# Why do so many hate Donnie Darko with such loathing?



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

Inspired by comments on the '50 Films...' thread, and by previous comments made by some about DD, what is it that really winds some people up about what I think is a pretty magical film that, were I 14-18 when I first saw it, would probably mean as much to me as Heathers?


----------



## LDR (Jul 24, 2006)

... 'cause it's just really, really, really, boring.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 24, 2006)

Love it.


----------



## poului (Jul 24, 2006)

*w3wrryse4*

Because it's regularly cited by idiot critics as one of the greatest films ever made.

It isn't.


----------



## sojourner (Jul 24, 2006)

Interesting.  My daughter loved it that much she actually went out and bought the bloody thing with _her own money_    and watches it obsessively.  She's 15

I watched it through a blur of weed so have forgotten most of it


----------



## Santino (Jul 24, 2006)

It's one of those films about which people say 'You either love it or hate it', which is wrong, because I thought it was ok, nothing special. I find this with a lot of things that are love-it-or-hate-it.


----------



## foo (Jul 24, 2006)

what Poului said.


----------



## poului (Jul 24, 2006)

*r5f75rtt*

And that awful theme song can fuck off too.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

Yeah, but WHY don't you like it? Is it Jake Gyillyballs look of smugness? It's cheap out soundtrack that used covers? The Abyss-alike time streams?

I want to delve into the core of people's hate for this film...


----------



## milesy (Jul 24, 2006)

i love it


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2006)

Excellent film (NOT the stupid Directors Cut but the original cinema release), one of my all time favourites. It's probably one of those sad pursuits like the anti iPod thing; it’s become fashionable to knock something seen as too cool for words…


----------



## strung out (Jul 24, 2006)

didn't really get it


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 24, 2006)

But Heathers was shit too


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> But Heathers was shit too



You're insane. Heathers is a masterpiece 80s teen flick.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 24, 2006)

Because it's boring and shit. Even the director admits that it that it doesn't all add up and he didn't really know what he was doing with it. 

It's sooo fucking emo (or something), really irritating.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

TBH I never got the whole 'It's a mystery' thing - seemed perfectly obvious to me when I watched it, but then I'm a sci-fi geek with experience of time travel/alternate future paradoxes...


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 24, 2006)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
			
		

> Because it's boring and shit. Even the director admits that it that it doesn't all add up and he didn't really know what he was doing with it.



but the Big Sleep didn't add up. Nor did the mexican standoff in Reservoir Dogs. or the ending of the Usual Suspects, Narrative consistency is for pussies


----------



## trashpony (Jul 24, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> but the Big Sleep didn't add up. Nor did the mexican standoff in Reservoir Dogs. or the ending of the Usual Suspects, Narrative consistency is for pussies



And Hollywood


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You're insane. Heathers is a masterpiece 80s teen flick.



Fucking right! No one cusses The Time and gets away with it!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

We're gonna find all you fuckers and beat the shit out of you, make you eat it, and when you shit it out again make you eat that shit!


----------



## i_hate_beckham (Jul 24, 2006)

Good film but the ending deserves bashing for being shit.


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 24, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You're insane. Heathers is a masterpiece 80s teen flick.



Exactly. 

I don't "really hate" DD so maybe I don't qualify. But it was awkward, pretentious, inscrutable. I can't tell what I supposed to get out of it. Was it that schizophrenics just need a bit more understanding because they're time travellers? Was it that, shock horror, some motivational counsellors are inspired by greed and are hypocrites? 

Art is about telling the truth. I didn't believe a word DD had to say. There was a fair bit of stuff I liked about it but not enough to call it a "good film".


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

> Art is about telling the truth.



Wow, that's pretty prescriptive, and surely it should be 'a' truth, rather than 'the' truth?


----------



## SubZeroCat (Jul 24, 2006)

I like it.


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> but the Big Sleep didn't add up.


mmm, it did y'know.  We just dont know (for sure) who killed the chauffeur.

As to DD, it's an alright film, just grossly over-rated. Some crappy chritianny philosophical nonsense thrown in too.  Bleeuurrrgghhhh.

Heathers, on the other hand, was bloody great film, as were the two previous parts of the 'trilogy'.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 24, 2006)

because they are ignorant fools.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 24, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> mmm, it did y'know.  We just dont know (for sure) who killed the chauffeur.



i thought the consensus was that even Chandler wasn't entirely sure what happened? maybe just re: the chauffeur, but it's not exactly a neat and tidy plot


----------



## mk12 (Jul 24, 2006)

poului said:
			
		

> Because it's regularly cited by idiot critics as one of the greatest films ever made.
> 
> It isn't.



but it is


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 24, 2006)

The bit where Drew Barrymore and Teacher Boyfriend look at each and sigh, "Donnie Darko", then gawp and mug in a way that's meant to convey a mix of nostalgia and admiration - there just isn't enough vomit in the known universe.


----------



## wrysmile (Jul 24, 2006)

I liked it too. Sometimes I think a lot of people just choose to dislike something because they don't want to appear to approve of populist things. It's irritating.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 24, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> The bit where Drew Barrymore and Teacher Boyfriend look at each and sigh, "Donnie Darko", then gawp and mug in a way that's meant to convey a mix of nostalgia and admiration - there just isn't enough vomit in the known universe.



you never know why they say that though, do you? It's suspicious. What has DD done?


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 24, 2006)

wrysmile said:
			
		

> I liked it too. Sometimes I think a lot of people just choose to dislike something because they don't want to appear to approve of populist things. It's irritating.



Sometimes I think people go out of their way to approve of populist things because they don't want to appear to be too contrarian or critical. It's boring.


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i thought the consensus was that even Chandler wasn't entirely sure what happened? maybe just re: the chauffeur, but it's not exactly a neat and tidy plot


there are lots of bits in it that have absolutely no reason to be there - they were just chucked in to give bogie & bacall more screen time together (the marvellous horseracing scene for example).  And it is indeed indeed extremely convoluted and confusing, and there are a fair few bits that are never actually explained, but not, i dont think, ever actually contradictory.


----------



## mk12 (Jul 24, 2006)

DD is hardly populist though, is it? Only a small number of ppl I know have seen it.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 24, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> there are lots of bits in it that have absolutely no reason to be there - they were just chucked in to give bogie & bacall more screen time together (the marvellous horseracing scene for example).  And it is indeed indeed extremely convoluted and confusing, and there are a fair few bits that are never actually explained, but not, i dont think, ever actually contradictory.




it's been a while since i saw it, so i'll take your word for it


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 24, 2006)

wrysmile said:
			
		

> I liked it too. Sometimes I think a lot of people just choose to dislike something because they don't want to appear to approve of populist things. It's irritating.




Sometimes I think a lot of people just choose to like something because they want to appear to approve of populist things.  It's irritating.  


Personally, I didn't think it was anything special  

Maybe I should give it another go to see what you're all raving about


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 24, 2006)

Minnie_the_Minx said:
			
		

> Sometimes I think a lot of people just choose to like something because they want to appear to approve of populist things.  It's irritating.



that's very perverse of you


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's been a while since i saw it, so i'll take your word for it


you'd be wise to do so, on this as on everything..... 

Casablanca tho - that _does_ contradict itself Laszlo not bring immidately nicked, the whole 'Letters of Transit' tosh....


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 24, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> you'd be wise to do so, on this as on everything.....
> 
> Casablanca tho - that _does_ contradict itself Laszlo not bring immidately nicked, the whole 'Letters of Transit' tosh....



Ahh, but it doesn't...Lazlo can't be arrested because he is on unoccupied French soil and has committed no crime against Vichy.

Altho I always thought the letters of transit were a bit dodge - any diplomats out there know of such a thing existing?


----------



## belboid (Jul 24, 2006)

but in the opening scenes they shoot someone for not showing there correct papers, and having a Free French 'badge'.  As Rick says 'people have been held in Casablanca despite their legal rights'.

Letters of Transit did exist, but its far from clear who actually signed them - it is implied that it is de Gaulle, but, if so, no way would they have been honoured.

<e2a:  I watched the colorised version the other night - oh dear oh dear oh dear....>


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 24, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's very perverse of you




I call it the David Hasselhoff phenomenon.  Everybody talking about it, but I'm still at a loss as to why


----------



## Neva (Jul 24, 2006)

People hate it primarily because a large percentage of it's fans are colossal idiots. 

I think one of the marks of a good film is that the audience can understand the plot of said film without having to go online and track down important plot information that the script writer arbitrarily decided to withhold. The plot of Donnie Darko is not clever or complex or particularly interesting, it's just fairly ordinary science fiction that tricks the audience into thinking it's raising difficult questions by not giving them enough information to be to answer them themselves. You could take any average Hollywood film and cut out important plot details and it would achieve the same effect. This led to a situation were all the fans who could be bothered to go to the website and try and make sense of the pseudo-cryptic nonsense written there were mistaken into thinking they had achieved something. That by being forced to track down information to understand the plot they were in some way superior to people who couldn't be bothered and just wanted to watch a film. After reading the website all the fans would then go on forums or speak to their friends in real life and ask them what they thought of the film and would dismiss all criticism of it out of hand by accusing the criticiser of not ‘getting’ the film. I think it's understandable that people find it galling to be told they're opinions of a film don't matter because they couldn't be bothered to instigate an investigation to uncover pieces of plot which should have been in the film in the first place. 

There is/was a great thread in the drugs forum where Dubversion argued against a  number of people claiming that Ketamine was not just another powerful drug but actually a gateway to a profound religious experience. Some fans of Donnie Darko are given to espousing the same pretentious bollocks. They're not content with it being just a film, no, to them it's more of a mystical experience they have to watch every day or a set number of times a week and can’t understand why anyone wouldn't want to visit websites trying to understand the plot or why anyone would want just to watch a film.


----------



## Iam (Jul 24, 2006)

LD Rudeboy said:
			
		

> ... 'cause it's just really, really, really, boring.



^^

.

Hate would be a bit strong. Won't waste another couple of hours odd watching again would be more accurate.


----------



## jms (Jul 24, 2006)

Its not the inconsistency that annoys me, its the fact that the film has almost set out deliberately to become a cult amongst gullible teenagers who've never seen a vaguely "intelligent" film before, the fact that so much of the script is self-consciously off-beat and laboured, the fact that it deliberately sets itself up for a flood of fanart to be made, the way it pretends to be incredibly non-conformist and appeal to a particular kind of person who tries to different to everyone else but isn't, I could go on. But I won't because I sound like an idiot. Actually, you know what, the inconsistency _does_ annoy me, particuarly the way people say that you can interpret it in different ways - because you can't. It is just pointless.

   

yeah. im probably wrong. no doubt buddy bradley, dubversion and any other number of people will pick that to pieces and then make some patronising comment if I try and respond to what they say. but I dont care. and neva has put it all better than i ever could. damn.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> People hate it primarily because a large percentage of it's fans are colossal idiots.



And you know this from all the surveys/MORI opinion polls you've commissioned?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2006)

jms said:
			
		

> Its not the inconsistency that annoys me, its the fact that the film has almost set out deliberately to become a cult amongst gullible teenagers who've never seen a vaguely "intelligent" film before, the fact that so much of the script is self-consciously off-beat and laboured, the fact that it deliberately sets itself up for a flood of fanart to be made, the way it pretends to be incredibly non-conformist and appeal to a particular kind of person who tries to different to everyone else but isn't, I could go on. But I won't because I sound like an idiot. Actually, you know what, the inconsistency _does_ annoy me, particuarly the way people say that you can interpret it in different ways - because you can't. It is just pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah. im probably wrong. no doubt buddy bradley, dubversion and any other number of people will pick that to pieces and then make some patronising comment if I try and respond to what they say. but I dont care. and neva has put it all better than i ever could. damn.



It's never seemed that way to me at all. It never came accross as made to look cool or to resonate with with a certain type of teenager (this whole teenage angle makes me laugh given that some of the appreciation I've had from the film relates to the era its set in! And to appreciate that you'd have to be a quite a bit older than the average teen...). 

You're rant just sounds like some school boy who hates all the cool kidz at school because you know you'll never be one, so you've just decided to project onto this film instead.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 24, 2006)

I give it 7 out of 10. In my quite good to good range.

And I love the sound track.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 24, 2006)

exosculate said:
			
		

> And I love the sound track.



Yep, me too.


----------



## Neva (Jul 24, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> And you know this from all the surveys/MORI opinion polls you've commissioned?



No, from reading the ridiculous numbers of threads on the film that have appeared on the various forums I frequent. I must have read around 50 threads on Donnie Darko in the five or so years it's been out. Some of those were small with about ten posts but most were bigger. Some much bigger with discussions running into the thousands of posts. If I was being very conservative I've read at least a thousand people's perspective of that film and it's from those thousand views that I've come to the conclusion that Donnie Darko has a large percentage of idiots in it's fan base.


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 24, 2006)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> you never know why they say that though, do you? It's suspicious. What has DD done?



I knew exactly why they did it - because DD is such a non-conformist, he's so insightful, he asks all the right questions, and society at large - hic, excuse me, I just got a little bit of sick in my mouth - doesn't recognise his kooky mental illness for the spark of individuality that it truly is.

Oh, by the way - *IT WAS ALL A DREAM*.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 24, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> Oh, by the way - *IT WAS ALL A DREAM*.




It has the hallmark of an undigested gherkin to me.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 24, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Yep, me too.



Oh yes


----------



## Cerisa (Jul 24, 2006)

I love it. if i feel emotional anyway, it makes me cry.


----------



## bonjour (Jul 24, 2006)

I never understood it, well if there was anything to understand???

It's not all shit obviously, but there's more crap than good.

5/10 maybe.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 24, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> You're insane. Heathers is a masterpiece 80s teen flick.


I'm so glad someone else admits liking Heathers. I was beginning to think it was only me! 

(Crispy refuses to watch it with me  )


----------



## 41132n (Jul 24, 2006)

I have had a copy of it for a while now and I didn't get round to watching it.

It started to inch its way up the  " I will watch these DVD's at some point pile until recently it hit the top.

So , do I watch it , or should I watch 'Spirited Away' which I bought for £4 at the weekend ?


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 24, 2006)

41132n said:
			
		

> So , do I watch it , or should I watch 'Spirited Away' which I bought for £4 at the weekend ?



Spirited Away is one of my all-time favourites, but I really like foreign animation. There's absolutely no direct comparison between it and DD. Watch them both.


----------



## 41132n (Jul 24, 2006)

I can't watch both - I promised myself I was allowed to watch the first DVD of Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex 2nd Gig [ last year's winner of longest anime title ? ]


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 24, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> Oh, by the way - *IT WAS ALL A DREAM*.


Actually, it was a tangent universe 

Donnie Darko was alright.  It's certainly not as clever as it thinks it is, along the same lines as American Beauty in that respect.  And neither deserve the sort of venom they get off certain people who like to pretend they were never mopey, pretentious teenagers with daft haircuts


----------



## jms (Jul 25, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> You're rant just sounds like some school boy who hates all the cool kidz at school because you know you'll never be one, so you've just decided to project onto this film instead.



No, cool people would be too stupid even to understand _this_ film, never mind a good one. I thought of another thing that winds me up about it. The rebellion against all the religious crap and self-esteem things is just sickening. 

and you dont have to have been a child of the 80s to have seen the film.. the fact that it is a modern film made with teenagers in it is enough to appeal to modern teenagers, shockingly. the era it is set in ("ooh look its dukakis" "ooh look the evil dead" hoo hoo hoo its the EIGHTIES PEOPLE!) doesnt actually matter to them.


----------



## bonjour (Jul 25, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> It's certainly not as clever as it thinks it is, along the same lines as American Beauty in that respect


I didn't think American Beauty as clever, although it may convey the same sort of middle-class suburban family plot, it's still an amazing script, and the characters are so incredibly diverse, and it is beautifully put together. It's just a  so-so storyline but done brilliantly.

I can't understand why people would dislike it?

Over.


----------



## Neva (Jul 25, 2006)

bonjour said:
			
		

> I didn't think American Beauty as clever, although it may convey the same sort of middle-class suburban family plot, it's still an amazing script, and the characters are so incredibly diverse, and it is beautifully put together. It's just a  so-so storyline but done brilliantly.
> 
> I can't understand why people would dislike it?
> 
> Over.



That bit with the rubbish bag blowing in the wind was woeful beyond belief. It also won a lot of awards and made some people a great deal of money when it had done nothing but steal the ethos of various indie films and given it the hollywood treatment. 

That's not to say I don't like it though. I think it's pretty good actually but it just didn't deserve the acclaim it got.


----------



## bonjour (Jul 25, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> That bit with the rubbish bag blowing in the wind was woeful beyond belief.


Nein, it's a lesson trying to teach us that there is "beauty in everything"
Like me.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 25, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Inspired by comments on the '50 Films...' thread, and by previous comments made by some about DD, what is it that really winds some people up about what I think is a pretty magical film that, were I 14-18 when I first saw it, would probably mean as much to me as Heathers?



I think people on this forum are just ridiculously difficult about films... In the weird, murky world known as 'real life', virtually everyone I know thinks DD is a cracking film.  Same with LOTR... Yet on here it's quite different.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 25, 2006)

poului said:
			
		

> Because it's regularly cited by idiot critics as one of the greatest films ever made.
> 
> It isn't.



I don't know about best ever, but it's one of the few really great films so far this decade.


----------



## Flashman (Jul 25, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I think people on this forum are just ridiculously difficult about films... In the weird, murky world known as 'real life', virtually everyone I know thinks DD is a cracking film.  Same with LOTR... Yet on here it's quite different.



It let me down, and I hate it when that happens. Bought it for a fiver at HMV, thought I'd gotten myself a cheap modern masterpiece (after people telling me it was *great*/reviews etc) and it just didn't set me alight at all, not shite by any means, but not "great".

Don't believe the hype, is the lesson.

LotR was fucking ace though


----------



## Neva (Jul 25, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I don't know about best ever, but it's one of the few really great films so far this decade.



Well that's your opinion but I think that films like City of God, Memento, Amélie, Spirited Away, Amores Perros, The Machinist, Fog of War and Hotel Rwanda all urinate on Donnie Darko from a great height and I haven't even watched many movies for a couple of years. 

I think that in ten years no-one will really talk about Donnie Darko to be honest. I can't wait for Kellys' next film though. He's gone overboard on the pretension again calling it a "strange hybrid of the sensibilities of Andy Warhol and Philip K. Dick" and it's staring Stiffler, Buffy and The Rock  

I, for one, predict greatness.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 25, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> Well that's your opinion but I think that films like City of God, Memento, Amélie, Spirited Away, Amores Perros, The Machinist, Fog of War and Hotel Rwanda all urinate on Donnie Darko from a great height and I haven't even watched many movies for a couple of years.



CoG and memento I'd say were about equal with DD, true, both cracking films.  Amores Perros was good but I didn't get into it as much as other people, the Machinist was also pretty cool, but I thought Amelie was very overrated.  Haven't seen Spirited Away or Fog Of War.

I merely said DD was _one of_ the best films so far this decade, not that it was _the best_.

I still think that a lot of people have wilfully decided it's crap because it's just that bit _too popular_now.  I went to see DD without knowing anything about it and loved it.


----------



## bonjour (Jul 25, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> Well that's your opinion but I think that films like *City of God, Memento, Amélie, *Spirited Away, Amores Perros, The Machinist, Fog of War and Hotel Rwanda.


Those films are gold. Memento is a clever film in comparison to Donnie Darko without a doubt, one of the most "thinkiest" films ive seen.

I haven't seen the others, so it'd be unfair to comment.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 25, 2006)

I just thought it was a low rent Lynch movie myself. Didn't do it for me. Missus fell asleep. It was alright I spose.

Spirited Away is fucking superb.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jul 25, 2006)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> I'm so glad someone else admits liking Heathers. I was beginning to think it was only me!
> 
> (Crispy refuses to watch it with me  )



Heathers rocks.  One of the few good things Cristian Slater's ever done (other than True Romance of course).


----------



## Flashman (Jul 25, 2006)

And The Name of the Rose.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2006)

well said that man.

And Pump Up The Volume


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 25, 2006)

Flashman said:
			
		

> And The Name of the Rose.



Is that the one where he gets tugged off by some nyphet?

I vaugely remember reading an interview with him about that scene, cos he was 16/17 I think and 'scared shitless'


----------



## Flashman (Jul 25, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Is that the one where he gets tugged off by some nyphet?
> 
> I vaugely remember reading an interview with him about that scene, cos he was 16/17 I think and 'scared shitless'



Don't remember any tugging, been a while since I've seen it though.

There were rumours that he actually shagged the lass on camera during the sex bit, but eagle-eyed viewers over at IMDB have watched it and noted his flaccid member on show during the scene.


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2006)

15 I think! (17 when it actually came out)  and its a full blown shagaroonie - if you look really really carefully, you can just see his willy!


----------



## jms (Jul 25, 2006)

bonjour said:
			
		

> Those films are gold. Memento is a clever film in comparison to Donnie Darko without a doubt, one of the most "thinkiest" films ive seen.
> 
> I haven't seen the others, so it'd be unfair to comment.



Memento is great.. especially the second time you watch it and realise whats actually happening


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 25, 2006)

I don't understand it very much to be honest, i thought it was all right but I think i would have enjoyed it better had i actually had a clue what was going on alot of the time. I got the feeling that i SHOULD have understood it though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 25, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> well said that man.
> 
> *And Pump Up The Volume*



You need to go to the re-education camp.

*NOW.*


----------



## Utopia (Jul 25, 2006)

I loved DD!, thought it was original, funny, clever, sweet & most of all VERY romantic, one of my favourite films of all time.

"Your such a fuckass"


----------



## belboid (Jul 25, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You need to go to the re-education camp.
> 
> *NOW.*


pah!  you're wrong wrong *WRONG.*

it's damn good fun, not as good as Times Square mind


----------



## Macabre (Jul 25, 2006)

I thought DD was pretty average, it was a bog standard scifi plot spliced with a teen flick.  I liked what he tried to do by leaving some plot devices out and putting them on the internet like in many asian films (although I am irritated by the fanboys in the same way as Neva) but I just don't think he pulled it off.  There was too much reliance on the plot to the point that the other aspects of the film were not developed properly, same as The Matrix Trilogy.


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 26, 2006)

bonjour said:
			
		

> Nein, it's a lesson trying to teach us that there is "beauty in everything"
> Like me.


And it's done in an overblown, painfully heavy handed way.  Do they really need to spoon feed the audience platitudes to get a message across?


----------



## jodal (Jul 26, 2006)

DD is an awesome film. Its not the best film ever made but goddamn its good.


----------



## bonjour (Jul 26, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> And it's done in an overblown, painfully heavy handed way.  Do they really need to spoon feed the audience platitudes to get a message across?


But you're forgetting "stupid people" do exist, not everyones as smart as you and me bloom


----------



## poului (Jul 26, 2006)

*8-ul0i9[-k*

some people....



oh and if you think 2001 has dated a bit then give Donnie Darko 30 years!


----------



## ghost77uk (Jul 27, 2006)

Have to say I really enjoyed it too - By no means the best ever made but still a good movie.

Memento too is a cracking film as is 'The Usual Suspects' and something I watched last week that really impressed me 'Lucky Number Slevin'


----------



## muser (Jul 27, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Excellent film (NOT the stupid Directors Cut but the original cinema release), one of my all time favourites. It's probably one of those sad pursuits like the anti iPod thing; it’s become fashionable to knock something seen as too cool for words…



Without the director's cut the film is unfathomable. Anyone saying otherwise is talking out their arse.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> Without the director's cut the film is unfathomable. Anyone saying otherwise is talking out their arse.



Speak for yourself, but it's not that difficult to figure out if you watch the film a couple of times.

I really love Donnie Darko, hype or not. Was lucky to see it in the US when it had just come out without knowing very much about it and thought it was one of the most promising first features I had seen in a long time.


----------



## muser (Jul 27, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Speak for yourself, but it's not that difficult to figure out if you watch the film a couple of times.
> 
> I really love Donnie Darko, hype or not. Was lucky to see it in the US when it had just come out without knowing very much about it and thought it was one of the most promising first features I had seen in a long time.



Reno I'm going to take the bait, what was the film about?


----------



## muser (Jul 27, 2006)

come on reno stop goggling you've had enough time to read up on it, just tell me what the film was about.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> Reno I'm going to take the bait, what was the film about?



This what I got from watching the original cut, still haven't seen the directors cut as I'm slightly dreading it will ruin the film for me:

Most of the film takes place in a parallel universe. There is a gap between two parallel universes where things pass back and forth in a way they shouldn't and there are people who can manipulate time and move between those universes (Roberta Sparrow, Frank the Rabbit and Donnie). The planes engine falls through something like a worm hole into a tangent universe where Donnie should have been killed, but didn't due to intervention by the time travelling man in the bunny suit, who shouldn't have been there. Because Donnie didn't die in this universe, his girlfriend Gretchen does, so he ends up putting the universe right by putting the crashing engine into the universe he is in and by sacrificing himself so Gretchen lives.

Alternately Donnie is simply schizophrenic or delusional and what he experiences is a hallucination or dream while he is dying.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> come on reno stop goggling you've had enough time to read up on it, just tell me what the film was about.



Happy now ?


----------



## muser (Jul 27, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> This what I got from watching the original cut, still haven't seen the directors cut as I'm slightly dreading it will ruin the film for me:
> 
> Most of the film takes place in a parallel universe. There is a gap between two parallel universes where things pass back and forth in a way they shouldn't and there are people who can manipulate time and move between those universes (Roberta Sparrow, Frank the Rabbit and Donnie). The planes engine falls through something like a worm hole into a tangent universe where Donnie should have been killed, but didn't due to intervention by the time travelling man in the bunny suit, who shouldn't have been there. Because Donnie didn't die in this universe, his girlfriend Gretchen does, so he ends up putting the universe right by putting the crashing engine into the universe he is in and by sacrificing himself so Gretchen lives.
> 
> Alternately Donnie is simply schizophrenic or delusional and what he experiences is a hallucination or dream while he is dying.



From watching the original almost none of the above is possible to elucidate without some prior knowledge of what is actually happening. A friend of mine when onto the internet to find what the film was about. He liked it the first time because it was about a schizoprehic in a 'little house on the praire' type world. I didn't like it the first time I watched it because of jake glyllenhaal perceived gormlessness, but on hearing what the film was about (from said friend), and viewing the film again (director's cut) made more sense.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> From watching the original almost none of the above is possible to elucidate without some prior knowledge of what is actually happening. A friend of mine when onto the internet to find what the film was about. He liked it the first time because it was about a schizoprehic in a 'little house on the praire' type world. I didn't like it the first time I watched it because of jake glyllenhaal perceived gormlessness, but on hearing what the film was about (from said friend), and viewing the film again (director's cut) made more sense.



Not everything is possible to figure out by yourself, because the mythology Richard Kelly came up with is considerably more complicated than the simple outline I gave above, but the conclusions I came to can be figured out if you have a rudimentary understanding of science fiction. Star Trek had used various elements of this kind of plot for several of its episodes long before Donnie Darko.

Sorry if you didn't figure it out but I'd be grateful if you didn't jump to conclusions about my ability to interpret the film because of that. There are clues throughout Donnie Darko that do make it possible to figure out the plot. By the third time I pretty much had the main elements in place. That's what makes the film so much fun, you discover more about it the more you watch it and it is possible to figure out the plot because in the end it does make sense (more or less), but it also leaves room for various interpretations, which at least in the original version was the intention.


----------



## Neva (Jul 27, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Not everything is possible to figure out by yourself, because the mythology Richard Kelly came up with is considerably more complicated than the simple outline I gave above, but the conclusions I came to can be figured out if you have a rudimentary understanding of science fiction. Star Trek had used various elements of this kind of plot for several of its episodes long before Donnie Darko.
> 
> Sorry if you didn't figure it out but I'd be grateful if you didn't jump to conclusions about my ability to interpret the film because of that. There are clues throughout Donnie Darko that do make it possible to figure out the plot. By the third time I pretty much had the main elements in place. That's what makes the film so much fun, you discover more about it the more you watch it and it is possible to figure out the plot because in the end it does make sense (more or less), but it also leaves room for various interpretations, which at least in the original version was the intention.



This. This right here is what I was talking about earlier. 

muser your exactly right imo. It's not possible to know any of the stuff Reno posted without resorting to doing homework on the film.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> This. This right here is what I was talking about earlier.
> 
> muser your exactly right imo. It's not possible to know any of the stuff Reno posted without resorting to doing homework on the film.




...and I think that if you feel that middlebrow art house frauds like Amelie, Amores Perros or City of God are your yardstick for cinematic excellence then I'm not surprised you found it difficult to figure Donnie Darko out.

In the end what I like most about the film isn't its plot or that it is profound (which it isn't), but the fact that it is a surpremely confident piece of filmmaking. Kelly knows how to use sound and visuals in a way that is genuinely cinematic,  unlike some of the films mentioned above which are showy and choppy in a way only directors trained in advertising can come up with.


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Star Trek had used various elements of this kind of plot for several of its episodes long before Donnie Darko.



And it was just as dreadful then. The "reset button" episodes of Star Trek - where, due to some sort of temporal anomaly, the contents of the entire episode are "wiped clean" from the "timeline" in the last few minutes of the episode - are all among the weakest. Dramatically, it's the ultimate cop-out. Nothing matters - anyone can do anything, say anything, and none of it has any moral value, no lasting repercussions, no lessons learned, no growth, no evaluation, no introspection - it's all wiped out in a flash, because the storyteller simply couldn't find any other way of cleaning up the godawful mess of a story he half-thought up in the first place.


----------



## muser (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Not everything is possible to figure out by yourself, because the mythology Richard Kelly came up with is considerably more complicated than the simple outline I gave above, but the conclusions I came to can be figured out if you have a rudimentary understanding of science fiction. Star Trek had used various elements of this kind of plot for several of its episodes long before Donnie Darko.
> 
> Sorry if you didn't figure it out but I'd be grateful if you didn't jump to conclusions about my ability to interpret the film because of that. There are clues throughout Donnie Darko that do make it possible to figure out the plot. By the third time I pretty much had the main elements in place. That's what makes the film so much fun, you discover more about it the more you watch it and it is possible to figure out the plot because in the end it does make sense (more or less), but it also leaves room for various interpretations, which at least in the original version was the intention.



I asked you to explain it because I already knew the explaination behind the story I was wondering whether you did. I've seen the film twice, director's cut and the original. You are right that it becomes better with each viewing.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> And it was just as dreadful then. The "reset button" episodes of Star Trek - where, due to some sort of temporal anomaly, the contents of the entire episode are "wiped clean" from the "timeline" in the last few minutes of the episode - are all among the weakest. Dramatically, it's the ultimate cop-out. Nothing matters - anyone can do anything, say anything, and none of it has any moral value, no lasting repercussions, no lessons learned, no growth, no evaluation, no introspection - it's all wiped out in a flash, because the storyteller simply couldn't find any other way of cleaning up the godawful mess of a story he half-thought up in the first place.



City on the Edge of Forever and Yesterday's Enterprise (both of which have similarities to Donnie Darko and are two of the episodes I was alluding to) are considered among the the best episodes of any science fiction series ever. Well, call me a geek but I like them and I like time travel stories and I like the novel way in which Donnie Darko managed to come up with one.


----------



## Neva (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> ...and I think that if you feel that middlebrow art house frauds like Amelie, Amores Perros or City of God are your yardstick for cinematic excellence then I'm not surprised you found it difficult to figure Donnie Darko out.
> 
> In the end what I like most about the film isn't its plot or that it is profound (which it isn't), but the fact that it is a surpremely confident piece of filmmaking. Kelly knows how to use sound and visuals in a way that is genuinely cinematic,  unlike some of the films mentioned above which are showy and choppy in a way only directors trained in advertising can come up with.



You literally couldn't have illustrated my point better if you'd tried  

I say that I think one of the marks of a good film is that it's possible to understand the plot of the film purely by watching the film itself. A couple of people agree with me and a couple don't. That's cool. But then you come along and get mad at me for saying so and start talking about the films ‘mythology’, and it’s multi-layered meaning and about how you can understand the film but apparently myself and  muser can't. Even better you actually start start insulting films like Amelie and City of God and call them 'middlebrow art house frauds', a position I'm pretty sure you'd be in the minority on. Why are they frauds? Because they took the bold step of actually having their plot make sense in the context of the film? 

It's awesome. If the OP is still around then I hope he/she notes that it’s posts like this which is why some people have a problem with Donnie Darko.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> You literally couldn't have illustrated my point better if you'd tried
> 
> I say that I think one of the marks of a good film is that it's possible to understand the plot of the film purely by watching the film itself.



That depends on the film, but by your definition this would void the films of David Lynch, Nicholas Roeg, Alain Resnais, Michelangelo Antonioni, Luis Bunuel and a whole host of other directors who don't spoon feed the information to their audience but are interested in letting them reach their own conclusions and engage their imagination by fracturing their narratives.




			
				Neva said:
			
		

> A couple of people agree with me and a couple don't. That's cool. But then you come along and get mad at me for saying so and start talking about the films ‘mythology’, and it’s multi-layered meaning and about how you can understand the film but apparently myself and  muser can't. Even better you actually start start insulting films like Amelie and City of God and call them 'middlebrow art house frauds', a position I'm pretty sure you'd be in the minority on. Why are they frauds? Because they took the bold step of actually having their plot make sense in the context of the film?.



I am not mad at you, I'm simply argueing a point. It takes a lot more to get me mad.

I felt Amelie and City of God were empty exercises in style, but a generation raised on advertising and MTV mistook their flashy aesthetics for good filmmaking. I'm more than happy to disagree with an easily pleased majority on that one and there is nothing bold in the way either film presents its narative.





			
				Neva said:
			
		

> It's awesome. If the OP is still around then I hope he/she notes that it’s posts like this which is why some people have a problem with Donnie Darko.



Please spare me your snide way of arguing, by using smilies and by making out I am supporting your point by being wrong. This is deeply patronising and only exaberates your insecurities. Cut the smug bullshitting and respect the fact that I disagree with you.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno - I agree films don't have to fully make sense to be good films - I love Lynch etc. I do disagree that films like Amelie are poor because they are ladled on style over substance. I think there can be beauty and craft without complexity in a film. I think that you are a bit harsh on some films unjustifiably on that basis.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Reno - I agree films don't have to fully make sense to be good films - I love Lynch etc. I do disagree that films like Amelie are poor because they are ladled on style over substance. I think there can be beauty and craft without complexity in a film. I think that you are a bit harsh on some films unjustifiably on that basis.



True and I admit to being an opinionated old git.  

In the end it's a matter of taste, but when it comes to style over subject matter I simply enjoy a more old fashioned cinematic approach over a lot of digital pizazz. I can happily sit though Dario Argent's Suspiria or Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill, both of which have not much more to recommend than the way their directors use classic cinematic vocabulary (or mise en scène ), but then neither film pretends to be anything more. On the other hand I can do without the teeth rotting whimsy and empty philosophising of Amelie and the mock socio-political critique of City of God, which appear to be merely grafted on to what are show pieces for modern post production techniques.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> True and I admit to being an opinionated old git.
> 
> In the end it's a matter of taste, but when it comes to style over subject matter I simply enjoy a more old fashioned cinematic approach over a lot of digital pizazz. I can happily sit though Dario Argent's Suspiria or Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill, both of which have not much more to recommend than the way their directors use classic cinematic vocabulary, but then neither film pretends to be anything more. On the other hand I can do without the teeth rotting whimsy and empty philosophising of Amelie and the mock socio-political critique of City of God, which appear to be merely grafted on to what are show pieces for modern post production techniques.




I definitely see where you are coming from - but I still like all sorts of films for all sorts of reasons. As you say it comes down to personal preference quite often.

hollywood blockbusters - sporn of satan rubbish - being the exception to this most of the time - they are nearly always total and utter nonsense


----------



## tw1ggy5 (Jul 28, 2006)

Dont hate the film, completely indifferent to it, yes.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

exosculate said:
			
		

> I definitely see where you are coming from - but I still like all sorts of films for all sorts of reasons. As you say it comes down to personal preference quite often.
> 
> hollywood blockbusters - sporn of satan rubbish - being the exception to this most of the time - they are nearly always total and utter nonsense



I too like all sorts of films and occasionally even a Hollywood blockbuster can turn out to be a good film.


----------



## Neva (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> That depends on the film, but by your definition this would void the films of David Lynch, Nicholas Roeg, Alain Resnais, Michelangelo Antonioni, Luis Bunuel and a whole host of other directors who don't spoon feed the information to their audience but are interested in letting them reach their own conclusions and engage their imagination by fracturing their narratives.



No, your not listening. I don't have a problem with open ended films. I have a problem with a film that is not open ended masquerading as being as such because it takes out what is required to make sense of the plot and puts it on a website and in the extended edition. Donnie Darko is an okay sci-fi film that was butchered to allow pop psychology and film students to talk rubbish about it's meaning. That is what grates me. If Lynch had done the same thing with Mullholland drive etc then I would be saying the same thing. But none of those directors have. Those directors produce films with ambiguous meanings. They don't take a clear cut sci-fi film and mutilate so it's not possible to understand just from doing something as mundane as watching the film itself. 




			
				Reno said:
			
		

> I am not mad at you, I'm simply argueing a point. It takes a lot more to get me mad.






			
				Reno said:
			
		

> Please spare me your snide way of arguing, by using smilies and by making out I am supporting your point by being wrong. This is deeply patronising and only exaberates your insecurities. Cut the smug bullshitting and respect the fact that I disagree with you.



In the same post. Your awesome.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> Donnie Darko is an okay sci-fi film that was butchered to allow pop psychology and film students to talk rubbish about it's meaning. That is what grates me. If Lynch had done the same thing with Mullholland drive etc then I would be saying the same thing. But none of those directors have. Those directors produce films with ambiguous meanings. They don't take a clear cut sci-fi film and mutilate so it's not possible to understand just from doing something as mundane as watching the film itself.



Actually Mulholland Drive stands up to an interpretation that makes perfect sense on a rational level, while Donnie Darko (at least in it's original cut) is ambiguous as to whether it is a science fiction story or one of a mental breakdown. I don't feel you actually have to know the science fiction subtext to enjoy the film, it's just there as a underlying structure that holds the thing together.




			
				Neva said:
			
		

> Your awesome.



At last we agree on something.


----------



## Neva (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Actually Mulholland Drive stands up to an interpretation that makes perfect sense on a rational level, while Donnie Darko (at least in it's original cut) is ambiguous as to whether it is a science fiction story or one of a mental breakdown. I don't feel you actually have to know the science fiction subtext to enjoy the film, it's just there as a underlying structure that holds the thing together.



I didn't have a problem with Donnie Darko until my friend went to a film class and everyone told her that her interpretation and criticism of the film wasn't valid because 'she hadn't read the website' and didn't get the, what was it now... 'Philosophy of Time Travel'? After that the more I read people talking about it on bulletin boards and the general sanctimonious tone they take when dismissing all criticism of it out of hand made me lose a lot of respect for the film and it's fans in general. 

Mulholland Drive's a different case I think because while your right to say that there is a rational explanation I'm sure it's not the sole one that can be obtained from the film and as such people can put their views across on it without being told that their views on a film which is supposed to be ambiguous are in some ways wrong. Plus it's got a hot lesbian scene or two which is really all I need to think a film's good.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> I didn't have a problem with Donnie Darko until my friend went to a film class and everyone told her that her interpretation and criticism of the film wasn't valid because 'she hadn't read the website' and didn't get the, what was it now... 'Philosophy of Time Travel'? After that the more I read people talking about it on bulletin boards and the general sanctimonious tone they take when dismissing all criticism of it out of hand made me lose a lot of respect for the film and it's fans in general.



Well those people sound like nitwits and I don't think it's worth having your opinions influenced by them. What I like about Donnie Darko is that it's a film that works on more than one level and while it can be fun to speculate about its mysteries, limiting yourself to only one possibility strikes me as rather boring. 

I generally try not to get too influenced by the opinions of others when it comes to films (or any kind of art or entertainment) as I like to reserve the right to enjoy something whether it is popular or not. I liked the film from the first time I saw it, when nobody knew about it and when it had flopped in the US due to poor marketing (they opened it on Halloween and sold it as a Final Destination style horror film). I'm not going to change my mind about it now just because its considered less cool to like it, due to acquiring a rabid fan base and the predictable backlash to follow.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Well those people sound like nitwits and I don't think it's worth having your opinions influenced by them.



Indeed, I've never understood how the actions of a fan can influence your enjoyment of some creative work.  If I like something I'll be damned if I'm having that changed by a few idiots acting like twats about it!


----------



## Neva (Jul 28, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Indeed, I've never understood how the actions of a fan can influence your enjoyment of some creative work.  If I like something I'll be damned if I'm having that changed by a few idiots acting like twats about it!



Normally I'd agree with you 100% but in this case I feel it's the nature of the film itself that causes it's fans to act and sound like idiots. Due to the way it was produced, which I've commentated on so much I feel like I'm stuck in a loop, it's basically designed to attract fools who love to wax lyrical on how clever and profound the philosophy of time travel and everything is when as has already been pointed out it's just taking ideas from old star trek episodes and then leaving out what you need to make sense of them. That's not the sign of a  good film in my eyes.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> Normally I'd agree with you 100% but in this case I feel it's the nature of the film itself that causes it's fans to act and sound like idiots. Due to the way it was produced, which I've commentated on so much I feel like I'm stuck in a loop, it's basically designed to attract fools who love to wax lyrical on how clever and profound the philosophy of time travel and everything is when as has already been pointed out it's just taking ideas from old star trek episodes and then leaving out what you need to make sense of them. That's not the sign of a  good film in my eyes.



If you reduce the film to its science fiction elements then you may as well be talking about an inept rip off like The Butterfly Effect, which is lacking anything Donnie Darko excells in, namely great characterisation and acting (Mary McDonnell's weary mother is a standout in a flawless cast), witty dialogue (which takes in a lot more than time travel) and a director who understands where to put a camera and how sound works in combination with images. It's all of this which makes it a good film, not the science fiction trappings or fan base you appear so hung up about.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 28, 2006)

It's simply rubbish.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> Normally I'd agree with you 100% but in this case I feel it's the nature of the film itself that causes it's fans to act and sound like idiots. Due to the way it was produced, which I've commentated on so much I feel like I'm stuck in a loop, it's basically designed to attract fools who love to wax lyrical on how clever and profound the philosophy of time travel and everything is when as has already been pointed out it's just taking ideas from old star trek episodes and then leaving out what you need to make sense of them. That's not the sign of a  good film in my eyes.



That just sounds like a clever way to slag off a whole group of people (many of whom you've never met). I can't see how the film was designed to invoke pretentious wankery in a segment of fandom. I reckon there's just segment of fanish idiots who are like that and seek out any film they can use to dress up their bollox as important.

The film is class, what a few idiots do with it is beyond control and so what? Don't let idiots spoil your enjoyment!


----------



## Neva (Jul 28, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> If you reduce the film to its science fiction elements then you may as well be talking about a horrendously inept rip off like The Butterfly Effect, which is lacking anything Donnie Darko excells in, namely great characterisation and acting (Mary McDonnell's weary mother is a standout in a flawless cast), witty dialogue (which takes in a lot more than time travel) and a director who understands where to put a camera and how sound works in combination with images. It's all of this which makes it a good film, not the science fiction trappings or fan base you appear so hung up about.



I think I'm turning into Donnie and I have to relive hearing the same posts again and again until a jet engine lands on my head  

I only give a toss about the fan base because of the way the film itself is designed to appeal to those sort of people. If the film was put together so the plot made sense just by watching the film then it wouldn't attract the myspace gang looking for 'meaning' and it would just be an alright film with good music, a couple of good actors and fairly nicely shot. Those are all good reasons to like a film and are entirely debatable, for example you found the dialogue witty and I found out untrue and full of smug musings that added nothing to the characters but that's fine because it's all about opinions. What I'm objecting to in Donnie Darko is something fundamental about the way the film was put together in an attempt to cash in on stupid people looking for meaning and getting hits on a website and by taking out what was needed for the plot to make sense they effectively tried to deflect all criticism of the film using the lame ‘you didn’t understand it’ argument. That’s as clear as I can make it really and I hope you see my point.


----------



## Neva (Jul 28, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> That just sounds like a clever way to slag off a whole group of people (many of whom you've never met). I can't see how the film was designed to invoke pretentious wankery in a segment of fandom. I reckon there's just segment of fanish idiots who are like that and seek out any film they can use to dress up their bollox as important.



Well I guess we're never going to agree then. To me it seems like the whole project from start to finish was designed to appeal to people like that. If you don't think that after what I've said then I'm cool with that. 




			
				Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> The film is class, what a few idiots do with it is beyond control and so what? Don't let idiots spoil your enjoyment!



I'll try  

As I said earlier I can't wait for his next film! Buffy, Stifler and The Rock together in one movie. How can that not being anything other than completley awesome?


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> I think I'm turning into Donnie and I have to relive hearing the same posts again and again until a jet engine lands on my head



I think you might find that you are the one who is repeating themselves.

Anyway, I'm bored with this now. Have you seen "Primer" ?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> Well I guess we're never going to agree then. To me it seems like the whole project from start to finish was designed to appeal to people like that. If you don't think that after what I've said then I'm cool with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Something I’ve been thinking about is why people are so focused on the “time travelling” element of the story when there is a lot else going on. I liked the film because it had an apparently mentally ill teenager trying to make sense of his illness, it had a nice satire of a part of American society, and it touched a chord regarding teachers and their relationship with students. I also thought the reluctant hero/martyr thing was played out quite nicely too…


----------



## Macabre (Jul 28, 2006)

Neva said:
			
		

> I only give a toss about the fan base because of the way the film itself is designed to appeal to those sort of people. If the film was put together so the plot made sense just by watching the film then it wouldn't attract the myspace gang looking for 'meaning' and it would just be an alright film with good music, a couple of good actors and fairly nicely shot. Those are all good reasons to like a film and are entirely debatable, for example you found the dialogue witty and I found out untrue and full of smug musings that added nothing to the characters but that's fine because it's all about opinions. What I'm objecting to in Donnie Darko is something fundamental about the way the film was put together in an attempt to cash in on stupid people looking for meaning and getting hits on a website and by taking out what was needed for the plot to make sense they effectively tried to deflect all criticism of the film using the lame ‘you didn’t understand it’ argument. That’s as clear as I can make it really and I hope you see my point.



I don't normally let a fan base detract from from someones work but I do agree with Neva's opinion here.  I also think the film was designed to create an in-the-know clique of people (mostly of the teenage emo varity IME) who could be bothered looking on t'internet for the websites to disect the film.  This then allows them to get into debates with people and let them play the trump card of 'you just don't understand the film because you havent read the websites' whenever someone doesnt agree with them.

Sort of the same as Tool fans except for a movie.


----------



## twister (Jul 28, 2006)

i thought the film was excellent... and I really can't be arsed to argue about anything about it... it's a film ffs.


----------



## muser (Jul 29, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> ...and I think that if you feel that middlebrow art house frauds like Amelie, Amores Perros or City of God are your yardstick for cinematic excellence then I'm not surprised you found it difficult to figure Donnie Darko out.
> 
> In the end what I like most about the film isn't its plot or that it is profound (which it isn't), but the fact that it is a surpremely confident piece of filmmaking. Kelly knows how to use sound and visuals in a way that is genuinely cinematic,  unlike some of the films mentioned above which are showy and choppy in a way only directors trained in advertising can come up with.



I haven't seen the other 2 but city of god is a masterpiece, you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## muser (Jul 29, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> If you reduce the film to its science fiction elements then you may as well be talking about an inept rip off like The Butterfly Effect, which is lacking anything Donnie Darko excells in, namely great characterisation and acting (Mary McDonnell's weary mother is a standout in a flawless cast), witty dialogue (which takes in a lot more than time travel) and a director who understands where to put a camera and how sound works in combination with images. It's all of this which makes it a good film, not the science fiction trappings or fan base you appear so hung up about.



You are taking the piss, the butterfly effect was another outstanding film. In trying to make your point you are denigrating good films. I've only ever seen the director's cut for butterfly effect, and not the original.


----------



## strung out (Jul 29, 2006)

i thought donnie darko was rubbish


----------



## Reno (Jul 29, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the other 2 but city of god is a masterpiece, you should be ashamed of yourself.



Watch Pixote by Hector Babenco or Los Olivdados by Luis Bunuel. Those actually are masterpieces on similar subject matter against which the superficial slickness of City of God stands no chance.




			
				muser said:
			
		

> You are taking the piss, the butterfly effect was another outstanding film. In trying to make your point you are denigrating good films. I've only ever seen the director's cut for butterfly effect, and not the original.



Butterfly Effect was one of the few films which I found so badly written, I left before it was over. I don't seem to be the only one who thought it was rubbish:

http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/butterfly_effect/

If you can't tell the quality of writing, acting and filmmaking between Donnie Darko and that piece of shit then any further discussion is really pointless.


----------



## muser (Jul 29, 2006)

I must have hit a nerve for you to be insulting me (or trying to in any case).
Rotten tomato will go for any film, that is it's agenda, hence the name of the website. After watching butterfly effect I looked up the science behind it all - choas theory which is still in its infancy. I bet those that watched donnie darko only went to the official website to get an explaination of the film. Is there mention on the official site about parallel universes and the theoretical science underpinning it, or time travel for that matter.
I haven't been to the site so I can't say for sure. I liked both these films but BE is far superior in its concept and acting (both supporting and main). Even ashton kuscher comes away will full marks and I really disliked him as an actor before this.


----------



## Reno (Jul 29, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> I must have hit a nerve for you to be insulting me (or trying to in any case).
> Rotten tomato will go for any film, that is it's agenda, hence the name of the website. After watching butterfly effect I looked up the science behind it all - choas theory which is still in its infancy. I bet those that watched donnie darko only went to the official website to get an explaination of the film. Is there mention on the official site about parallel universes and the theoretical science underpinning it, or time travel for that matter.
> I haven't been to the site so I can't say for sure. I liked both these films but BE is far superior in its concept and acting (both supporting and main). Even ashton kuscher comes away will full marks and I really disliked him as an actor before this.



I'm not insulting you, silly (now I did  ) I'm insulting a film. 

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't go after anything, it's a website that simply collects all US reviews of any film and calculates an average consensus.


----------



## muser (Jul 29, 2006)

originally posted by reno

If you can't tell the quality of writing, acting and filmmaking between Donnie Darko and that piece of shit then any further discussion is really pointless.

And there was me thinking it was a compliment. 
You just went to a website to comfirm that BE is rubbish, instead of making the argument yourself. Neva correctly indentified the types of people who liked DD, (my friend falls into this category) so I can confirm he is right.


----------



## Reno (Jul 29, 2006)

muser said:
			
		

> originally posted by reno
> 
> If you can't tell the quality of writing, acting and filmmaking between Donnie Darko and that piece of shit then any further discussion is really pointless.
> 
> ...



Whatever. Bored now...

Life is simply too short to discuss The Butterfly Effect. For me it's a film that fails in every department.


----------



## muser (Jul 29, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Whatever. Bored now...



You are you cohorts have been found out. Kids always get bored when waiting outside in the corridor before a good caneing.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 27, 2009)

digging up an old thread so i don't start a duplicate darko one 

watched it fully for the first time in *ages* yesterday, and it's still brilliant imho.
and in the h o of this man:
(the number one fan documentary) 
part one
part two



*wanders off singing 'donn-ie dark-o'*


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Apr 27, 2009)

it inspires the same sort of feelings inside me, for some reason, that (old) Skins does...i can't work out if i love it or loathe it...


----------



## pk (Apr 27, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Inspired by comments on the '50 Films...' thread, and by previous comments made by some about DD, what is it that really winds some people up about what I think is a pretty magical film that, were I 14-18 when I first saw it, would probably mean as much to me as Heathers?



I love that movie, but then I think the bit where the Tears For Fears "Head Over Heels" tune plays through that tracking shot introducing all the main characters is one of the finest pieces of cinema ever.

And the whole film reminds me of taking LSD.

Heathers was dull by comparison, IMO.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 27, 2009)

oooh i'm halfway through watching heathers atm 
dull by comparison, but explosive nontheless


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

I loved Heathers and DD.  Classic teen films with a bit of darkness.

Mean Girls also was some of the way there, but shied clear of full blown darkness...


----------



## pk (Apr 27, 2009)

tufty79 said:


> oooh i'm halfway through watching heathers atm
> dull by comparison, but explosive nontheless



It's good, but Darko it ain't.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 27, 2009)

aye.

ag.
i want the '28 days'etc. numbers tattoed on my left arm


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 27, 2009)

strung_out said:


> didn't really get it


 

Same as, and funnily enough I lent it to a friend recently and he didn't understand what all the fuss was about either


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

What about the theory that DD is a metaphor for jesus?

There was some post I read about this, saying that for instance, when he went to the double horror film bill at the cinema, one of the two was the Last Temptation of Christ, and he performs impossible acts, like getting an axe wedged in a metal statue, exposing the 'false prophet' paedophole swayze guy, sacrificing himself to save the girl, etc


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 27, 2009)

yup.. 
i was thinking about that last night, with those examples...
 there's something else in there that backs it up too. but i can't remember what it is 

one of my fave bits of dialogue (aside from "well i think you're the fucking antichrist":

Gretchen: Donnie Darko? What the hell kind of name is that? It's like some sort of superhero or something 
Donnie: What makes you think I'm not?

and what was jesus if not a *kind* of superhero? 


i want to do a donnie darko thesis


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 27, 2009)

Watched it for the first time at the weekend.

Didn't understand it at all, but enjoyed the ride.


----------



## The Groke (Apr 27, 2009)

I am really divided over the director's cut version.

On the plus side, it makes the story _slightly_ more coherent (well as coherent as it can be!).

On the huge negative side, it fucks up the sound track. How the _hell_ can the film not open with Killing Moon.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

The Groke said:


> I am really divided over the director's cut version.
> 
> On the plus side, it makes the story _slightly_ more coherent (well as coherent as it can be!).
> 
> On the huge negative side, it fucks up the sound track. How the _hell_ can the film not open with Killing Moon.



I'm not going anywhere near it.  The original cut was a near-perfect slice of cinema.  It's not like the LOTR films where it's obvious quite a lot was hacked off (the films were long enough in the cinema cuts) and the EEs just make so much more sense.

DD doesn't _need_ to make sense.  It's just


----------



## Ozric (Apr 27, 2009)

Well a lot of people from this thread won't be happy:

S. Darko........yup Donny Darko II


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> What about the theory that DD is a metaphor for jesus?
> 
> There was some post I read about this, saying that for instance, when he went to the double horror film bill at the cinema, one of the two was the Last Temptation of Christ, and he performs impossible acts, like getting an axe wedged in a metal statue, exposing the 'false prophet' paedophole swayze guy, sacrificing himself to save the girl, etc



A lot of films have a metaphorical Jesus in them, TBF.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 27, 2009)




----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

You said it, man.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 27, 2009)

me and raverdrew are making noises 
we're not sure whether they're good or bad ones, but they're mainly 'oooooooooo', 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa' and 'eeee'... 

the original samantha darko's resuming her role...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Ozric said:


> Well a lot of people from this thread won't be happy:
> 
> S. Darko........yup Donny Darko II


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 27, 2009)

I think donnie sarko is brilliant.  One of my favorite films!  I agree with the 'story of jesus' theory - how he sacrifices himself at the end to save everyone else.  

I'd like to watch the dvd with the audio commentry on it.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

I don't know why people wouldn't like it cause I love it.

Perhaps if it had more car chases and ninjas?

Or maybe the wabbit scares them too much.

Why was jesus wearing that silly human suit?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Nah, the haturz on here tend to be art-house snoots, rather than people who find it 'too weird'.

I think this is DD's great trick, though, to be a pretty accessible film whilst being thought-provoking and interesting (see also: Truman Show), something that doesn't happen that often.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Nah, the haturz on here tend to be art-house snoots, rather than people who find it 'too weird'.
> 
> I think this is DD's great trick, though, to be a pretty accessible film whilst being thought-provoking and interesting (see also: Truman Show), something that doesn't happen that often.


 
Who would have ever thunk that Jim Carey would do something as great as "The Truman Show" and Will Ferrel "Stranger than fiction".


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 27, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Nah, the haturz on here tend to be art-house snoots, rather than people who find it 'too weird'.
> 
> I think this is DD's great trick, though, to be a pretty accessible film whilst being thought-provoking and interesting (see also: Truman Show), something that doesn't happen that often.



Yeah good point that. I loved this film every time I've watched it. Haven't see it for a couple of years so it may be time...


----------



## Clair De Lune (Apr 27, 2009)

Neva said:


> This. This right here is what I was talking about earlier.
> 
> muser your exactly right imo. It's not possible to know any of the stuff Reno posted without resorting to doing homework on the film.



I disagree, me and some mates watched the film...admittedly we watched it twice in one weekend but we didn't need to go on the internet to figure it out we just discussed it amongst ourselves. On the second watch it made much more sense but we had grasped a lot of it and had theories the first time round.
I really enjoyed it anyway and might watch it again soon


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yeah good point that. I loved this film every time I've watched it. Haven't see it for a couple of years so it may be time...



What other films could we put into this 'accessible and mainstream but also interesting' bracket?  Fight Club perhaps...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yeah good point that. I loved this film every time I've watched it. Haven't see it for a couple of years so it may be time...



But yeah I've not watched it in a few years now.  Definitely may be time for a re-viewing


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> I think donnie sarko is brilliant.  One of my favorite films!  I agree with the 'story of jesus' theory - how he sacrifices himself at the end to save everyone else.



But that's bullshit. Because he dies, he doesn't set fire to Patrick Swayze's house so the evil paedophile gets away unpunished.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 27, 2009)

8den said:


> But that's bullshit. Because he dies, he doesn't set fire to Patrick Swayze's house so the evil paedophile gets away unpunished.



Ok fair do's, I never thought about that bit.  But he does die in order to save the girl he loves, even though by doing this she will never even know who he was.


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 27, 2009)

Oh I just looked up some theories on google.  One way to look at it would be this:

He won't burn down Patrick Swayze's house, so
he'll never be discovered as a pedophile.
If he isn't found to be a pedophile then the crazy
lady doesn't lose her belief system...


----------



## 8den (Apr 27, 2009)

tar1984 said:


> Oh I just looked up some theories on google.  One way to look at it would be this:
> 
> He won't burn down Patrick Swayze's house, so
> he'll never be discovered as a pedophile.
> ...



So on the one hand crazy lady keeps her belief system, on the other paedophile gets away with kiddy fiddling. 


Hardly the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 27, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> What other films could we put into this 'accessible and mainstream but also interesting' bracket?  Fight Club perhaps...



Yep Fight Club, I'd also say The Dark Knight for the topics it covers and wrestles with...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep Fight Club, I'd also say The Dark Knight for the topics it covers and wrestles with...



The Dark Knight was rubbish. 

Proper rubbish. There are not many films that make me want to fall asleep so much.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> The Dark Knight was rubbish.
> 
> Proper rubbish. There are not many films that make me want to fall asleep so much.


 
I disagree and the whole giving up your hapiness for the greater good theme made me proper  for batty.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> The Dark Knight was rubbish.
> 
> Proper rubbish. There are not many films that make me want to fall asleep so much.



We are now enemies, you and I.

May your knife chip and shatter.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> We are now enemies, you and I.
> 
> May your knife chip and shatter.


 
He IS the Swiss knife had-a-rash


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

I kept thinking "if that fucking shitehawk flips that coin one more time I am going to smash something"


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

Marius said:


> I disagree and the whole giving up your hapiness for the greater good theme made me proper  for batty.



Gosh, how _gripping._

*yawn*


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yep Fight Club, I'd also say The Dark Knight for the topics it covers and wrestles with...



True - this is true of a lot of Nolan's work actually.  I also loved the Prestige, seem to remember you being less keen 

I like the way he places really morally ambiguous characters in these pretty mainstream films, it's quite unlike most big releases in Hollywood.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> The Dark Knight was rubbish.
> 
> Proper rubbish. There are not many films that make me want to fall asleep so much.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

It was awful. How anybody could sit through that, I don't know. Proper awful.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

.


----------



## gnoriac (Apr 27, 2009)

Boring, pretentious and made for teens. The blue rabbit thing made me laugh though.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> It was awful. How anybody could sit through that, I don't know. Proper awful.



Bollocks.  It was a massive-scale, action thriller which also refused to take any easy get outs or toe the typical Hollywood line.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Bollocks.  It was a massive-scale, action thriller which also refused to take any easy get outs or toe the typical Hollywood line.



lol. 

Is all I have to say to that.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Well, thanks for your well-thought-out refutation of my point


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Well, thanks for your well-thought-out refutation of my point



There is not really much for me to say. It goes without saying that I disagree. 

I think it was a paint-by-numbers action thriller making an attempt at depth and ambiguity but failing miserably, resulting in it being tedious to the point of delirium. 

oh look, the man with two faces is flipping a coin, how _novel_.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> oh look, the man with two faces is flipping a coin, how _novel_.


 
He is Harvey Two-face you heathen. Thats what he does. Thats what he has always done.

It represents the duality of man and how he has given up his free will of chosing his morality and leaves it up to fate.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

Marius said:


> He is Harvey Two-face you heathen. Thats what he does. Thats what he has always done.
> 
> It represents the duality of man and how he has given up his free will of chosing his morality and leaves it up to fate.



_deep._


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

Next you'll be saying "That spiderman, why does he bother with those webs and climbing around like a spider, it annoyed me the way he felt like he had to act like a spider all the time".


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

No I won't.


----------



## internetstalker (Apr 27, 2009)

poului said:


> Because it's regularly cited by idiot critics as one of the greatest films ever made.
> 
> It isn't.



^^this

although a good film it's vastly overated


----------



## strung out (Apr 27, 2009)

i agree with dillinger4 to be honest. about everything.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

I thought the Dark Knight was really funny.

Actually, this is becoming a theme. I find most things really funny.

But the Dark Knight was funny, that coinflipppping was really hilarious, 'make your own fucking decisions you big bore!'

And the fact that the detective man looked like Ned Flanders. And there was some cheeso lines in it.

And Batman's voice! His VOICE!! Hahahaha.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger's come off my list of people I'll allow to live when I am King


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

I think Dillinger is being a bit mean tbf.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

.


----------



## Santino (Apr 27, 2009)

It's too late for that.


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 27, 2009)

have we finished talking about the dark knight yet?


----------



## scifisam (Apr 27, 2009)

I liked it. I also thought it was a time-travelling paradox film because, well, one of the main characters talks a lot about time-travelling paradoxes and the film ends with Donnie wiping out an alternate timeline. It _really_ wasn't necessary to look on the internet to find that out, and it's strange for anyone to claim that a viewer couldn't possibly have figured it out for themselves. 

Maybe the people who hate it just like more clear-cut endings.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

tufty79 said:


> have we finished talking about the dark knight yet?



Yes. We are done here.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 27, 2009)

This thread make me want to see both Donnie Darko and Heathers again.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 27, 2009)

Have you seen Mean Girls, AS?  That had a bit of Heathers feel, although it copped out with a cheesy ending


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 27, 2009)

Yeah, and it's one of the better teen movies I've seen, though agree the ending is a bit of a cop out. I also like Clueless  though it's not comparable in re: to the dark aspects of the others.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

Clueless is one of my favourite films ever.


----------



## strung out (Apr 27, 2009)

does anyone here like legally blonde?


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

no


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

I remember we watched Legally Blonde in my A Level politics class.

My teacher said it was educational, but it was obvious he only wanted to put it on because he really enjoyed it. He was a middle aged man who looked like Mr Bean. That was weird.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 27, 2009)

Legally blonde was awful. Though that's made me remember Cruel Intentions, which was class. 

Clueless was the only one of those teen movies based on old books that worked IMO (unless Dangerous Liaisons aka Cruel Intentions was a book before it was a film).


----------



## strung out (Apr 27, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> no



i predicted that response from dillinger4 but not you


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i predicted that response from dillinger4 but not you



Actually it's alright, but it's not Clueless or Mean Girls. Or Slap her She's French.


----------



## Augie March (Apr 27, 2009)

Ozric said:


> Well a lot of people from this thread won't be happy:
> 
> S. Darko........yup Donny Darko II





> Donnie Darko's writer and director, Richard Kelly, did not reprise his role as the director or writer of S. Darko. He stated "To set the record straight, here's a few facts I'd like to share with you all -- I haven't read this script. I have absolutely no involvement with this production, nor will I ever be involved."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Darko



It's going straight-to-DVD too...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

straight-to-DVD: the mark of quality.


----------



## Augie March (Apr 27, 2009)

Another mark of quality is that Elizabeth Berkley is in it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Apr 27, 2009)

Augie March said:


> Another mark of quality is that Elizabeth Berkley is in it.



From Showgirls?


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

Jesse!!!!


----------



## Augie March (Apr 27, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> From Showgirls?





electrogirl said:


> Jesse!!!!



That is literally her CV.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 27, 2009)

Yeah but what a fucking ace contrast. Jesse the feminist. And Nomi.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 27, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Yeah but what a fucking ace contrast. Jesse the feminist. And Nomi.



But will she fight time paradoxes injustices through nude dancing. 
Just she change her name by deedpoll to Donie Darko? 

How can you have a II when I is dead?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 27, 2009)

Marius said:


> How can you have a II when I is dead?



Parallel universe?


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 28, 2009)

Marius said:


> He IS the Swiss knife had-a-rash



That is possibly one of the best puns on Dune I've ever, _ever_ seen...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Yeah, and it's one of the better teen movies I've seen, though agree the ending is a bit of a cop out. I also like Clueless  though it's not comparable in re: to the dark aspects of the others.



Clueless is great, though, a brilliant piece of satire, sort of the US version of Ali G / Borat in a way, except that it wasn't done as a 'real life, fool the people' type thing...


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 28, 2009)

Clueless was a lightweight teen movie remake of something by a Bronté or an Austen (can't remember which) and contained no darkness or Ali G-ness whatsoever...think you're thinking of another film RD...


----------



## internetstalker (Apr 28, 2009)

Dillinger4 said:


> The Dark Knight was rubbish.
> 
> Proper rubbish. There are not many films that make me want to fall asleep so much.



any film critic credentials you may of had, just dis the fuck apeared


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

No I'm not, it was a superb satire of American teens.  It was definitely not meant straight-up, it was clearly mocking the behaviour of affluent middle american teenagers.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> any film critic credentials you may of had, just dis the fuck apeared


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> (unless Dangerous Liaisons aka Cruel Intentions was a book before it was a film).



Twas an eighteenth-century novel Les Liaisons dangereuses, by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, more famously done as a play for years before any of the films (there were two Dangerous Liaisons out at the same time, the famous one and one by Miloš Forman called Valmont, and had at least one french version before that)


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> No I'm not, it was a superb satire of American teens.  It was definitely not meant straight-up, it was clearly mocking the behaviour of affluent middle american teenagers.



It's a 'retelling' of Austen's _Emma_, set in LA. It's a send up for sure, but satire? I don't think so...


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 28, 2009)

belboid said:


> Twas an eighteenth-century novel Les Liaisons dangereuses, by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, more famously done as a play for years before any of the films (there were two Dangerous Liaisons out at the same time, the famous one and one by Miloš Forman called Valmont, and had at least one french version before that)



Stephen Frears did the Glenn Close/John Malkovich version...personally I preferred Cruel Intentions, if only for the Blair/Gellar snog...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> It's a 'retelling' of Austen's _Emma_, set in LA. It's a send up for sure, but satire? I don't think so...



Hmm, I thought it was, and I watched it quite recently...


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 28, 2009)

8den said:


> So on the one hand crazy lady keeps her belief system, on the other paedophile gets away with kiddy fiddling.
> 
> 
> Hardly the lesser of two evils.



Yeah I know.  It's tricky.  The thing with this film is that it's open to interpretation in so many ways, it's tricky to come up with a definitive answer as to what it's all about.

You do see the peado character crying at the end. 

I really need to watch the Directors cut with the audio commentry.  

What's your theory 8den?  If you don't mind me asking.


----------



## belboid (Apr 28, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Stephen Frears did the Glenn Close/John Malkovich version...personally I preferred Cruel Intentions, if only for the Blair/Gellar snog...



tssk, I knew you'd say that!

Frears is a bloody genius tho, probably the best British director since Michael Powell, his versin is so much more biting and bitter thhan all of the others combined (CI is very good tho)

And his version has Uma Thurmans boobs.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 28, 2009)

What can I say - Buffy never snogged a girl  (and for me that's who SMG will _always_ be)

Uma's boobs...not so great AIR *waits flaming*


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

I've still not seen Cruel Intentions...


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> I've still not seen Cruel Intentions...



Great film.  

You must.


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 28, 2009)

Cruel Intentions isn't actually that good. The saliva string bit is good if you're a 14yr old boy I guess.

Clueless was a smart teenage comedy. I never thought it was satire tbh.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> Cruel Intentions isn't actually that good. The saliva string bit is good if you're a 14yr old boy I guess.
> 
> Clueless was a smart teenage comedy. I never thought it was satire tbh.



Oh come on, the bit where the two girls walk along chatting to each other on their mobiles...


----------



## electrogirl (Apr 28, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Oh come on, the bit where the two girls walk along chatting to each other on their mobiles...



There's a difference between gentle mocking for comedic effect and satire.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 28, 2009)

belboid said:


> Twas an eighteenth-century novel Les Liaisons dangereuses, by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, more famously done as a play for years before any of the films (there were two Dangerous Liaisons out at the same time, the famous one and one by Miloš Forman called Valmont, and had at least one french version before that)


Thanks for the info. I know feel well stupid not realising it was definitely a book first. 



kyser_soze said:


> It's a 'retelling' of Austen's _Emma_, set in LA. It's a send up for sure, but satire? I don't think so...



Well, Austin in general is satirical. Emma is perhaps not the most satirical of her books, and Clueless has perhaps lost something a bit more, but I think there are certainly satirical elements.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

electrogirl said:


> There's a difference between gentle mocking for comedic effect and satire.



I guess.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 28, 2009)

Here's a quadruple bill and a half:

Clueless - Mean Girls - Heathers - Donnie Darko.

Great film progression.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 29, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Thanks for the info. I know feel well stupid not realising it was definitely a book first.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Austin in general is satirical. Emma is perhaps not the most satirical of her books, and Clueless has perhaps lost something a bit more, but I think there are certainly satirical elements.



Sparra!! What's going on??

'I know feel...' and 'Austin'? Is your PHD causing your brain to leak out?!?!


----------



## tar1984 (Apr 29, 2009)

Clueless is ace.  Cruel intentions is pretty good too, but the sequel is utter shite!!!


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 29, 2009)

RenegadeDog said:


> Here's a quindruple bill and a half:
> 
> Clueless - Mean Girls - Heathers - Donnie Darko- Dark Knight




corrected


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 29, 2009)

ruffneck23 said:


> corrected



I think Unbreakable and either one of the Nolan Batfilms would be an awesome double bill.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 29, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Sparra!! What's going on??
> 
> 'I know feel...' and 'Austin'? Is your PHD causing your brain to leak out?!?!



Yes. 

No, I've always been bad at typing the wrong word/making stupid spelling mistakes when I know how the thing is really spelt.  That's why I have to proof read assignments about 5 times to check I'm not submitting anything like that (and usually miss something )

If I write when I'm listening to music, I've been known to start typing the occasional lyric without noticing.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 29, 2009)

Agent Sparrow said:


> If I write when I'm listening to music, I've been known to start typing the occasional lyric without noticing.



And so I can draw from my research that the conclusion is....Saturday night and the air is getting hot, pretty baby.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 29, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> And so I can draw from my research that the conclusion is....Saturday night and the air is getting hot, pretty baby.



It's more a word or two rather than the whole line. And not bloody Wigfield either!


----------



## pk (Apr 30, 2009)

Cruel Intentions would be better without Buffy in it. She looks permanently 12 and can't act for shit. Not sexy.


----------



## Boycey (Apr 30, 2009)

fuckass


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 30, 2009)

you can go suck a fuck


----------



## tufty79 (Apr 30, 2009)

and as for faeces.. they're baby mice aren't they? 

aaaaaaaaag i want to watch the director's cut now


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 30, 2009)

pk said:


> Cruel Intentions would be better without Buffy in it. She looks permanently 12 and can't act for shit. Not sexy.



you basically just called 1000's of fanboys nonces


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 30, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> And so I can draw from my research that the conclusion is....Saturday night and the air is getting hot, pretty baby.



You utter cunt, that's now stuck on my IJ


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 30, 2009)

I don't understand - what was so cuntish about PO's post? 

(He is still on my blacklist due to his music taste, of course)


----------



## strung out (Apr 30, 2009)

because it got whigfield stuck on kyser's internal jukebox


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Apr 30, 2009)

Ah right


----------

