely for non-altruistic reasons. When he burns down the house it is for reasons other than the fact Jim Cunningham has a kiddie-porn dungeon. The movie never tries to make him into a comic book superhero. The movie merely tries to make him human. To sum up, I agree with the previous poster. ***BTW, when you mistype your password, and you post, and you get an error message, and your previous efforts are deleted. This rather sucks. Is it my browser or Harry's lack of upgrades?
-
Deflect what? I neither said the movie was "genius" or bad, only that it's a pretty anal point to raise about a movie.
Is child molestation wrong? Why, yes it is. Everyone is aware of that fact.
It's a completely inane point on which to derive a movies poorness. Supposedly he makes the moral decision to sacrifice himself for others. So saving one reality & letting a child molester carry on is "bad". Yet were he to do nothing & everyone dies that would be "good", the moral decision, right? After all, that way the child molester can't continue.
As regards leaving a note to say Swayze's into kids, from what I recall Donnie wakes up in bed & moments later the engine falls on him - hardly time for him to leave a note (A note from a kid that sees a psychiatrist at that).
Besides, check out the news, child abuse scandals come up all the time. It is possible for "good" people to make bad decisions. Heck, even a past Pope said child abuse allegations & investigations should be carried out in secret - bad decision from a moral man, right? -
Most. Overrated. Movie. Ever.
-
What I really liked about Mulholland Drive (SPOLIERS AHEAD) is that the second half of the film, which is reality based, contains the seeds of the first half, the dream half. The dream portion is Betty's idealized life before she kills herself in the end. All you really need to know going into Mulholland Drive is that the first half of the film is a dream and you can drawn plausible extentions about the second reality-based half. Donnie Darko is just a shitassed mindfuck that people mistake for genius. 28 days till the end of the world, and Frank the Bunny are all tacked-on plot devices made "weird for weird's sake" and to create tension. Really, what the fuck is the significance of 28 days till the end of the world?Maybe I just don't find teen agnst enjoyable when compared to hot lesbian action between the two main characters. I do think that Richard Kelly could do some great work with some better material.
-
LOL--hence Mulholland Drive has a permenant place in my collection. 'Shit-ass mindfuck' was directed (in case it wasn't clear) at the ending of Burton's Planet of the Apes, not Mulholland Drive. I dig that movie, though I'm not sure I subscribe to your (or any) explanation of the plot. I think everybody who has posted a legitimate opinion about Donnie Darko just has to agree to disagree as to whether they liked it or not. I liked it, but I DO like teen angst movies of decent calibur (as opposed to 'What A Girl Wants' etc).
-
Yes, I know you were using the "shitassed mindfuck" phrase regarding Planet of the Apes, but I liked it enough to use it to describe Donnie Darko. What's not to subscribe to regarding Mulholland Drive? The first half of the film is a dream, the second half, after the blue cube is dropped, is reality. Pretty straightforward once you discover it. The parallels between the dream state and reality state can be interpreted differently, but once you recognize the different states, the movie is much more fun to watch. I'm starting to feel soiled discussing Lynch on a Darko thread.
-
Oct 22, 2003 4:50:28 PM CDT
"Donnie tore the engine off the plane and sent into the "tangent
by jaguart
Is that really on the DVD commentary? If so, this movie is fucking gayer that previously thought.
-
There's nothing wrong with your interpretation, it's just that it's no more or less valid than any number of other possible explanations. I don't think Lynch movies have 'right' or 'wrong' interpretation, though you sound fairly committed to yours--more power to ya. You don't like Donnie Darko, we gotcha the first time, thanks.
-
Donnie dressed as hairless maniacal 5 foot gerbil takes a seven and a half day shit in the middle of Stonehenge to the tunes of Jesus and Mary Chain. The size of his leavings are "intimidating". Katharine Ross is to play the role of Donnie's proctologist.
-
Lynch called Mulholland Drive "A Love story set in the City of Dreams". I would think the "right" intepretation would be the director's final say. What I am absolutely commmited to is that the film consists of two halves, the dream half and the reality half. That basic premise is as firm as Naomi Watts's breasts. If you don't accept that while watching the film, you'll think Mulholland Drive is two hours of cobbled together random disturbing images.
-
I'm not a troll. I must have missed the pamphlet that stated you had to masturbate to 'Donnie Darko' in order to post on a Richard Kelly talkback. As for calling all of you assholes, I meant "all of you...who make jokes about kiddie rape." That's it, although you, sir, are an asshole, for trying to perpetuate this whole group mentality. OUR talkback. Get a hobby.
-
A movie that needs a fucking commentary track to explain what the movie is "really" about and what the actual "story" is, well is just too fucked up to be great. I watched the movie twice and just didn't get what people think is so great about it. Interesting movie but why the cult following?
-
Not one bit.
-
But a Good effort, Darko just isn't that solid. Good ideas and no follow through, like an artsy exxercise that's confused in too many places. But I can watch it and enjoy it as long as there aren't any of it's annoying ass fans swearing it's the best movie ever (which coincidentally an employee at the blockbuster last friday did). For a movie that establishes clearly a distinct time period the flick does a horrible job of creating atmosphere.
-
You blind Donnie Darko praisers need to listen to the director's commentary on the DVD. Half of you are praising the movie for plot points that don't even exist. The director explains the film the best he can and you can tell how it's really not very complex or very well thought out. Of course you can interpret the movie however you want, but it seems dumb and desperate to make up meaning that the writer/director never imagined or intended. Again, the movie had some interesting images and ideas, but overall it is a flawed mess. The director is young though and maybe he will get wiser and more skilled and will truly make a great movie in the future.
-
By the way, if you thought Donnie Darko's and Jake G's real life sister was attractive, check her out in "Secretary". We are talking full frontal nudity and lots of D&S kink in that movie. Plus it is a very good movie overall co-starring James Spader. Anyway, the nudes scenes are hot, and the whole film builds up to them. Check it out and DVD and break out the KY.
-
Fact is, I wasn't even referring to you, though you have now clearly marked yourself as someone with significant anger issues. I was referring the DirkD13", who's entire post added up to, "you guys are assholes." Not a word about the topic at hand. It's like walking into a sports bar, going up to a table where a bunch of guys are sitting around talking about the Redskins, and telling them they're all a bunch of losers for being into sports. I don't care if you love DD, hate it, or are still deciding whether to even see it. To just walk into our (movie fans) talkback and spew hate - well, now, that's just rude. So, to get back on topic: How 'bout that Grandma Death?
-
Some of us just dug the flick, man. I didn't like DD because I knew it was gonna piss some of you off, shit, I just liked it. And for the cat who pissed on those who saw it an DVD, well, slick, some of live in unfortunate places where forward thinker like yourself don't pick the movies that get played locally, so DVD is where we get to see it. Not for nothing, man, but it ain't always a choice, but a lack thereof that makes the a thing what it is. For Mosquitoe; I can see your point, and I get it, but I'm not so sure that moral choice is what is going on. I mean, Donnie's crazy as a shithouse rat, so how do we know what is true and what isn't. Besides, the whole thing is horseshit in the first place, so why quibble? and yes, the film is murky, but I thought he was doing that with a purpose (i.e. Donie's wrecked, thither goest the film itself). If you say it was a fuck-up, well, so be it. ToMAtoe, toMOtoe, right? And for those that are slamming mosquitoe, suggesting that he was molested, you cats are waaaaay the fuck outta line. You should have your asses haned to you with retrofitted assholes.
-
I think DirkD13" was actually trying to make a valid point. He wasn't calling everyone assholes. My guess is he was only referring to the people saying mean and insensitive things and the people who turn the talkbacks into flamewars.
This particular talkback has been better than most, at least.
And here I am, still perpetuating the diversion from movie talk.
So I'll add something:
The first time I saw the movie, I thought Gretchen and Grandma Death might be somehow related (or the same person). Discuss. -
Oct 23, 2003 10:16:50 PM CDT
JRKerr, your criticism would be valid if you actually offered an
by smeg for brains
I wanted to like The Matrix Reloaded. I really did, but it wasn't very good. That doesn't mean I want to go on a forum where I know everybody disagrees with me, and try to tell them they are wrong, and insult them all as a group on totally unrelated topics. It's pointless, and immature, just as your post was. You offered no criticism, just a blanket insult, and a broad opinion with nothing to back it up. I like any film I like, so I don't care whether the film I like is well liked by others or not. If I don't like a film (even one I was hoping I would) I still don't care if it is liked by others. I just don't pay any attention to it, and I could care less about telling anyone what I think is wrong with it, unless they try to act like I am wrong for not liking it. You are not wrong for disliking Donnie Darko. You are wrong for thinking that you can tell us we shouldn't like it either.
-
Sorry for the misconception, although I'm not sure I understand how my assumption that you were referring to me, the only person who actually used the word "asshole" on this talkback, marks me as one who has anger issues. And, in his defense, invading someone's personal space to tell them the Redskins suck is not the same thing as saying Donnie Darko fans suck on a public forum.
-
if kelly hadnt said anything about the film like lynch all this talk would be valid but hes said quite a lot
-
Cept he forgot to use the words "genus" and "masterpeace" in his post.
-
If you check out the website, Jim commits suicide after Donnie dies.
http://www.donniedarko.com/news/index3.html
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts