 | |
List Price: $14.98 | | Label: 20th Century Fox
Salesrank: 11041
Released: May 12, 2009 |
| Our Price: $5.78 |
| Used Price: $2.43 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
SEVEN YEARS AFTER HER BROTHER'S DEATH, SAMANTHA DARKO IS STRANDED IN A DESERT TOWN WHERE SHE WITNESSES A METEOR CRASH THAT FRACTURES TIME ... AND BEGINS A COUNTDOWN TO THE END OF THE WORLD!
S Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale (Widescreen) Reviews:
Better than expected, but left me wondering... 
2009-09-24 - First of all, I really liked the movie, despite that fact that the science could have been tidied up a bit. I liked that it showed things from the POV of the manipulated dead, which gave things a neat twist and kept the movie from getting stale. As a fan of "Donnie Darko", I had my reservations about this movie, because often sequels fall short of expectations. Still, it was a pretty good movie to rent on a slow night. The cast was surprisingly good. Had a different actress been cast than Daveigh Chase, I don't know if the story would have held up as well, though.
The music was okay, but it did not serve as a cohesive element like in "Donnie Darko". The plot at times was a bit predictable, but that did not take away from my enjoyment.
There was one subplot which never got resolved once time reverted to "normal", which made the ending sort of harsh and disturbing. (Much like how, in "Donnie Darko", the fire never happened, thus one character's secret was never exposed.) Other than that, though, the movie was good, as long as I didn't measure it up against the original.
just awful... 
2009-08-16 - I tried to go into this one with no bias.. especially since the first one was so good, I didn't want to ruin it either way. but man this was a major fail. this movie was the equivalent to an encore of your favorite band but done by badgers dropping acid, just really long and drawn out-- and maybe with a few falling rocks from the sky. ouch, not worth the watch.
"Well, it was better than SUPERMAN III..."
2009-08-01 - S. DARKO, the, ahem, "continuation, not sequel" to Richard Kelly's 2001 masterpiece, DONNIE DARKO is - after having actually watched it a couple of times - not as bad as I'd imagined it might be. It'd be all too easy to simply dismiss it outright as a lesser film than Kelly's original, but that would be to ignore the definite positive aspects of this new Darko tale.
First and foremost of these "positives" would have to be Daveigh Chase who brings a quiet dignity and genuine pathos to the title role which she originally brought to life in "Donnie Darko" , albeit as a child (whose seemingly only memorable contribution to that film was to ask "what's a f*** a**?"). It's just such a pity that her role wasn't developed more considerably; her role should have been less passive and displayed a little more of the antagonistic, anarchic character so evident in Donnie; Now I'm not saying she should've been a totally antagonistic character, it's just that I can't help but feel she would have reacted to the minister's "advances" a lot less passively and much more with the "fire" that Donnie was apt to display in similar situations. In fact it's a crime that none of the characters in this film were developed beyond much more than standard tropes and stereotypes. This is the biggest point of difference between Kelly's & Fisher's "Darko" films. Kelly (being also the writer) made damn sure that all of his characters lived and breathed convincingly as well as with a definite, particular dash of humor intercut throughout. Whereas Fisher doesn't seem all that bothered with characterisation; S. Darko being more of an event-driven film where characters merely react to plot contrivances and genre gimmickry. I suppose that's almost understandable if you're making a sequel, but given that the makers went to such strains to point out that this was a "continuation" , well, there can really be no forgiving for the lack of character detail/development. As it stands, S. Darko is more of a short story compared to Kelly's more expansive, Stephen King-like novel. Or rather, S. Darko is like a standard King film adaptation, while Kelly has made more of a faithful adaptation, page-by-page no less, of King, if you get my meaning.
Marvin V. Rush's cinematography is impressive and at times even breath-taking. Given the Utah desert-scapes, it could've been filmed on VHS (as opposed to digital) and it still would've looked nothing short of amazing, but that's not to detract from Rush's work. (1 hour, 13 minutes into the film, the shot of Sam emerging from the "cave" (with Iraq Jack looming overhead) is very much like a classic shot from Peter Weir's classic, PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK; coincidence? Something more? What I have sampled of the commentary makes no mention of this, so I can only wonder, perhaps...)
The wonderful scoring of Ed Harcourt is just as mesmerising as the original Donnie Darko score; I've downloaded the soundtrack off iTunes and it really is a nice score that fits in perfectly with Kelly's Darko-verse, very haunting, melancholic and at times even playful without being derivative or uninspired. Major kudos, IMO.
The character of Iraq Jack is nicely acted but again is so far underdeveloped and underused that he really only remains a peripheral archetype, not much more. (SPOILER ALERT>>> and just what was the go with his name? Jack Sparrow? I mean, yes, he's related to Grandma Death, but c'mon, I was half-expecting Davy Jones to make an appearance, for those who didn't make the connection)
Almost all of the other characters were of varying degrees of annoyance/detestability that I found myself not really caring what happened to any of them. Briana Evigan was particularly annoying and, yes, I know that's how the role was (mostly) written, I just didn't feel that there was any redeeming aspects to her character's arc at all. When she and "James Dean-wannabe" were standing outside the library and Corey says "I'd do anything to take it all back" , either a bad take was used or she really is that unconvincing an actress. It was like she didn't want to be there.
And don't get me started on the worst Christian stereotypes ever used in a modern movie... Talk about heavy-handed. Methinks that when Sam looks up on the movie screen and she sees a clip from the original DONNIE that it really is a sign from God, Himself that He wants for her to be in a better film than this dreck, but I digress... I mean, yes I'm not forgetting that Richard Kelly took his own pot-shots at quasi-Christian do-gooder types, but I believe that Kelly's sense of humor was far more spot-on and his sense of criticism was of a much broader, more societal scope lampooning the overall hypocrisy inherent in the so-called Moral Majority-types than simply stating that Christianity, for example, was/is bad, as seems to be how the makers of S. Darko have formed and delivered their criticism.
Overall, this movie stands as a failure lacking in conviction as well as a genuine artistic vision. It's merely a "product" to "further a franchise." More Terminator 3 than T2. Entire parts of this film tend not to make much sense when compared with the universe that Richard Kelly established. The opening crawl of S. Darko establishes that the Darko family has pretty much splintered as a result of Donnie's death (by being crushed by the falling plane engine), but if you listen to Kelly's commentary on the Director's Cut, he clearly states the significance of using both "Never Tear Us Apart" songs on the film's soundtrack -- that the Darko family would hold together through this crisis, essentially symbolizing how mankind and the Middlesex community would be saved. And exactly how does Sam come into possession of "The Philosophy of Time Travel" book? The commentary/special features hint at how she discovered it among Donnie's personal effects, but since he is given the book by Dr. Monnitoff AFTER the instance of the plane engine falling on their house, then it is actually removed from ever coming to be by Donnie dying at film's end. Chris Fisher clearly states he had problems using the dance footage from DONNIE DARKO and says how the footage never actually happens because of Donnie's death, so I can't help but think, well, if that's the case, then the entirety of S. Darko is either rendered completely flawed as a result, or what?? it exists in it's own tangent universe? This is not "mystery" but rather mere "confusion/contradiction." In point of fact, any and all "mystery" that occurs throughout this movie tends to be more of the contrived/forced nature than that of a more "David Lynchian-type" that Richard Kelly so expertly managed to pull off in the original DARKO. The whole plot point of the missing kids is never really explained or solved. We never really get to find out who was the perpetrator of these crimes. Just that the entire community believes, conveniently, that Iraq Jack was behind it.
So much COULD have been done to make this film stand as a worthwhile, unique film in it's own right as well as contribute to the Darko lore, but the film makers were surely content to settle on second-best, formulaic shock tactics over any sense of real substance. (IMO, The BUTTERFLY EFFECT was the "original" attempt to make something of a follow-on to DONNIE, and that was such a "failed" movie that served to show how one doesn't do a DONNIE-type follow-up, but alas...)
I can't help but wonder if the producers entertained making a follow-on focusing on Seth Rogen's character, seeing how popular he is these days. It wouldn't surprise me, knowing how mercenary producers tend to think.
Oh, and one last thing before I disappear into my own tangent universe, so to speak, did anyone notice the cloud formation next to the windmill in the UTAH TOO MUCH special feature, 4 mins, 36 secs. into it. Doesn't it look just like a rabbit head? Hmmmm...
If you liked Donnie Darko don't waste money on this. 
2009-07-30 - I thought this movie was going to be amazing. I was wrong. I also thought that this movie was taking pace the same time as the other one, again I was wrong but I guess this one could be my fault. S. Darko captured none of the first films points or the plot or anything. S. Darko had seemingly no plot at all. Most of the time I was watching this I had no idea what was going on. Also they bring back those gooey things that show you where the people are going and they behave differently in this movie, with no explanation. Many things are left open ended and very little is explained. If you like good movies, please don't watch this.
Bad...but it sure is pretty!
2009-07-22 - Surprised nobody has commentd on the cinematography. I think that is all that is worth seeing. Big sky and lots of color.
The story was like David Lynch movies: weird for weirdness' sakes. Donnie darko had a point and the weirdness was explanable. S Darko was just a hodgepodge of randomness.
To quote Shakespeare:
A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
