|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jun 13, 2005 19:36:44 GMT -5
Finished watching the Director's cut Again. Spoilers for those here who have not seen itI did get it - I didn't get it That seems to be everyones comments on the actual plot. To me, the movie was about time travel or time portal. A story of a teen who sees, or is told what events will occur & what role he should play in these events. After a plane engine crashes into Donnie's room, he is not there, but the ending suggests he should have been in the room. The time travel/portal plot in the film through me off. Was everything reality? What wasn't real & what was? So I guess I don't get it even though I still have a vivid memory of every scene in the film. How did you guys interpet the plot? I'd have to watch it again. But as I recall, I really enjoyed the rampant weirdness--and love the realization that it was in fact a time travel/portal/alternate dimension film. Very good use of the subject. Best use of time travel since Back to the Future, I would say. |
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel on Aug 11, 2005 12:23:13 GMT -5
When I say get it, I don't mean get it, in a condescending way. I mean 'get it' in sense of it meaning something to you personally. My thoughts on the film and what actually happens etc may differ greatly from someone else's but that doesn't mean we both don't get it. That make sense?
And to me the film is basically Donnie, worm holes overlapping each other, him seeing into the future, and yes his world will end in 28 days, but he has a choice. He experiances love, loss, he unearths a kiddie porn ring etc etc etc. But at the end, he knows it must end, one way or another in that, if he lives, his sister, his mother, Frank, Gretchen and a whole lot of others will die. Or he can die. Knowing that he has experianced these things and is saving them. Thus why when he goes to bed that night, he smiles. He accepts. I think thats what I get. But ask me tomorrow and it may differ lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Aug 11, 2005 13:59:24 GMT -5
Finally saw Donnie. A weird and nicely unclear film that surely IS a classic already. I, however, can't say I am the member of this cult. The film creeped me, made me think, entertained me - but it lacked an X-factor to embrace me completely. And only then do I join cults.
Great turns from most of the actors there, though - all hail Patrick Swayze!
|
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix on Apr 12, 2006 12:59:56 GMT -5
Checked out this film again and then Googled my way to the explanation for what the hell it really is about.
Here you go, from the director/writers' mouth:
Richard Kelly has made his own thoughts clear through the audio commentaries on the two DVDs, the included Philosophy of Time Travel, and in various interviews. His intended plot is as follows: At midnight a tangent universe spins off of the Primary Universe, signified by the appearance of an Artifact; here represented by a jet engine. Tangent Universes are inherently unstable and will collapse in less than a month, taking the Primary Universe with it, if not closed off. Closing the Tangent Universe is the duty of the Living Receiver (Donnie), given super powers to perform this task. Those who die within the Tangent Universe are the Manipulated Dead (Frank and, according to the back of the book, Gretchen) who are also given certain powers, understanding of what is going on, and the ability to contact the Living Receiver via the Fourth Dimensional Construct (water). Everyone else in the orbit of the Living Receiver are the Manipulated Living, who are subconsciously drawn to push and prod the Living Receiver towards his destiny, closing the Tangent Universe and, apparently, dying by the Artifact. Since the Manipulated Dead Frank-rabbit appears before the Tangent Universe is created, and before he himself is assumed to be created when Frank is shot by Donnie, it follows that this Manipulated Dead Frank-rabbit could not have come from the Frank seen in the movie, but the Frank, shot by Donnie, in an unseen previous Tangent Universe. Ultimately, Donnie Darko is about Donnie's first successful quest in ending the temporal paradox cycle or "time-loop" which he is caught in (not unlike Bill Murray in the movie "Groundhog Day".)
The movie continues to come up in conversations I have - with new people who just watched it. Therefore, I say "yes, cult classic." Even though I still didn't like it that much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Apr 19, 2006 13:27:48 GMT -5
That complicated explanation makes me love it more.
Like Stanley Kubrick said, "If they understand it, we failed."
|
|
|
|
Post by knightofcydonia on Oct 4, 2006 8:46:22 GMT -5
I'd say cult classic now. The film has enough interest now to verify that status and i believe it will be spoke about for some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on Oct 4, 2006 17:53:40 GMT -5
Cult classic? Excuse me? This is one of my favorite films of all time!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Oct 11, 2006 4:15:01 GMT -5
Can you please give us reasons why, frank? Not that I'm arguing it's no good but it'd be nice to know why it appealed to you so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on Oct 11, 2006 17:21:54 GMT -5
Well, I think Richard Kelly put a great amount of care in this story. Everything is well thought out and original. I loved the characters and there was a lot of charisma between everybody. It's also such a unique movie too. It's like a black comedy, sci-fi, and thriller all crammed into one movie. It's also a movie that makes you think. I love movies that makes you think. It also forces you into watching it multiple times. Everytime you see it, you see something you didn't see before. And come on, who doesn't love this line of dialogue:
"I think we should buy Donnie a moped."
"I think we should get a divorce."
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Oct 17, 2006 14:55:15 GMT -5
Alrighty, good. Sounds convincing. I only saw Donnie once - perhaps after several more viewings I'll join the cult -- who knows?
|
|
