In this bolder, longer new cut, characters are allowed to finish scenes previously left as DVD extras, effects are creepier, and the theories of "the Tangent Universe" are explored in greater depth. Friends and neighbors, this is a Great American Movie.
The director's cut of this 2001 cult fantasy is a deliriously subtle exploration of storytelling possibilities, and a deliciously wry teen-pic to boot. Brilliant.
Contains about 10 additional minutes and is as fabulous and enjoyable as ever. To be honest, I didn't even notice the new material, having not seen the original film since its 2001 release. I just saw a film that works beautifully and has held together well.
If you're returning for more Donnie, you'll still have tears in your eyes come the sublime Mad World conclusion. If it's your first viewing, you should still be wowed by an astounding masterpiece. But this is undoubtedly the lesser of the two cuts, and since you have the choice, you should stick with version one.
Immensely moving and strikingly original, Kelly's story of a brilliant, disturbed teen (Jake Gyllenhaal) drowning in the cultural morass of the 1980s now feels bloated.
A movie that in addition to combining exceptional work of filming, soundtrack and acting, manages to instigate several interpretations in only one scene. This makes Donnie Darko a unique film that in the end is not just any story
Donnie Darko: 6 out of 10: Some movies just pass me right by. I found Amelie by the end more irritating than cute, I didn't laugh once at Rushmore, and only a hostage situation could coerce me to watch The Piano again.
Donnie Darko has a large legion of fans and I certainly understand its appeal. The acting by both Jake Gyllenhaal and Drew Barrymore is some of their best work. The rest of the cast also shines with a special kudos to Holmes Osborne as the father in what is almost always a throw away role.
The school and kids remind me of my high school from the eighties (Though this being Hollywood the music is much better than what the radio actually played in those years.) and the filmmakers certainly know how to frame a shot. I was even able to look past the Holden Caulfield and Harvey flashbacks the movie caused me to suffer.
So what went wrong… the plot. Oh up until the payoff it's fine enough, in fact it is better than fine. One wonders how the filmmakers are going to pull it off. The answer is simple. They don't. If anything the end of the movie reminded me of that atrocious horror film from a few years back Soul Survivors. Like Soul Survivors the movie holds your interest with more and more implausible plot twists and coincidences then cheats at the end like a bad junior high school English essay.
Now Donnie Darko is otherwise superior to Soul Survivors and other films where the ending is a groaner (cough The Village cough), but after all that goodness the magic is gone and they couldn't pull a rabbit out of their hat. Even a six foot demonic one.
I was eventually put off by so many tired, worn cliches - the Neurotic teacher, the Nasty school bully, the Fat Chinese chick, sleazy Mr. Motivator, the Mr & Mrs Average parents, the eccentric old lady. And then the time travel and the convoluted, confused plot trying to lend some scientific credibility to this sorry concoction.
trite, mundane, pretentious, hackneyed, sloppy, arrogant and dull......i never did understand the cult following this film has garnered. if ever the movie said anything to me, it said that writer richard kelly is way too in love with his own material (southland tales and the box being proof of this). there is nothing wrong with wanting to endeavor into your project like a child, nurturing it and loving it just as such. however, once a director reaches the state of "i don't care if it does make sense", you have then left your audience in the ditch and are now lost. there is an obvious disdain and further disconnect with kelly's audience, as the movie is only experienced in stylized sequences, complete with "plot twists" askew. oh, the plot twist. ever was there a more cheap though effective technique in fiction writing. this brings me to my next point. the story is so convoluted, there have been countless websites developed for the simple function of either identifying or deciphering the movies message, plot, theme and "code" like a child who recently discovered the usesfullness of a Marvel styled decoder ring. only whence identifying these modes (or theorizing them, as there really is all you can do with this film), the former just seems so wishy washy in the end, you'd just as soon begin thinking of this film as a classic because if it doesn't make sense, it must be cool, right? Kelly has no business directing, as there is only a subtle hint of character in every one of these one or two layered protagonists. Richard Kelly really is the Omar Rodriguez of film and i see no other reason to praise him, save for the fact that he knows the Gyllenhaals? i assure you, rich.....your farts smell the same way as mine, and as your movie. **1 out of 5 stars**
