• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

'Donnie Darko' to be re-released

Negative said:
I'll give you a reason. I didn't like how the story was told. It felt like, and again this is just my opinion, but it felt like this movie was wierd to be wierd. And for me, in a bad way. I like strangeness, its just that this movie didn't vibe with me.
Click to expand...

As long as you have a reason as to why you didn't like it, no skin off my back. I just can't stand when people come into a thread and throw in ridiculous one liners with nothing to back them up. I can see how you felt the movie was weird to be weird.... you should read the book, theres an 80 or so page interview with Richard Kelly that really explains a lot...
 
hmm, this is a good thing, i guess. i'm pumped to see more of the film, but it's a bit sad 'cause i'll just have to go out and buy the dvd again, too. however, i'd rather have the "real" film :)
 
petersko and funkyalfonzo: not really.

kelly never intended to make an in-depth philosophical film. rather, he was attracted to the comic book fun and fantastical nature of the story, and thought of it as a "superhero" film.

the fact that it contains some reasonably interesting and thought-provoking content is an added bonus, and was never meant to be the focus of the film :)

basically, i can see exactly where you're coming from, but for it to be "masquerading" its intention needs to be to fool the audience in some way, which kelly never intended -nor attempted- to do. there are plenty of examples of exactly what you're talking about coming from hollywood, but this ain't one of them!
 
basically, i can see exactly where you're coming from, but for it to be "masquerading" its intention needs to be to fool the audience in some way, which kelly never intended -nor attempted- to do.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it was intentional. The whole "cellar door" thing, for instance, is a good example. It means nothing, but people search for anything that can be tied to it, reasoning that it must mean something. There's no reason for that speech.

In the end, the only explanation for it, perhaps, is that it is horribly blunt and hamhanded foreshadowing for the actual cellar door later in the movie. If so, it's work unworthy of a High School English student. Edgar Allen Poe, the great hack who likes cellar doors, would be appalled.

There were some kickass moments in this movie. No question. But lots of people think it's this amazingly deep creation that illuminates something about time travel - and it isn't. But it plays well to people who think they're smarter than average, stroking egos very effectively.
 
IIRC (and it's been a while since I've seen it), the whole "cellar door" thing wasn't just foreshadowing, it was actually the reason that Donnie went down there (although I could be wrong about that).

Also, the fact that people think it's "amazingly deep" when it isn't kind of annoys me too, but it doesn't make me like the film any less. It never came across to me as trying to be intellectual or philosophical, just complicated plot-wise, which made it fun to figure out. Oh well, to each his own.
 
Yeah I'm glad that more ppl will get to see this movie, I loved it even tho I still don't fully understand the whole thing. Its different, and entertaining!
 
^^ In the Donnie Darko book, Richard Kelly explains that your not supposed to understand the film as a whole. He made it initially as a conversation piece. He wasn't trying to make any immense philisophical points or state that he figured out the conundrum that is time travel. Like spaced said, the movie was very complicated plot wise, it makes you think, most movies don't do that any more, that is why it was such a great film. After I initially saw this movie, I thought about it constantly and kept on trying to figure the whole thing out, but thats the catch, you CANNOT figure it out and anyone that says they have is full of shit.
 
I thought about it constantly and kept on trying to figure the whole thing out, but thats the catch, you CANNOT figure it out and anyone that says they have is full of shit.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Obscurity masquerading as depth.

People think it's deep - but it's really just incomplete enough to appear deep.
 
I don't see it as incomplete, it was meant to be like that. Also, the concept of the film does acknowledge some pretty deep concepts and ideas, however, it is not meant to provide any philisophical answers to questions raised about these concepts. I.E. time travel and divine intervention. These are concepts that are simply inexplicable by human logic, but Kelly provided a very new and refreshing take on them both. I don't believe Kelly was trying to fool the audience in any way or make the movie seem like something its not, he just wanted to get the audience thinking.
 
I didn't like the cellar door stuff, or the time travel parts, BUT i love the movie. What I love about it more has to do with the way the characters interact, both the younger ones that taunt each other or get along, and the parents when you are able to get a glimpse into a family and see how things run behind the scenes and to understand where they are coming from. I like how this family looks like an American Beauty one at first, but then you realize they really do care about each other, etc. The human interaction in the movie is interesting, and I like seeing the pieces of that become part of the story. :)
 
Petersko said:
Lovely. 20 more minutes of obscurity masquerading as depth.
Click to expand...

No doubt... wow, they've added a whole 20 minutes to the film, so we've got to go see it again!

Fuck that, I'll watch it again on DVD (borrowed from someone else, because I refuse to purchase more than one copy of the same movie).

It amazes me what people will do for money.
 
I rented the dvd last nite. I thought it was a really good film, unique and thought provoking to say the least.

I don't see the re-release and a ploy just for more money. On the deleted scenes the director defenitly states that he was forced to cut some scenes that would have made the movie more fulfilling. The deleted scenes included a talk with his father, a poem donnie read in 'peotry day" about frank, and a couple scenes that would have further explained his relationship with gretchen...So the extra 20mins will def. make the film more clear and go more in depth into donnies emotional problems, and his relationship with his father and with gretchen.
 
I think it will make the film more fulfilling.. as into adding clarity to the film, i think that's something the wish to avoid.
 
alasdairm said:
it amazes me how resolutely some people refuse to be entertained
Click to expand...

C'mon man... I'm all for being entertained... but it's going to take A LOT more than an extra 20 minutes and some changes in the soundtrack to do it.
 
^ that wasn't aimed specifically at you - it was more of a segue to a more general comment.

on topic, you're critical of this rerelease as a purely commercial move yet you laud 'school of rock'.

don't get me wrong, i enjoyed that too but it's transparently a commercial vehicle for it-boy jack black. it's hard not to see a mixed message there?

alasdair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top