.jpg)
Directed By: Chris Fisher
Starring:
Daveigh Chase as Sam
Briana Evigan as Corey
James Lafferty as Iraq Jack
There are three types of people in the world. The first are those who have never heard of Donnie Darko and will probably never hear about this movie; no doubt, if you are one of those people, you are not reading this review now. The second are those who have seen Donnie Darko and believed that this film, a straight-to-video sequel from director Chris Fisher, would be blasphemous garbage. These people, having refused to see the film, probably saw my star rating and have stopped reading altogether. Now, it’s just the rest of us. You are a person that, most likely, knows about Donnie Darko and, whether you liked it or not, still have an open mind about S. Darko. I fall into that same category. Richard Kelly’s mind-bending, time-altering cult classic was (and still is) a daring and ambitious film that warranted no sequel. Alas, here we are and a sequel has been made. This time, it tells the story of Sam Darko (Chase), Donnie’s youngest sister.
The logic behind this film is warped more profusely than the logic of its predecessor, due primarily to the fact that screenwriter Nathan Atkins is trying to confuse his audience. Whereas Richard Kelly’s vision confused because of its skillful complexities, S. Darko does so because of a faulty script. Occurring seven years after her brother Donnie was killed when a jet engine crashed into his bedroom, the film picks back up with the titular character of Sam. She has fled from her troubled home with her best friend, Corey (Evigan), for a cross country road trip that takes them to the miniscule town of Conejo Springs. This place is a breeding ground of whackos and psychos and perhaps it has just gotten two more. The seemingly craziest of all, however, is Iraq Jack (Lafferty), a troubled veteran who has been having mysterious visions that foretell the coming apocalypse. Soon, Sam begins to have visions that are equally-troubling.
That is really as much as I can disclose about the plot, for two reasons. The first is because it is my policy to do my absolute best to not spoil any film, regardless of my opinion about it. The second is because I simply did not understand any of the material that would not be considered a spoiler. To fumble through a more extensive plot explanation would be giving the film more thought than the creative minds behind it did. What I can tell you is that, while Donnie Darko dealt primarily with the so-called living receiver, S. Darko focuses more on the manipulated dead. For those of you that have no idea what these terms mean, S. Darko is likely to have no effect on you, not even eliciting the enjoyment that comes from recognizing connections to the previous film. Stop reading, watch Donnie Darko again, and return here. For those of you that do know what I am talking about, let’s continue.
There were a lot of directions that, if taken, would have made S. Darko a far more intriguing film. Acting as essentially a remake viewed from a different perspective, it is indeed well-made, beautifully-shot, and well-acted. It has a handful of unique themes that it attempts to present, but ultimately they serve no purpose. In the end, the success or failure of S. Darko depends on your enjoyment of its interpretation of the world created in Donnie Darko. The reason that I believe only knowledgeable fans of Richard Kelly’s film should even attempt to watch this one is because you owe it to yourself to have a reaction to every film you watch. Love it or hate it, any kind of response is better than none at all. For those who understand the logic behind S. Darko, you have prepared yourself to either like it or dislike it. For those who have either never seen its predecessor or failed to understand it well enough, it will be impossible to have a solid response. Did I like it? Yes, but it hardly matters. When it comes to these two films, all that matters is what you believe.
The logic behind this film is warped more profusely than the logic of its predecessor, due primarily to the fact that screenwriter Nathan Atkins is trying to confuse his audience. Whereas Richard Kelly’s vision confused because of its skillful complexities, S. Darko does so because of a faulty script. Occurring seven years after her brother Donnie was killed when a jet engine crashed into his bedroom, the film picks back up with the titular character of Sam. She has fled from her troubled home with her best friend, Corey (Evigan), for a cross country road trip that takes them to the miniscule town of Conejo Springs. This place is a breeding ground of whackos and psychos and perhaps it has just gotten two more. The seemingly craziest of all, however, is Iraq Jack (Lafferty), a troubled veteran who has been having mysterious visions that foretell the coming apocalypse. Soon, Sam begins to have visions that are equally-troubling.
That is really as much as I can disclose about the plot, for two reasons. The first is because it is my policy to do my absolute best to not spoil any film, regardless of my opinion about it. The second is because I simply did not understand any of the material that would not be considered a spoiler. To fumble through a more extensive plot explanation would be giving the film more thought than the creative minds behind it did. What I can tell you is that, while Donnie Darko dealt primarily with the so-called living receiver, S. Darko focuses more on the manipulated dead. For those of you that have no idea what these terms mean, S. Darko is likely to have no effect on you, not even eliciting the enjoyment that comes from recognizing connections to the previous film. Stop reading, watch Donnie Darko again, and return here. For those of you that do know what I am talking about, let’s continue.
There were a lot of directions that, if taken, would have made S. Darko a far more intriguing film. Acting as essentially a remake viewed from a different perspective, it is indeed well-made, beautifully-shot, and well-acted. It has a handful of unique themes that it attempts to present, but ultimately they serve no purpose. In the end, the success or failure of S. Darko depends on your enjoyment of its interpretation of the world created in Donnie Darko. The reason that I believe only knowledgeable fans of Richard Kelly’s film should even attempt to watch this one is because you owe it to yourself to have a reaction to every film you watch. Love it or hate it, any kind of response is better than none at all. For those who understand the logic behind S. Darko, you have prepared yourself to either like it or dislike it. For those who have either never seen its predecessor or failed to understand it well enough, it will be impossible to have a solid response. Did I like it? Yes, but it hardly matters. When it comes to these two films, all that matters is what you believe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment