Reader comments about Donnie Darko

camball (Email address withheld) writes:

this film failed to make an impact in the states and boy did they miss out. this guy makes david lynch look ordinary. richard kelly manages to tell a great tale with a toe tapping soundtrack, combined with horror, humour and thought provoking storytelling that willleave you begging to watch it again. i caught this film at a london festival and loved every second. it has now found its home on dvd and deservedly so. enjoy

---

McTavish (alistair@fulhampalace.fsnet.co.uk) writes:

I caught this one last night and whichever way you look at it, this is a satisfying cinema experience. Take it at surface level and it's clearly an above-average teen flick with a twist in the tail. Dig a little deeper and find the religious allegory. Then follow the trail of coincidences back like the director's recurrent vortex allusion. Kelly pays real attention to detail (a shame you didn't leave your e-mail CAMBALL: if you freezeframe your DVD, I'd love to know what the other stories are on the front page of the two newspapers featured in the film). One to watch again as there's several ways to read it. One I haven't heard discussed (maybe because it's a bit of a cop-out) is that it's using the format of the wrap-up scenes in Jacob's Ladder (Adrian Lyne 1990) [don't want to give the ending away to those that haven't seen it yet].

It's makes you think anyway, and that's got to be worth the ticket price.

---

willz (Email address withheld) writes:

I saw this film and only had expectations from a short review, needless to say the review didn't do the film justice. I loved the film and jena malone but spent the whole night trying to understand the end. I went to see it again and I still don't understand. If it was a time cycle how come he died at the end. Or maybe the film only shows half of the cycle. I don't know but I'll certainly get the dvd when it comes out in britain

---

Solangej (Email address withheld) writes:

I thought it was jsut fabulous, but what I'd really like to know is when is the Region 2 DVD set for release - does anybody know?

Thanks

---

Jamiella (Madra7of9@aol.com) writes:

In response to "Willz", I think I may be able to offer an explanation (or else I'm just horribly wrong on this, but hey, that's what's so great about Donnie Darko: the answers aren't served to us on a golden platter)

If you notice at the very end, the beautiful "Mad World" song plays and the camera pans over all the characters. As the song goes, "And I find it kind of funny/I find it kind of sad/the dreams in which I'm dying/are the best I've ever had." All the characters are shot in their beds, some of them sweating, some of them troubled, as though they had just woken up from some terrible dream. So, what if the entire movie that the audience just witnessed was offered as a dream that all of these characters had? And not *just* a dream, but maybe a view into the future; maybe it's a dream about an ocurrence that never really occurred. If this happened, then perhaps some of the events that had taken place later in the story would have never happened at all. The science teacher (can't remember his name- he gave Donnie the book) talked about how if we could "see" into our lifelines- the little liquid spears Donnie talked about- we would be given a choice to change it. All these characters were able to "see" their lifelines through Donnie's actions that happened in that month, and thus able to change it in the month that only occurred in their dreams.

Of course, this is just my own little theory, and I doubt it's anywhere close to what Kelly intended. E-mail me if anyone else wants to discuss this; I'm always in the mood for a good debate.

---

Alicia Anderson (meme_989@hotmail.com) writes:

i loved this movie, it may not have made a huge impact in the states, but i live there. it made a huge impact on myself and a friend, well, the movie and soundtrack made an impact on me, and it was just the song "mad world" that made an impact on her. this movie made me think about alot of things in life, especially the end. like when gretchen says maybe you can go back and make all of those bad images beautiful ones(not sure if thats exactly what she said) but i really thought about that and in my life alot of horrible things have happened. im alot like donnie, accept for being a girl and i dont see a demonic bunny. but i hallucenate a lot. iv seen a shrink, but not on meds. so i can really relate to this movie. i think that everyone sould watch it, it made me understand alot more things i guess, and im sure it could help alot od other people also. also kids, theres alot in there, so i wouldnt recomend watching with your parents. hehe. this is what i would call great film- making and great acting.

---

Shawn Patrick (polyestar@hotmail.com) writes:

Donnie Darko is the best movie ever.

It fits into so many different genres like drama, comedy and science fiction, so it is a good movie for almost any mood. I wonder where the video stores will put it when it is no longer a new release.

I have seen it seven times and every time I watch it, it makes so much more sense.

"What are feces?"

"Baby mice."

"Awww!"

---

Gelatinous (gelatinous@hotmail.com) writes:

Just a note in response to a couple of the review posted above: this film was released in the United States in October 2001. I think most of us were a little preoccupied at the time, and probably didn't have a big interest in seeing a film where someone is almost killed by AIRPLANE debris falling from the sky....

That said, I thoroughly enjoyed this film (it is January 13th, 2003), but there is no way I could have sat through this or enjoyed it only a month and a half after September 11th (not to mention the place crash in a neighborhood in Queens, New York in early November of that year).

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

well, i did a bit of research, and as far as 'explanations' go - if they indeed go anywhere, this seems to be the most complicated, ridiculous and therefore best one: the construct of the fourth dimension of time is made of something similar to water - which can only be penetrated by metal. i.e. we have our jet engine - let's call this the 'artefact'. this has penetrated the fabric of the fourth dimension, creating an alternate reality, where our story is set. however, alternate realities are unstable and will eventually collapse, bringing an end to everything. the end of the world. donnie is the 'living receiver' - we don't know why he is chosen, he just is. divine influence. plus, 'living receivers' tend to be people with abnormal powers, powers which have manefested themselves like schizophrenia in donnie. anyway, it is the job of the living receiver to guide the artefact backwards through time, closing the door on alternate reality, and allowing time to flow normally. he is assisted in his task by the 'manipulated' - those donnie comes in canotact with. there are the 'manipulated living' - i.e. the people living alongside donnie in the tangent universe, who respond to the 'living receiver' with fear and sceptism, but who nonetheless are pivotal in returning the artefact. the second group of 'manipulated' people are the 'manipulated dead' - these are people in contact with the living receiver who die in the tangent universe. the 'manipulated dead' possess great powers, greater than those of the living receiver, and can move back and forth through time within the tangent universe, and act as guides to the living receiver, influencing their actions. this is where our big rabbit comes from. when he is killed by donnie at the 'end' of the film, he becomes donnie's guide and can travel back and forth. the reason the rabbit removes donnie from his house at the beginning is that is donnie dies, the artefact cannot be returned and the universe will be destroyed. so, donnie's life is saved, and the events that follow allow donnie to realise his significance and the strange powers he has over the construct of the fourth dimension, allowing him in turn, to send the artefact back through the vortex, back into the primary universe, allowing time to continue as normal. this does mean, however, that donnie must die. there is no giant rabbit to save him this time. donnie, however, when he wakes on that morning back in the primary universe, can remember everything that has happened, as if it were a dream. but he knows what he must do, he knows his significance, he knows if time is to continue as it should, he must die. as he said himself, "there will be so much to look forward to". as for roberta sparrow, she is a very clever scientist who prophesised these events in her book, 'the philosophy of time travel' - allowing donnie to realise what he must do. roberta sparrow, and the teacher played by noah wyle who gives donnie the book, are the two most vital members of the 'manipulated living'. the sequence at the end, featuring the brilliant 'mad world', sees the 'manipulated' waking from a particularly restless night's sleep. some can remember it, and some can't. those who can remember it only as a dream, but the feeling of 'a job well done' remains, even if they don't know what they have been party to. this is why donnie's mother and girlfriend seem to recognise each other in the final sequence. the tangent universe is now closed. time is reversed. the primary universe is stable. and donnie, the living receiver, is dead. and the film goes off.

best film i have EVER seen - and i don't often use capitals, so you can see it's heartfelt.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

or then again, it may just be a witty, satirical take on the run up to the 1988 presedential elections.

---

superman (kichun511@hotmail.com) writes:

i just saw this movie, i thought it was great. but hardly understood it (the ending that is)... thanks hawksley for the explanation. ur explanation makes the movie 10X better.

i wouldn't say the best film, but its up there in my list.

---

Robert (robdude17@hotmail.com) writes:

I also appreciated hawksley's input but had some questions like why did Donnie let himself be killed and how did everything go back to normal in the end. His ever-so-thorough and satisfying response is as follows:

"hey, alrite?

thanks for your email, you make me feel like i'm some kind of expert! easiest questions first...yes, donnie did shoot the rabbit (frank) in the eye, and as for roberta sparrow - she wrote 'the philosphy of time travel' as a guide in time of great peril (she hoped it would just end up being a work of fiction), advising the living receiver to contact her as soon as possible - this is why she checks her mail.

the harder questions (grrr). err. um. well. i fear i explained rather badly on the website, so i'll give it another go. the film starts on October 2. the jet engine comes from October 31 - being metal, it has passed through a rare rupture in the fabric of the fouth dimensaion (time), and has been sent BACK in time to October 2, where it crashes into donnie's room. this creates a tangent universe - an alternate reality, since this event did not take place on the October 2 where the engine came from. tangent universes, like these, are unstable. in about 28 days, the tangent universe would collpase causing a black hole in the primary universe, destroying everything. furthermore, the rift or wormhole in the fabric of the fourth dimension, since it has been pentrated is no longer a portal between times, but a portal between the primary and tangent universes.

donnie, as the living receiver, is helped by the manipulated living and the manipulated dead in stopping the destruction. for example, his english teacher mentioning the phrase "cellar door", telling him in effect where to go on the final night of his existence, where he and gretchen are attacked, leading to him shooting frank. and his science teacher, of course, gives him roberta sparrow's book - these people are the manipulated living. frank the rabbit is the manipulated dead - he removes donnie from his house at the beginning, and then incites donnie into causing havok, such as burning down jim cunningham's house, which subsequently uncovers a kiddie porn dungeon, which subsequently means kitty has to go to his aid, which subsequently means donnie's mother has to take sparkle motion on the trip, leaving the house empty for the party and the rest of the carefully planned scenarios that will lead donnie into position to save

the world.

this is all basically an ensurance trap set by frank to force donnie to commence time travel. the airplane that flew on October 31 in the primary universe, of course, exists in the tangent universe (with, coincidentally, donnie's mother and sister on board), and will fly again. donnie has been led to understand his gift, and has been led into his final position in the tangent universe, on the hillside. this is the bit that is unbelievably hard to explain, and i'm not sure i fully understand it myself. the artifact, basically, has to be returned to October 2 in the primary universe. as i said before, the tangent universe exists because the jet engine did not crash into donnie's room in the original primary universe. so, i assume donnie uses his powers to see that the engine from the same plane in the tangent universe is sent through the portal between the universes to october 2 in the primary universe - in effect, stabilising the system. this reverses time, deleting the events of the 28 days of the tangent universe - because donnie doesn't exist to carry them out. he musn't exist. he knows if he exists then frank (his sisters boyfriend and part-time superhuman rabbit-man) and gretchen will die. so, we are back on october 2, in what is now the primary universe, and donnie dies - preventing the unstable tangent.

this does beg the question, why? donnie is a schizophrenic scared of dying alone - maybe this is all god's way of showing donnie that he is NOT alone. the spears of destiny coming out of people's chests, donnie's conversation with his science teacher about following 'god's path' - maybe this has all been gods way of reassuring donnie, making im unafraid of his iminent death, making him know for sure that there will be 'so much to look forward to' after death. maybe it was god who opened the portal and created the tangent universe, giving him the 28 days he needed to convince donnie that he is not alone. as donnie utters as he is led from the cellar door with a knife to his neck - "deus ex machina" - a latin phrase refering to an nexpected character (usually divine in nature) who is suddenly introduced into a work of fiction to resolve a plot or extricate the protagonist from a difficult situation. maybe this refers to frank, acting on the will of god.

in the end, as i said on the website, we see the manipulated - who have a vague recollection of the events, as if it were a dream. we see jim cunningham crying, because he 'dreamed' he was caught - making him realise what he is, a paedophile. we see kitty in tears for the same reason. we see chirita chen, the asian girl, smiling because she 'dreamed' donnie told her everything was going to be ok. and we see frank, with his recently completed sketches of a hypothetical bunny costume for halloween, contemplating the most disturbing night's sleep he's ever had.

i hope this goes some way to making it clearer :) i've heard that on the dvd the director, richard kelly, explains all this better than i ever could...but, alas, its not out in the uk yet :(

thanks for e-mailing me

oh, and i HAVE seen 'mulholland drive'....please don't get me started on that one, my brain hurts!"

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

gosh, i'm famous :) people are quoting me already. Cashback!

---

Vinci (Email address withheld) writes:

Wow...I know people have said this to you before but thank you very much for hawksley's explanation. I live in the UK and have seen the movie only 2 days ago (today 'tis 25th Jan 2003). The film is not publicised much at all in the UK but friends at work were extremely enthusiatic about it. I walked out of the cinema at 23:45. cycling(he cycled both at the beginning and the end of the film...similar time of the day to me as well...) for 40mins back home along VERY quiet roads and lanes with very few street lamps was a frightening experience...I know this sounded stupid but I thought I will see Frank in the middle of the road under the very low moon that night...And 'I don't want to be alone' thing...I think majority of people out there, deep down inside their hearts could identify with that...The film touches some very deep corners of our existence, many questions and is certainly the most invokative film I have seen this year.

---

Ray (Email address withheld) writes:

I don't know about the 4th dimension explanation. I just saw it as this: Donnie had the power to see into the future. He saw that the plane his mom and sister was on was going to crash. If he died, they wouldn't have traveled to that competition. He was basically sacrificing himself to save his family.

---

Todd (Email address withheld) writes:

Great discussion on the movie. I saw it for the first time tonight on cable, and proceeded to watch it again later in the night. Brilliant.

Something I noticed: What's with the fat guy in the jogging suit smoking cigarettes? He's seen once when Donnie and Gretchen attempt to kiss the first time -- then again at the beginning of the party on the front lawn (I noticed this later..) Has anyone else seen this?

---

(Email address withheld) writes:

I've been told the 'fat man' is a CIA agent who is watching Donnie... supposedly as they are trying to cover up the jet engine incident.

---

J 0 r d a n Hiller (jordan_likes_fishing@hotmail.com) writes:

i think that this was the worst 2 hours of my life. And I most sincerly pity those who view it as an example of cinematic brilliance. The plot was non-existent, donnie was a dork and generally the only thing saving me from walking out of my girlfriends sisters room was the fact that i was being sat upon.

Thankyou

Ps ( i despise donnie dorko )

any like minded sane individuals living in the third dimension can respond electronically

---

Jerome Stepp (jeromestepp@hotpop.com) writes:

I saw Donnie Darko after a friend and co-worker recommended it. All I can say is "wow"! Its one of the most well done movies I have ever seen. It is creepy but still manages to be inspirational. Frank (even in that cheesy bunny suit) was extremely creepy in the movie theatre scene.

Donnie himself was lovable, but at times his mental state was frightening. When he was testing the fourth dimension with the knife (pounding on the glass with a huge knife and a demented expression on his face while that demon look-alike Frank stood behind him in approval) he was downright scary.

My point is: This is a great film. I am saddened that it didn't make it big in the USA but at the same time I don't think that much of the mainstream crowd will get it. Which makes me like it more.

---

Corey (Munizgrl18@yahoo.com) writes:

This movie has its own personality. it's phenominal and breath taking i am just sad i missed it when it went into theaters. props to Jake Gyllenhaal on this awsome film. he is so talented, not to mention incredibly hot! bubbleboy to donnie darko .. what a transformation. I am truly impressed and awed by the impact of his role and the whole film. I used to have an invisible friend as a child but dammit it wasnt a Evil Bunny, I mean how cool is that! Mad awsome film!

---

shamalona (perezl@rider.edu) writes:

i read the HAWKSLEY meaning and it all makes sense...well, as much as it can.... but if he closes the tangent universe...why does the jet engine still fall? if the tangent universe never existed then there is still no explanation as to where the jet engine came from... thats what i dont understand... i know that is the tangent universe existed, the jet engine came from the plane that had donnies mother in it...but where did it come from if that seprate universe never exsisted... it is so early in the morning and i have been trying to understand this movie fully for over a month...HELP ME OUT PEOPLE!!!

---

guy (Email address withheld) writes:

Let me try. On oct 31, the engine somehow falls from the plane, splitting the passage of time into two possible sequences:

(1) the engine falls on Donnie's room, killing him. (the way things are supposed to happen)

(2) the engine goes through a wormhole and back in time thirty days. (a freak event defying the laws of nature, creating a wierd universe in which such things can happen.)

(2) is a bad universe and god doesnt want it to exist. So, through some plot manipulation, the sequence of events is steered so that (2) will meet back up with (1) and tie things up nicely. That way there will only be one universe. All the characters of the bad universe are aware on some level that it is bad and work together to end it.

This is as good an explanation as I can come up with. It is a movie, by the way.

---

cal (Email address withheld) writes:

didn't think donnie darko was all that impressive just an sheeny clean mix of 12 monkeys (or la jette), say anything... (or something by John Hughes), magnoliaand a wee bit of lynch.

good but not great,

to quote woody (allen, not woodpecker)

---

Confused DD fan (Email address withheld) writes:

is frank real ... he ran over donnie's GF but he was also in the mirror..... also in the theater, was Frank's eye bleeding because of donnie hitting frank's left eye w/ a knife in the mirror.. Awsome movie i just want to know.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

frank is real when he runs over gretchen, but he is killed when donnie shoots him (in the eye). because he has died in the tangent universe, he is granted special powers and becomes 'the manipulated dead' and can travel back and forth through the timeline as a guide for donnie. he is only real in the end sequence. when it says on the fridge earlier in the move 'frank was here - gone to get beer' or something like that, that was the real frank, not the dead frank - it comes clear later that frank is donnie's sister's boyfriend. :)

---

Jamie Fraser (vertigen@hotmail.com) writes:

this movie is my favorite movie. without a doubt.

jake gyllenhaal pulled off the character of donnie darko so well its scary. i'll admit, the ending confused me as well, but i did in time figure it out, and it made it so much better when i watched it again. i still find it heartbreakingly sad when he falls asleep with a smile because he knows he's dying to save his loved ones.

but anyway, enough of my babbling!

BEST MOVIE EVER.

---

Citrusmonkey (badboy9321@aol.com) writes:

I believe that to understand this movie one has to believe that there is a god overseeing the entire time-space continuum. Ergo, since God has already planned out what will happen, one could theoretically jump to any point on that line. Donnie's science teacher says that this is a paradox, because if one were able to jump to any point in time because of God, one could theaoretically not fulfill his or her destiny, ruining God's plan. However, it makes sense that Donnie and Frank are endowed with some sort of time-vision-travelling-power because God knows that Donnie needs a) Frank to guide him and b) some sort of assurance that Frank and Sparrow are right (ie- His visions of the soul-destiny-spears or whatever you wish to call them). Therefore, God has every character do what they must do to ensure that Donnie kills the real Frank, which in turn for some reason opens up the wormhole, a) destroying the tangent universe and b) allowing the jet engine to once more fly through the wormhole, killing Donnie and ending the cycle.

Some, then, might raise the question, "Why didn't God let the engine kill Donnie in the first place?" To this, I would say that I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps to lead Donnie through the tangent universe to show him that every human being does not die alone, thus preparing him for his iminent and final death. One thing that I'm not sure of in my own explanation: Why Frank? Why must he be killed to open the wormhole?

---

Johnnybravo (Email address withheld) writes:

I feel Donnie simply is supposed to die under the engine, but in the short space of time before he dies, he sees what would happen to the order of the world if he was to live...a world spiralling farther and farther out of control until time and action has no meaning or follows no laws. He thus choses to die in the end to preserve natural order.

---

Silly billy (Email address withheld) writes:

hello, has anyone been to www.donniedarko.com? i know hawksley has, but i was slightly disappointed to find that the key to understanding the film was in reading the website, surely if the film was as good as it seems it would be comprehensible purely from watching the film. Im afraid the 'manipulated living' and the 'manipulated dead' are never mentioned in the film. Nor is the tangent universe for that matter.

---

silly billy (Email address withheld) writes:

sorry, i just had to say another thing about the website, i wish they wouldnt try to make up wild and unfounded scientific facts, that method of writing has to be the corniest ever. i do love the movie, but just take one look at the book on the website and youll see what i mean, its like theyre trying to pass it off as realistic, i.e. changing laws of physics for the sake of the film when i think that element of the film might have been better off left unexplained - the exact method of time travel and the reason behind it. I mean come on, 'manipulated dead', we're not watching bloody Lord of The Rings here are we.

---

citrusmonkey (badboy9321@aol.com) writes:

I went to DonnieDarko.com, and I press Y twice and then the window goes white. Where do I get to all the stuff explaining the movie?

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

www.donniedarko.com IS a revelatory website, as far as the technicalities of the film go, but i don't think they're that important. by the by, director richard kelly also explains the "theory" on the dvd (soon to be released in the uk). however, i think the real joy comes from thinking about the meaning of what happened, not what about what actually did transpire. ok, so if you go to this website, which i have done, it helps - and you also understand why richard kelly chose not to burden the film with all this theory - it would have made it yet another sci-fi hash (i hate science fiction), it would have drawn away from what the film was really about - fate, and divine influence. this is what i think about when i talk about this movie, not all that 'manipulated dead' crap - my above explanation were simply the benefit of those who wanted to know, saving them the bother of going through that damn complicated website, or having to wait for the dvd (which is where i got my information from). see y'all later :)

---

silly billy (Email address withheld) writes:

i like your explanation hawksley and i agree that the important notions of the film are not the scientific ones, but still, it begs the question, that when the director was making this film, what was his intent? If it was to write a story about God and fate etc, then why did he even bother coming up with the whole manipulated dead idea. I think the theory of time travel and the vagueness of Frank's intentions were far more romantic and thus added so much more to the the story in terms of room for the viewer's imagination than the solid scientific 'fact' that Kelly seems to have come up with to accompany the story. To be honest i think the film is best viewed without ever knowing the madness that Kelly has invented because like you say, the story then develops such a deeper meaning than with it.

---

godot (godot0_2000@yahoo.de) writes:

I like two interpretations. They are simple and poetic. Just match the movie.

That of Ray, about saving his family and that of Johnnybravo about an attempt to dream his survival.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i couldn't agree more. but in kelly's defense, it is his film. he obviously felt that his fabricated scientific theory was a necessary addition to the 'world' of the film, even if it didn't ferature in the film itself. maybe it helped him - it gave him a structure around which to build his fantastic tale of divine influence, and once that was done, he discarded it - but obviously kept it on the dvd and the website for those who were interested. but its not important. personally, i would rather not have known the supposed contents of 'the philosophy of time travel'...it would have been much more romantic. but i do, and nothing can reverse that...except perhaps some kind of traffic accident in which i lose my memory. or maybe even having a jet engine fall on my bedroom.

i guess the film can exist on any one of three levels of understanding. the first level - you don't understand anything, but you like it. well, it is a fantastic film. the second level - you've been to the website/seen the dvd and know this cod theory and understand how it works technically, and maybe you get some perverse enjoyment out of that - i dunno. then the third level - you get thinking about god's will - and once you get in that mind set, those words, donnie's final words, 'there will be so much to look forward to', they mean so much. it sends a tingle down my spine when i hear him read the letter he sent to roberta sparrow.

in kelly's credit, he has created one big mystery, even beyond the film. as he must have wanted, people who liked the film and wanted to really get it have gone looking on the internet for explanations, and have inevitably stumbled upon the official webite, and have got themselves drawn in. people who successfully make it out the other side of that damn website emerge with a handful of ridiculous made-up scientific ideas which they turn over in their heads for a few days, and hopefully, rather than just accepting it, they ask 'why'. and then maybe they start to really understand the film and get finally forget all about the 'manipulated living'. it is a means to an end, if you can't figure it out for yourself that is :)

---

silly billy (Email address withheld) writes:

i dont think its a means to an end at all seeing as it really isnt a means to anything but the understanding of Kelly's fantasies of Time Travel and ruptures in time. If I were to have emerged from the film knowing the scientific material, i might have settled for thinking the movie was a straightforward sci fi. But the fact is, Kelly has, to his credit, not included it, because, rather than being a means to an end, it eclipses the meaning in absurdities. To be honest, having watched the movie twice, I went on to the website, found out this additional information and immediately doubted how much i liked the film. I had to watch it again without this stuff in mind to like it again. The additional info can be described using one useful and emotive word: tripe.

quite aside from that, i prefer having all the theories playing around in my head, i dont much like the simplicity of the 'he saved his family' theory or the corniness of the 'he saw what life wud be like if he hadnt died' theory. I think theres an element of all these things in there somewhere, but the underlying plot is the boy's search for God. I think that much is clear from the session with the psychiatrist in which he gets quite worked up over the question of God's existence and the idea of dying alone. Obviously there is more to the plot, but i think that has been discussed to death prior to my contribution.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

yes. it has. TO DEATH.

i saw it five times before finding out kelly's absurd theories, they exist as a side note in my mind. an irrelevant one.

guess what - i'm going to see it again next tuesday :) twice.

---

Adam (sgplyr7@hotmail.com) writes:

To Jordan Hiller: I wouldnt expect someone who had to include in their email address that they like to fish,

well, I just wouldnt expect them to be able to think enough to like a movie such as donnie Darko. Leave it to a fellow american to make us all look bad. This movie has had an impact on everyone I know that has seen it, even my PARENTS. of course, they did NOT have to be sat upon during the movie to finish it,either.

Thanks.

---

Dave (rabidrunts@hotmail.com) writes:

Thanks to all who have written here. This movie was beautifully sculpted, wonderfully presented and has caused so much discussion that I'm sure Kelly is happy. All the explanations are what the movie Lost Highway lacked. The cgi added to the visual appeal without dominating, in almost the same way as in Amalie. Thank you hawksley.

---

Rachel (surfing.zone@verizon.net) writes:

Does anyone know what the title of Graham Greene's short story was in this movie? I'd really like to read it, because it sounds interesting, but I don't remeber if they mentioned it in the movie or not. Oh, and I really loved this movie. It's one of my favorites. It's thought-provoking in so many ways. And even though the ending is supposed to tie everything together, I've watched the movie 3 times and still don't understand all of it.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i'm about to see in for the 7th time on tuesday, and i'm still struggling with it - but it is, without a doubt, one of my favourites too :)

the name of the book by graham greene featured is 'the destructors', a collection of short stories - i've read it (even before seeing the film) - it's excellent.

and dave, i like your comparison to the visual effects in amelie - i agree, they add to that special something that draws you in, but what keeps you 'in' are the amaaazing meld of characters and storyline :)

---

Duncan Blythe (dajb18@wincoll.ac.uk) writes:

hawksley,

I've just read your explanation of Donnie Darko, having watched it this afternoon. I enjoyed it greatly. However I dont quite understand parts of the explanation. I dont understand why the penetration of the space time continuum by the metal aircraft engine constitutes the creation an alternate reality. What is the reality alternate to?

You said that by sending the artefact backward through time, Donnie Darko reverts the alternate reality to the way it should have been. But by sending the engine backward through time, surely it once again penetrates the space time continuum, but this time kills Donnie. What agent is it which creates the alternate reality? Surely it cant be the aircraft engine, because that is present in the non-alternate reality. Is it the fact that Donnie lived due to an agent (the Bunny Rabbit) exerting its influence from outside the sphere of that region of the space time continuum that an alternate reality was created: Donnie Darko lived, but he should not have done, thus creating one of these unstable realities which is deemed to collapse.

However the Bunny Rabbit was only capable of influencing Donnie to leave his house, thus avoiding his death, because he was one of the 'manipulated dead'. But under my theory, this is impossible, because, when the bunny rabbit causes Donnie Darko to leave his bed, he creates the alternate reality, of which he himself is a part. So my thoery must be wrong. In that case, what creates the alternate reality? Please can you explain.

Duncan Blythe

Winchester

Hampshire

United Kingdom

dajb18@wincoll.ac.uk

---

Sven (igelkotte@hotmail.com) writes:

There is a detail that you've got wrong there. The tangent universe does not occur because the engine misses Donnie, but because it penetrates the fourth dimension. If Donnie would have been hit by it, he could not have guided the engine back into the Primary Universe.

---

Arran (arran.evans@ntlworld.com) writes:

Have to say what a fantastic film this is and it has reaches depths that i didnt know existed within me. I have now watched it for the 3 time, and think little bits are coming together each time i watch it!

I have read hawksley's version of events with great interest and i thank him for posting it on this board.

About the official website though, wat the hell?????? Maybe its my computer in work but it seems screwed???

Anways Peace out, Frank for president!

---

Mike (Email address withheld) writes:

Im confused... How does Donnie send the jet engine into the portal at the end? Just because his mother and sister are on it? Thats the only part I dont understand...

---

Duncan (Email address withheld) writes:

Sven,

that isnt a detail i got wrong.

I know that the tangent universe was created because the engine penetrated the fourth dimension, supposedly. What i am unsure about is, why doesnt the engine create a tangent universe the second time because to get back, the engine penetrates the fourth dimension again?

---

eric (Email address withheld) writes:

i just wanna add my comment to the discussion that when donnie is in therapy i think he says that frank said to him "come with me to the future" (i may have misheard) and thus seemingly offering donnie and invitation to see the future or travel to the future or something. this may have some significance...

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

firstly, duncan - sorry i haven't replied to your email yet, i'm somewhat of a lazy checker - plus i'm up to my ears in paper, and it seems that an answer to your query would take some unwelcome thought at this juncture. but i would say this - don't get so bogged down in all this technicality nonsense. that stuff is obiter dicta. not ratio decidendi. don't ruin the experience of the film for yourself.

that said (rather hyprocritically), i saw it for the seventh time on tuesday, and i've had a slight rethink regarding the engine etc etc. when donnie confronts frank when he is behind that big rippling sheet of time water (for want of a better word), frank says "i can do whatever i want, and so can you", or something to that effect. so...er..Mike, Donnie can manipulate the fourth dimension just as frank can, but for most of the film he doesn't know how to. the whole getting people into position thing isn't what reversed events, well, not that alone.

as for the engine, and why it....damn it, i'm tired of this. this isn't the point of the film.

hawksley

"what if you could go back in time, and take away all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better?"

---

Irma (Email address withheld) writes:

Who's surprised that this movie didn't

make it in the states. Maybe we are

just slow to catch on. I'm spreading the word.

I am a high school teacher in the U.S.

and mother of an "unusual"son. Donnie

Darko captivated me from the beginning. It is a visual feast and a challenge for the mind.

Veiled in layers that cover the physical and non-physical, it bears watching over and over. The satire on schools is pointed and funny. And when Donnie asks his mother what it is like to have a madman for a son, her reply was just what I had hoped it would be, what mine would be as well. "It's wonderful."

Such a delicately orchestrated symphony

to soothe the wounds of this world.

---

Brooke (ghettodreems@yahoo.com) writes:

This movie's intense. There are so many hidden meanings in every scene of the film that days after watching it I am still thinking about it. Donnie Darko invites the viewer into a world of a painful quest for answers that leads to an ironic display of uncovering the truth. I'm a 20 year old college kid and this movie paints the picture of all my confusion, my inevitable search for the truth and my constant analytical thoughts toward this everyday 'mad world'. I think it's safe to say we've all been there, and there's not another movie that makes me question it more. I will continue to watch it and I will continue to spread it like some kind of mad epidemic.

---

Chris (Email address withheld) writes:

Here's something I don't get... it keeps getting said that Donnie willingly died to save the ones he loved. How bout rather instead of killing himself, he just doesn't do the things that lead up to their deaths ie. don't burn that guys house, don't go up to the ladies house, just live and be a normal kid. The reason he sees the future is because he goes along with it, therby not changing it, but now that he has experienced the future, he doesn't need to see it over again with those spears comin out of everyone. He didn't need to die!

---

Robert Lee (robert_lee35@yahoo.co.uk) writes:

To forget the fundamental science fiction in the movie (because the film is not about science fiction; surely the science fiction side of it is just a vessel for the story without us having to think too much about the very emotive issue of religion, which science is often comparable to), does nobody else see the second coming/resurection of Christ undertones? When Donnie dies he becomes a martyr (like Christ), he dies to save the world (like Christ), the director even goes as far to spoon feed us with 'The Last Temptation of Christ' below the 'Evil Dead' neon advertised on the front of the movie theatre when Donnie leaves to burn down Ray Cunningham's house.

I've only seen the film once (today) so haven't had much time to think about it, but having read everything above, I think that it's more important to think about the film in terms of the theme of destiny though I don't take anything away from Hawksley for his explanation of the science fiction side of things because I believe he is correct, I just don't think that it is in any way important to the understanding of the film; so what if Donnie does travel through time, would it make any difference to the theme of destiny which pervades the film if he hadn't? And it had all been a dream or a vision of what could be if it weren't for the intervention of Donnie, as the protagonist (and remember, his girlfriend asks him something along the lines of 'Donnie Darko - what kind of name is that? Sounds like a superhero or something'), or any of the characters for that matter

Donnie is mentally ill. That's not to say he couldn't possibly be the sort of person to save the world, it's just to say you need to remember that

Robert

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i couldn't agree more. it is undeniably a bad thing that people focus on the sci-fi explanation as the be-all and end-all of this film. it is such a shame to do that, because, as Robert rightfully points out - there is so much else to appreciate here.

the donnie darko - jesus christ comparison in particular is one i agree with. donnie is presented as a christ like figure, who is constantly misunderstood and taken as being a little 'off the rails', but who will ultimately take everything back, and redeem not only his actions, but the actions of those around him and how they in turn affected donnie's behaviour. the montage of characters at the end remembering the 28 days as if it were a dream look back on their conduct in the tangent universe - none more so than the paedophile, jim cunningham. donnie in effect died for their sins, and gave them a chance to reflect and change their ways.

this compliments very well the idea that god or some divine being created the 28 days to show donnie that he will not die alone, that there is something more to look forward to. okay, he may not be the actual son of god, but i like to think that he is one of god's favourites.

for the record: i dislike science fiction - the creation of outlandish scientific theories as a form of entertainment doesn't exactly thrill me :)

hawksley x

---

Lacey (spacelace@sailormoon.com) writes:

I live in the US..and just saw this movie two weeks ago..(today:3/13/03) I ran out and bought it instantly and have seen it 3 times since. I had no knowledge of the movie or it's meaning before seeing it and am glad that I could make my own theory. But I'd also like to thank you all. I'm writing an essay on the movie for a Eng. Comp. class and all of your ideas, insights and opinions have really helped me. So has donniedarko.com..which I didn't know existed until I came here. So thank you. I also think and would like to add that a movie is best when interpreted by it's viewers through each of thier own unique experiences. However, if we want to debate the Director's or Writer's intent..hawksley is right on. Also..check out the short story that this movie is based on.."A Sound of Thunder"... it's outstanding. Thanks again!

---

Cid (Email address withheld) writes:

The only thing I do not understand at this point is why did Donnie have to die? He had already saved the world and sent the engine back right? So couldn't he just go on living?

---

Robert Lee (robert_lee35@yahoo.co.uk) writes:

@ Cid

If Donnie hadn't been awoken by Frank, he would have been killed by the jet engine. So upon 'saving the world' then returning back 28 days, time and tangiable events most importantly, have to continue as they would have done without Donnie's intervention. That's the classic science fiction way that time travel always has to be - you're not allowed to mess with history. And although I don't think this is a science fiction film, it uses the genre rules of science fiction to suit the plot.

Aside from the science fiction, as mentioned previously Donnie, in the vain of Christ, has to die for the sins of others in order to effect them, in order for people like Ray Cunningham to have his epiphany and change his ways

Robert

---

Chris Dyer (iamdyer@hotmail.com) writes:

Hey all.

I have spotted a minor cryptic allusion in the film that seems to have been missed (possibly - I may be wrong on this one!).

If you listen to the sound of Frank's voice - it has a kind of double-layered tone - there's an additional tone an octave lower, almost like he's speaking underwater.

There is an identical effect applied to the voice of the character 'David Bowman' in 2001 A Space Odyssey and 2010 - The Year We Made Contact.

In these films - David Bowman has passed into another dimension and speaks to all from there, with this peculiar watery double tone.

I might be stretching it now, but perhaps the watery fabric to space-time plays havoc with their vocal chords ;-)

I'm not sure if this was an intentional effect on the part of the director, but it caught my attention.

Great film, eh?

D.

---

val.c (val_remlik@hotmail.com) writes:

damn it im just pissed off that he loses the chance to be with the girl, and the fact that she does not know who he is, since donnie sacrifices himself

---

Robert (robert_lee35@yahoo.co.uk) writes:

The film is corny enough without there being a super happy ending!

But she does know who Donnie is because she dreamt about him and is influenced by him (we must presume, because that's the point of the film!) because of her dream. Deja vu

Robert

---

chris (iamdyer@hotmail.com) writes:

Yo.

Spotted another 'nod' to another film. As you know - they go to see 'Evil Dead' in the cinema... well - the mask that Frank makes (the scary bunny mask) is almost identical to the monster 'Henrietta' in Evil Dead 2 (the girls' mother who turns into a zombie and sprouts a really huge neck "Hey - I'll swallow your soul, I'll swallow your soul!").

Here's the killer - Bruce Campbell jumps on the cellar door and one of it's eyes pops out (the one that goes down Bobby Joe's throat) - the same eye that Frank loses when he gets shot!

This film has so much depth it's scaaaarifying!

D.

---

Jess (RangerJess@aol.com) writes:

The first time i saw donnie darko, i was totally confused by the ending, starting with frank being a 'real character' near the end. Since then, i've watched it two more times and each time i 'get it' a little more. i plan to watch this movie MANY more times, and will probably understand more each time. I kind of like not knowing exactly what is going on because it lets you wonder...Jake is awesome in this movie, but Jena is not too great an actress, but she still didn't ruin it for me, that's how much i like this movie. Many americans (Jordan) probably didn't like this movie because there were no boobs in it!

---

Jordan Hillier (jordan_likes_fishing@hotmail.com) writes:

Jess {and all the other disillusioned posters},

1. i am not american

2. i dont go to a movie to see 'boobs'

3. i dont fall for mass conversions. i think that having an opinion {as opposed to adopting a popular one} is something that separates me from being an animal. if you are not sure whether you are an animal or human, try examining your eating, social, and movie watching habits and maybe have a talk to a close friend about it.

4. donnie darko is a retarded movie. its trying so hard to be good but failing so severely with all this "didnt you get it?" "oh! you must be stupid" "this movie changed my life forever" talk. its hilarious

5. if you think you like this film {hawksley, duncan blyth, robert lee, et cetera} read this article http://www.rustyspell.com/welikemedia/donniedorko.html

//jordan

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. --Mark Twain

---

Angelina (angeltrouble@livejournal.com) writes:

I think the person who mentioned the timing of the release of donnie darko, nailed it. when it was realized n o b o d y in america wanted to see a film about planes falling into buildings. it had nothing to do with the lack of boobs or our intelligence. some of us had had enough of planes crashing into buildings at that point. that being said, i love the movie, except i found alot of it hokey. i'm glad for the people here who cleared it up for me.

---

Jamiella (Madra7of9@aol.com) writes:

Jordan, I respect everyone's right to have an opinion. I firmly believe that life would not be worth living if all of us were not allowed to hold our own beliefs and thoughts.

But it's ironic that you affirm your right to have an opinion (your support #3 in your first post) and yet deny all of us one (your support #5). People like hawksley, duncan, robert, etc. are allowed to like this movie just as you are allowed to hate it.

I also find that your support for hating Donnie Darko (in your second post) is lacking. Just why do you hate this movie? I'm not saying you're stupid for not liking it, but WHY don't you like it?

I read the article you gave and it has virtually the same support you had. "It was stupid." "Retarded, retarded, retarded." "What a dumb movie!" No, that's not technically support.

Firstly, in regards to your first post, there was a plot. A beginning, a middle, a climax, an end. Yes, the film did jump around a lot, but I don't think it necessary at all to have to outline where the film began, climaxed, and ended.

Calling Donnie a dork is only support for your childishness. You don't have to like the main character in a story- ever read "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" by Joyce Carol Oates? (http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/southerr/wgoing2.html) In fact, you know you've met a fantastic writer who makes a character that isn't very likeable and yet you are compelled to sympathize for him in the end.

Donnie wasn't a hero until he made the sacrifice. He had psychological problems, he was a somewhat-typical horny teenage boy, he was a murderer, he was angry, he committed crimes and disrespected one of his teachers (though I believe she, by all means, deserved it). When he was told the world was to end, he laughed. He was far from your typical bright-and-shining, muscular, moral hero who goes out all fearless-leader like in his glory and saves the world. In fact, what makes Donnie so great was that he was human in every way, and just the opposite of "hero". He had his faults, made his mistakes, succumbed to lust and angst and anger. He wasn't a hero at all, he was one of us. And in the end he gained his hero status by sacrificing himself to allow, as hawksley said, "time to continue normally", lest the universe collapse on all of us. Some of us, being human and having human fears, might not be able to make that sort of sacrifice.

Your calling Donnie a "dork" just makes the movie, then, all the better.

In response to the Rusty Spell link you sent, "Donnie Dorko", I fail to see any compelling support for his belief, either. Firsty, Spell immediately disregards the ability to actually like the movie. In lamens terms: "Sure, you SAY you like the movie, but you really don't because you're stupid and I'm not and I have the amazing ability to reach inside your mind and find that your opinion is wrong. And also, stupid."

Then Spell talks about allusions. I don't believe Kelly was at all attempting to make his movie "on-par" with the likes of It or E.T. He was simply paying homage to writers/directs that he respects and that have given him inspiration in his work. At least, that's what I believe. I'm not Kelly; Spell, again, assumes anything he wants to about Kelly and his intentions with the allusions.

Assumptions are such grand support, aren't they?

Supports 6 and 4 of Spell's article will not be addressed, as they are just stupid.

Support 5 is another one of Spellman's assumptions, and completely misses the point. Of course nothing we learn is "new"- how can we learn it if it is? You think cells were something new? Or the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around? Those things have always been there, have always existed- they, themselves, are nothing new. Rather, it is introducing them to human thought that IS new.

I doubt what Kelly evoked to us could be considered anywhere near "basic stuff", and even so, movies and books and EVERYTHING are all about taking "old stuff" and showing it to the masses to draw their own opinions about. The idea of doing moral right and moral wrong has been around since the beginning of time, and yet movies still continually base their plots and themes around it. Carpe diem isn't exactly a new thing but you'll STILL find superb literature on it. It isn't WHAT you evoke in your movies, it's HOW you do it, and it is my personal belief that "how" Kelly got the "what" across to his audience was ingenious.

I'm not going to go on, as Spell's article is nothing but continual assumptions and this was long enough, but I'm really interested in seeing what you, Jordan, and others have to say. I respect your right to have an opinion- by all means HATE Donnie Darko! But please do it for the right reasons. Not just because "it was stupid" or "Donnie was a [insert explicative here]"- WHY was it stupid to you? WHY was Donnie such a dork, and how did that ruin the movie, at all?

If you answer me that then I'll value your opinion far more than I do now.

---

Robert Lee (robert_lee35@yahoo.co.uk) writes:

Jordan, if you want to lump me in to your criticism of anybody who liked this film then you obviously haven't read what I said properly.

I was interested in the film, what it alluded to, what it was about, it's soundtrack, I didn't say it changed my life (it didn't), I don't think it's a cinematic masterpiece (I called it corny) & having gone to see the film with a friend, I decided, on dicussing it with her, that it relied far too heavily on kudos and the fact that it was confusing did not mean it was 'beyond us mere mortals' (it probably had to be cut because of being too long for the cinema). But I still liked it.

Your criticism of it is just childish, patronising & pedantic.

So what if the director just got out of college and put all the things he learnt into his first film? Maybe somebody going to see Donnie Darko will be interested in the film's influences and go and find out about 'proper' films like the ones you're into? Sometimes ideas need to be recycled to bring them to another audience. A lot of the bands I have got into have been because more modern bands I liked have talked about them, same applies to books and authors, same applies to your catalog of films. If it wasn't for the influence of somebody else, I wouldn't have heard or seen a lot of the things I have done. & have any of the directors of the films you enjoy ever made a bad flm? I'm sure they have. You can't not make a film just because it isn't a masterpiece. If that were the case, we'd have the same films on at the cinema for 6 months at a time.

Post modernism isn't the devil you paint it as, Jordan.

"Time wormholes are retarded" - now there's a balanced argument

"The main character's name is Donnie Darko. You do not like a movie where anyone would be called this." - scraping the barrell

"The character Donnie Darko has nothing to be brooding about in the first place." - he is supposed to be mentally ill, or can't middle class or successful people be mentally ill, depressed or simply just brooding? That belief is borne of two things: 1) ignorance 2) too much exposure to & acceptance of celebrities like Robbie Williams and the Appletons who claim to be depressed yet sell their 'heartbreak' to the papers. That doesn't mean that there are people out there who are genuinely ill.

I agree with some of your points, Jordan, especially the ones about the attempted use of satire in the film and I too thought American Beauty was overated and obvious to say the least, but you've gone to far in attempting to hate this film when what you're actually angry about is people accepting this film, or any other, as a masterpiece when it isn't. Not everybody can like the things you like and if they ever do it won't be because they're told to, they'll find it themselves & if they don't, there's nothing you can do about it to educate them. People will always be stupid, people will always be ignornant but if you're going to slag a film off, the way not to do it is to dismiss the film because of it's audience.

Robert

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

fighting makes the baby jesus cry.

that said, i must say i've never jumped on a bandwagon in my life. september 11th brought a wry smile. i think 'the thin red line' is better that 'private ryan'. U2 are not the greatest band in the world. war, for me, is a good idea. the reason i like 'donnie darko' is not because i think its big or clever to do so, this is the reason why i'm not that keen on david lynch's 'mulholland drive' - which is perplexing for the sake of it. 'donnie darko' simply doesn't lay everything out in straight line for you, like most hollywood discharges do. it is engaging, funny, moving and superbly acted.

moreover, forgive me if i'm wrong, but i think it a shame when people who put so much stress of 'having your own opinion' take a minority view just to make that point, ignoring the real factors at work. by all means, hate the damn movie. but hate because its quite dull in the middle, or because drew barrymore can't act, or because the dialogue between frank and donnie is pretentious, or even because the whole damn premise is predictable. but not because it's 'stupid', because then that is reflected back on you.

i need to stop posting here. it's proving to be an all too erotic experience.

hawksley x

---

AnnaLynn (Email address withheld) writes:

I just saw Donnie Darko last night, with a couple of friends of mine who would not stop pestering me to see it. So I did. I understand now why exactly they wanted me to see it. It is so good. I agree with some of the opinions above that it is not a science fiction movie, no, not at all, rather, it is a movie to be in the same categories as Magnolia, A Beautiful Mind and Vanilla Sky (out of soo many choices).

Saying this, I loved it. I agree, it is mind boggling, but I think that is just what Kelly intended it to be. I believe that he did have one specific ending for this movie, but I also think that he purposefully hid it well enough that he let people think about it, and make their own opinions of the film. It was awesome. My eyes were glued to the screen.

However, I'm having trouble with the website. How do you read "the philosophy of time and space" I've tried and tried, but am failing. I really want to read it before I see Donnie Darko again; I LOVE THIS MOVIE!

---

jordan hillier (jordan_likes_fishing@hotmail.com) writes:

i cant believe some people have soo much spare time!! i mean, who can be stuffed sitting down and writing a huge thesis stating point by point why they disagree with someone they dont even know.. about a movie??? it baffles me!

well.. jamiella, it looks like your not going to be valuing my opinion any more than you already do.. becos im not going to answer your question.

robert lee, you emphasize my spare time comment.

and hawksley, if sep11 made you smile, i think that you have a bit of serious thinking to do about life and your outlook on it.

donnie darko is a stupid movie and i dont have to waste my life giving point by point reasonings as to why i hate it. the end.

---

cal (Email address withheld) writes:

ah, go on now jordan? some of us need you to stand up against the love of donnie darko that is deteriorating our society's very moral fabric at an asstronomical rate.

point by point please.

pretty please.

with sugar on it

---

Susan N. (Santa Cruz, CA) writes:

I've been obsessed with this movie since I saw it a couple of weeks ago. I'm so glad I found this post-area and all your thoughts on it.

I graduated high school in 1987 and this is the first "teen" movie I've seen that touches the young adult experience... sweetly melancholy(I never could relate to those corny John Hughes films). Also the soundtrack rocks.

Looking forward to seeing it again.

---

Louise Anne Hay (Email address withheld) writes:

I think it was marvelous but confusing I am only just getting what it was about. Watched it last night and was blown away have taken in most of the comments and would agree with symbolism towards christ. This would appear to be the most sensible theory and most understandable. Really enjoyed it, will buy the DVD and watch again.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

"hawksley, if sep11 made you smile, i think that you have a bit of serious thinking to do about life and your outlook on it."

i've never disputed that. i mean, i'm seriously contemplating making a sculpture of my dog made completely out of hammers. talk about spare time.

hawksley x

---

Medopine (Email address withheld) writes:

I really hate it when people tell me what to like and what not to like. I could care less if your opinion differs than mine, but there is no need to push it on me is there?

That said, I loved this movie. I thought it was superbly acted, great soundtrack, great overall mood to the film, and somewhat creepy too. Frank's mask really did scare me! Ha.

But anyway, thanks for your comments guys, they helped me to understand the film a little better.

---

Dwain Pipe (Email address withheld) writes:

Cool, some helpful stuff here. See, I get most of it, but here's where I'm getting stuck:

The whole problem starts because the engine from 31st Oct (Primary Universe) falls through a wormhole to the 2nd Oct (Tangent Universe). Donnie can't be killed here because that's not supposed to happen and it wouldn't work in the working/timing/physics of the universe - so Donnie is saved and the film goes off in the tangent universe. All straightforward, but why then, at the end, does the engine still fall through to the 2nd, but this time - Donny is there - Surely, that is still a fcuk up in the universe! It's the same scenario we have at the beggining of the film, but this time Donnie is in bed, which I don't think changes anything. He could have just been there the first time round in that case?!

It's only a film, only a film..........

---

Thorazine (ultra_violet@nme.com) writes:

Well i just rented the movie, watched it and was completely baffled by it! but knew there was some great story there.. i was just missing the connections to put it all together so i decided to get my ass online and thanks to those people above for providing it for me!

After getting my head round it (it took awhile. lol) i can know see what an amazing movie Donnie Darko was an im going now to watch it again with the cast commentary (which i probably should have done in the first place in my search for answers).

Thora x

---

Spencer (spencemasterd@hotmail.com) writes:

It's been a really long time since I saw the movie, but I want to ask this: doesn't his sister still die on the plane crash? If I remember correctly, her little dance troupe would still have been invited to the competition in Florida, and she would have still been on the plane. THe only difference is that Donny's mom wouldn't have had to chaperone the trip because the obsessed lady could make it, for whatever reason (I don't really remember the complicated chain of events that led up to it happening like that.)

---

Jonny (segafan@hazuki.f9.co.uk) writes:

I watched the film after hearing all the hype and made sure that i approached it with an open mind. To put it bluntly it was very average indeed. I really can't understand why people are praising it so much as it seemsto be a serious case of hype over substance. Exactly what is it that people like about this film so much? I was not touched by it on any level at all, just slightly bored towards the end. There was no powerful imagery or sounddesign to speak of at all and it pretty much looked like an episode of The Wonder Years. Why is anyone comparing Donnie Darko to the genius of David Lynch? Mulholland Drive is one of the greatest filmsever made but most people claim that its impenetrable. Donnie Darko has an even more complex plot, that is pretty much a cheap cop out yet everyone loves it.

The power of hype.

One word in Mulholland Drive has more emotion, power and meaning than the whole of Donnie Darko "Silencio".

Mulholland Drive is one womans dream and for the last ten minutes her awful reality. Donnie Darko has a "plot"

that needs you to understand the directors own rules of physics. All i can say is that Mulholland Drive makes

perfect sense whlst Donnie Darko is just poorly thought out tat. Anyone who likes Donnie Darko should watch

Mulholland Drive as soon as possible maybe then they'll see the light.

At the end of the day Donnie Darko is a movie aimed at teens. It skirts over important issues like mental health with total disregard for fact and then makes its own rules up that you need to understand to get the most out of the film. If your about 16 then that may be your kind of thing. Us grown ups will stick with David Lynch thanks. Rating 6/10

---

(Email address withheld) writes:

Atmospheric and at first engaging but ultimately very disappointing.

Beautifully made and constructed - yes.

But the content??!!

In fact the more I have read as to the "logic" behind the film the more I dislike the film - especially true of the director's explanations and the website - preferred not understanding parts of it to such juvenile childish godbothering.

If the "god" of the film exists he is one twisted fucked up bastard - ah .... just like the one in the Bible ... adn the Koran...etc.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i half-enjoyed "mulholland drive" when i got round to seeing it - it's okay, and i might even buy it on dvd. that said, david lynch is as much a genius as bernard manning is a politically correct dietician. what david kynch IS can be summed up in one word: pretentious. a word that almost perfectly describes every film he has churned out, including the half-witty (yet overflowing with strained eccentricity) "mulholland drive". in the said film, it is impossible to relate to any of the characters on any more than a superficial level - maybe that was his 'wacky' intention, i dunno; and the plot represents one man who didn't set out to make an engaging film about the adictability and changeability of hollywood, but who sat down and considered at length how to perpetuate his ridiculous enigma by making a film that serves only to confuse people into assuming that lynch MUST be a genius, because thats the only explanation - whereas the truth is that he has no idea what on earth he's doing and he only wants excuses to wear his hair at funny angles anyway. i certainly would not compare "donnie darko" to "mulholland drive" - donnie deserves a lot better than that. *phew*. maybe i won't buy the dvd after all - but hey, thats what happens with flashes in the pan - here one minute, gone the next. and as for richard kelly's "rules of physics" - he's a goddamn writer, and it is called...now get this...A STORYLINE. "donnie darko" is not needlessly complex, rather, it makes perfect sense - such profound sense that makes it the perfect vehicle the for stark religious imagery that stalks our lives. it simply doesn't lay it out for you - kelly makes the welcome yet rare assumption that his audience have a brain. an assumption, that on first glance, lynch seems to make also - but believe me, he doesn't. he just thinks he can feed us any junk he thinks up, in order to make him look good when we don't understand it.

believe me when i say i'm not an angry person by nature. bad day. got up at 4 a.m. after going to bed at 3.55 a.m. to go to london for ten minutes. grrr. anyway, i apologise to y'all who like your lynch. i probably do too when i'm less iritable.

hawksley x

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

and spencer, remember - it was donnie's mother who changed the flight she and her daughter were scheduled to catch home...the scene where she leaves a message on the answer phone during the party, while donnie and gretchen have their tongues down each other's throats.

hawksley x

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

god i sound bitter, reading myself back. i do actually like "mulholland drive" as well, but lynch 'the man'...well, he makes me go a bit peculiar.

---

Jonny (segafan@hazuki.f9.co.uk) writes:

I appreciate your opinion but to be honest Donnie Darko is just not that good. I compare it with Mulholland Drive

because they both have unconventional plots and need repeated viewings to fully appreciate. Whilst Mulholland

Drive's plot makes perfect sense Donnie Darko's does not.The whole plot of Mulholland drive takes place within the

film whilst Donnie Darko relies on you believing in the directors additional spiel. At the end of the day Donnie

Darko is just too complicated for its own good. As for Lynch being pretentious i don't agree at all. If you don't "get" his work then that may be how he comes across.

David Lynch is an artist. He designs sound, imagery and works on every aspect of his films even down to taking

control of the camera. Watching one of his movies is like looking at a painting or listening to music which is

quite different from just viewing an average film. Take a look at the bar Silencio scene in Mulholland Drive, one

of the greatest scenes in cinematic history. It looks out of this world, it sounds incredible, its equal parts

moving and disturbing. Ultimately its art. Donnie Darko is just another teen film with a ludicrous ending and

nice use of 80's pop culture. I recently saw the Flaming Lips play live and i cried when they played Waiting For

A Superman. My friends found it hard to believe someone could be that moved by "just a song". Most people watch

Lynch's films and say the same thing "its just a film".

I'm afraid to say these people will never fully appreciate and understand art. When this happens they claim the

"artist" to be pretentious.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i am, unashamedly, one of this world's great backtrackers. i like david lynch's work - i absolutely love "twin peaks". and, what's more, i got "mulholland drive" - it made sense after the second viewing. however, i didn't really feel like a lot of it was relevant - or at least "do-able" in a less round-the-houses way, which i personally feel would have given it greater emotional impact - there are only so many twists an audience can cope with before they begin to forget their emotional attachment to the characters and the situation. when i said "pretentious" (apart from me being in bad mood, so i only half meant it anyway), i meant verging on unnecessary - art for the sake of it. which isn't always a bad thing. but it can be. i cannot fault the cinematography of "mulholland drive" - as you say, the 'Silencio' scene is beautiful and captivating. the whole movie's presentation is enthralling, if a little 'glossy' - but that could be said to mirror the film's main theme. and for me, the 'director' character is absolutely perfect, as a man being driven to the edge as his movie is slowly taken over by a faceless power. perfect. it is a good film. however, i can't shake the feeling that behind the cameras is this little guy, sporting one of the world's worst quiffs, laughing maniacally at how weird he is. it's just a feeling.

but this isn't a "mulholland drive" message board, is it? "donnie darko" could very much be said to be an eighties period piece; a commentary on social turmoil during the run-up to the '88 US elections; a fable, ultimately teling us that no matter how scared or alone you may feel, you should always feel secure in that there is a higher power holding your hand, showing you the way; or maybe just a piece of sci-fi about a time travelling schizophrenic...but that's the less convincing option, because if this were the true purpose of the film, kelly would surely have laid out his 'sci-fi' theories in the film. as it is, he didn't, because they are really unnecessary - you don't need them to 'get' the film at all. they are part of the rich fabric of the film, but they are set aside for a reason, and are only availbale now for those folks who feel like they want to know all the technical names, like 'manipulated dead', or whatever. without them, the film remains intact, and is probably all the richer for their omission - it allows you to experience it as Donnie does - he doesn't know what the hell is going on either, but in the end, he knows his purpose. and hopefully the audience do too, or otherwise the ending might make no sense, as you say. but, for me, it is easy to understand - as the gretchen murmurs as Donnie reverses the time stream..."what if you could go back in time, and take away all those hours of pain and darkness and replace them with something better?". donnie sacrifices himself, and gives all those people we see at the end the chance to make their choices again. to rethink their lives and their paths. donnie has to die, only he is scared that he will just slip away into an empty void if he does. he is scared of being alone. so, a higher power creates these 28 days to show him otherwise. and, not only that, but to create an experience so painful, that it will remain in the minds of everyone donnie touches forever, even after time is reversed. a chance to change - to show compassion, to feel loved, or, indeed, to stop collecting child pornography. donnie realised what he was for, and what was coming next - giving him the strength to sacrifce himself inorder to give everyone else a chance to reflect on what might have been, and think again. it is essentially a story of a superhero, or even jesus christ's modern day equivalent. whichever, in my opinion, "donnie darko" is almost the perfect film. the characters are rich and identifiable, the presentation style is profound without being pretentious, and it is, basically, one of the most complete film experinces i have ever had. lynch is good, but i can't wait to see what kelly has up his sleeve next. bye y'all.

hawksley x

---

Dio (eyeofisis2003@yahoo.com) writes:

Incredible. A film that is there to promote higher consciousness among the generation x&y instead incites infantile slanging matches. Debate is very good, we need more of it. But kiddy bickering leave that to george dubya and his minions.

Donnie Darko is a gnostic journey. What it is trying to say is God is all around us, infact we are God. And if you can detatch yourself from the mythical idea of Christ and realise we are all Christ then you are never alone in this world and through infinity. Life is an illusion, it is of our making. Donnie found enlightenment. He didn't die in the end, he just transcended the shackles of his earthly body and found the light.

Loved the digs at Bush as well. It is almost like we are living in a fucked up parallel universe at the moment. 1988-92 is very similar to 2000-hopefully 04

---

Will Jeffery (wfj_jeffery@hotmail.com) writes:

After being urged too by a friend, I finally watched Donnie Darko, its fantastic, the final "Mad World" sequence had me in tears. Wanted to get a better understanding of the film, so ended up on here. Can I thank Hawksley for his intelligent and well explained interpretation of the film, I am curious about the scientific element of the film, but feel inclined to agree with your Christ comparisons, and feel that to look at it from this angle gives the film even more beauty and relevence.

Will

---

Stuart (clash_city_rockers_1977@yahooo.com) writes:

great film, so interesting and keeps u wondering what was going to happen next a question though.

noah wylie and drew barrymore, what? or who? were they, they kept giving donni little "tips" and "hints" (cellar door, the book that links grandma death),

and the scene where it was just the 2 of them and he said "donnie darko?", then she shook her head in disbelief and said "i know" then they both laughed.

can anybody help?? plz email me if u have an idea as it is bugging the hell out of me.

thanx

---

Charlie (loopysnoopy@dilbert.com) writes:

Personally I think everyone is missing what actually is going on - Namely Donnie was some kid who died in a plane crash, and the girl who continually wears the earmuffs (I can't remember her name - but she does the dance bit before Sparklehorse) invented this whole mythos around him, projecting what she would like to do thru him, as well as a simplistic romance that a 15 year old girl would come up with.

Look at the facts - she's in almost every scene with him interacting with other people, she is really scared when he talks to her (her OWN schizophrenia?) and she drops a book with Donnie Darko on the cover..

Charlie

---

Goat Man (Email address withheld) writes:

I thought this movie was cool. So many movie discussion boards (like this one) rip a film to pieces because it didn't make perfect sense - well excuse me but this film features a six-foot talking rabbit and time wormholes in small-town america - it's clearly not meant to be taken literally.

The important thing is that Donnie Darko makes you think - about time, space, causality, predestination, God - in short, about all the things the movie is about. In this sense it's a very successful movie.

It does have weak points and draws quite a lot on other films - Jacob's Ladder was clearly an influence - but it's still one of the best films I've seen this year.

---

fan (Email address withheld) writes:

To start off i loved this film and plan on watching it again. I have been strongly pondering one of the many confusing parts to the movie. Who exactly is frank a.k.a. the giant bunny rabit? When Donnie sees him, is it a hulucination (sp) or not? We learn that frank is an acctual person who is going out with donnies older sister, but then how can he appear to donnie all the time and keep watch over him? When Frank takes off his mask we see his bullet hole in his eye which to me appears as if Frank traveled back in time from beyond the grave to have an influence on Donnies life. So is Frank from the future, past, or present, or is he from the future while at the same time there is a present frank (the one who we see donnie shoot)? I have also heard that Frank may represent a messanger or Angel like figure sent by God to look over Donnie and help him find meaning to life so he wont be alone. Is that assumption true? Any insight to who Frank or the giant bunnie rabbit truely is would be much appriciated (sp). thanks.

---

Like-A-Bunny (vragen16@hotmail.com) writes:

I agree with most other reviewers...kinda hard to write a review 5 minutes after watching this movie, words just can't seem to describe the intense feeling this movie gives you.

I just have to see the movie again cause there are a couple of things wich aren't clear to me. Who the hell is Frank? Some kind of mesiah I guess, maybe even Jesus in another form and another religion. What did the psychiatrist have to tell Donnie on the answering machine during the halloween-party? Man, I really feel an intense urge to know these things...only one solution: back into the DVD-player!!!

---

alex (Email address withheld) writes:

does anyone know ... PLEASE... what as the amazing piece of music in the cinema scene where frank tells donnie to burn swayze's house to the ground... it's really deep, slow, choral thing... i must have it.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i believe the piece you are refering to is called 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' and is by Steve Baker and Carmen Daye - I agree, this is a beautifully slow burning track that makes for the most haunting moment of the film.

---

Raybo (fillyfakeout@hotmail.com) writes:

here in australia this kind of activity is not uncommon, it was a dull movie and you people are sad because you waste so much time discussing something which is part of every day life. i sense that my kangaroo will be hungry when i get to him, i must go now, time travel is too painful.

---

Alex (Email address withheld) writes:

hawksley - thanks for the tip about 'for whom the bell tolls' - but where can I get this track? it doesn't seem to be on Kazaa or Soulseek...

can anyone help?

---

Stouffer (Email address withheld) writes:

I don't know whether I LOVED this film or not. It definitely needs repeat viewings. I do know I haven't stopped thinking about it for the past three days since I saw it,which has got to be a good thing right? I watch trashy hollywood blockbusters, so much so that I feel I need something like Donnie Darko every once in a while to keep my brain working. Anything that generates this amount of disscussion and debate only goes to show how important 'different' films,books,etc are.

---

Esco (Email address withheld) writes:

In the end, Donnie has seen his path in life and realises that he has to die in order to rescue the life of his mother, his sister and his girlfriend Grechen.

If Donnie dies on October 2nd he would never had met Grechen. And he would never had burned down Jim Cunnighams house which means that his mother never would have gone to Los Angeles!!

He would never had fludded the school which means that Drew Barrymore doesn't get fired. So he rescues all his loved ones by dying on October 2nd.

Frank is just in Donnies mind, he came from the future and told Donnie to do all these things. But Donnie rescues Franks life as well by dying on October 2nd. That means that he will never kill him on October 31st.

So when the jet engine travels back in time, from the 31st to the 2nd, Donnie knows that he has to die right there and now.!!!!!!

---

chris (christopher.merton@lycos.co.uk) writes:

Just seen the film for the second time - didn't understand the first time but it is all starting to come together. There are so many different themes that it would be possible to write a thesis on it and the acting and direction are spot on. There is something in it for everyone - it has that Simpson-esque quality of working on many different levels - and I am sure even those heathens who have been slagging it off could get something out of it if they watched it with an open mind

---

Crazy Eddie (fanged_eddie@yahoo.com) writes:

I've seen it twice now.

1. Does anyone have any good photos of Frank's mask? I wanna make one, but need reference.

2. Go by yourself an octaver guitar effect pedal (www.bossus.com) and have some fun :D. Or borrow one. I don't recommend shelling out £45 just to amuse yourself doing Frank impressions, but if you already have one, or can borrow one, it's neat. ANYWAY.

I always go into films with an open mind, and it does make some sense having read all this stuff and seen it again. I still don't completely get it though.

I am a film buff. I watch everything.

But I always feel that on watching any film the first time round you should, by the time it's over, get it. You should not need it explaining to you.

It's like hearing a joke and not getting it, and then have someone go through it. It's no longer as funny.

Usually this is down to poor joke telling.

Now, my favourite film at the mo if Fight Club. This is a similarly good, start-from-the-end-and-work-backwards kind of film, but it makes instant sense. Terminator 2 also has some tricky space-time stuff to think about, but again it sorts itself out in your head as you watch the film.

I watched Donnie Darko, and thoroughly enjoyed it, but with a warm feeling of absolute bewilderment.

Having read through the complicated Quantum physics (I attempted to put my cat in a sealed box, but gave up after getting my arms scratched to heck.)

and explanations that supposedly are the key to understanding it, I wonder what the point is.

So I can see why the film flopped in the States. If it takes three viewings to get it, no-one's gonna bother.

- Ed

btw... @roystonvasey. Nice addy. :D

---

Katey (Email address withheld) writes:

Well what confuses me about this movie is why doesn't Donnie, at the end of the movie, after returning to his bedroom, just go downstairs and get a glass of milk or something? Then he wouldn't die, but he would never have met Frank by sleepwalking to the golf course, so he would never flood the school or burn down jim cunningham's house.

---

andrew burton (canibuyyouanisland@yahoo.co.uk) writes:

one of the most amazing films i have ever seen.in fact, it is the most amazing film!!!! i love the fact it causes confusion, never ending questins and intense emotions within such a short space. seen it about 10 times now and pretty much understand the main plot/time travel/portal stuff but there are so many little things that confuse me......english and science teachers' conversation about donnie!, asian girl constantly sat infront of the school mascot, why the science teacher could lose his job for disscusing time travel and god??????? please someone help. my head hurts trying to work it out!!!!! would be very grteful to receive an email explaining these things. thanks.

---

hayley (Email address withheld) writes:

just wondering, something thats been niggling in my head since i saw it--did i see the podgy asian girl carry a book called "donnie darko" which she dropped when donnie approached her at the lockers? and if she was, whats the relevence??

---

dd fan (Email address withheld) writes:

could you pleaz post the answers to the above questions cuz they're exactly the same things that hav been bugging me! the teachers convo, point of asian girl if hawskley's theory is rite and the deal with the science teachers secrecy, is it sumthing to do with him being an ex-fed agent, as mentioned on the website?

---

tom robinson (bitwise1010@yahoo.com) writes:

I agree "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Steve Baker and Carmen Daye is the most powerful musical piece in the film "Donnie Darko." I was so struck by the castrato requiem grief of this number, I looked for an old classical piece in the credits. I had to know what the piece was.

Finding no classical pieces besides "Ave Maria," I had to take a guess, based on song titles. Later (now) I went on line to learn what I could about this spell-binding composition.

I'm sorry to learn it was never included in any published musical score. But I'm glad to see I guessed the correct title and that there are others who share my regard for this fine piece of music.

---

Craig (Email address withheld) writes:

I am very much in agreement with many of you, this film is fantastic. After listening to the directors comments on the DVD, howewver, I feel that the explaination took someting away from the overall experience. To me, it was a film that offered so many different takes on issues, but realising exactly what the creators meant was somehow terribly disappointing.

Having said all that, I will never forget the hypnosis scenes with Donnie's doctor. The "family f***ing" scene has to be the funniest I've ever watched, and who can forget those hungry, hungry hippos!

---

yella (ye77a@yahoo.com) writes:

why do you whant an explanation!!??

do you know were you hare?

do you know were the univers is?

do you think you know so mutch that you can find sommeting in donnie darko that tells you more than ...we are all together in this!!-.--we all have the same kestions !

no one knows exactly waht the f! we are doing here...what dos it means!!...theres no real things expect the ones you belive!..dosent matther if they look like frome your fisical existence on your dream or spiritual one!...and the direcrtor ...he is human too! he also expeculated too....the cientist they do it too...no one really knows...but we all try to understand one thing, sommeting abouth real...that dosent fells real at all ...that loks like if theres someting missing...like a kestion...

donnie darko its great at this cuss it leaves an open door to your brain!...the celar door of your mind to understan better every day that ur not alone with fears asnd doubths!...and theres really no reason to be afraid of doubst or desteny...desteny its clear but it dosent commes on a manual wen you born...you have to figth to have it rigth...and no matter what you do ur fate will alweys come to you...sonner or latter ....and im so glad abouth this movie as i waS WUTH the david lynch ones that gived me somme good motives to think about live as a infinitive options of real!---what is real ?---this words? your computer?

rigth now only what you fell can be real...the rest is up to you to realy belive in your fellings.

thanks for the reading of the movie.

danyella...big fan of donnie.....

---

aesthete (red_hex@hotmail.com) writes:

the reason that kelly made the film the way he did, and resolutely kept his personal ideas out of it, is because he knew that only by making the film the way he did - ambiguous, open to interpretation, multi-facted - could he expect to make the film respectable. if he had just made another teen sci fi flick it would have been a boring failure and he would too.

instead he sought for ways to make his core idea more accessible and worthy than a straight out scifi flick, and give it more layers, more depth, so that it could be a film for everyone. it must have been incredibly hard work, adding and adding ideas and content to the film until it became something that a hundred different people could take a hundred different ways, but i think he did an admirable job. it explains why theres a certain disjointedness about the film, and why so many opened avenues are not explored - because kelly packed it with so much potential to make it a fuller picture that he could not possibly live up to the accumulated possibilities.

instead he focused on carrying through with his original idea, since it is in fact the point of the film. which is why the last parts become so hurried and discard so much of the weight kelly spent the length of the film building. not that its a bad move - it means that by the end you're as shocked into submission as if all the characters had just been killed off in front of your eyes - which in a way, they were.

it means though, that when hes asked to explain the plot, kelly can only give you HIS own vision of it - which as ive made clear, is not all or even half of the movie. in fact i personally feel that the majority of his own visions are the worst aspects of the movie - i think donnie darko viewed without scifi elements is a far better thing than it viewed with scifi elements. the introduction of sci fi actually spoils the experience - it cheapens the film for us, and we try to forget the sci fi.

which is exactly what kelly knew before he started - he had an idea, an idea containing all the good elements of donnie darko - and at first he clad it in sci fi, tangent universes and vessels and manipulated dead, he put all that around it for its frame, and then he realised that if he did that he would produce an inferior story. so he spent a long time working at it to put as many different sides and routes to his central theme as possible OUTSIDE the sci fi, and then made his film, and then had to end his film, and THEN found himself being asked to explain his film when he had deliberately written it to avoid any one explanation. so the best he could do is talk about his sci fi - and can you blame him.

donnie darko is a film with a lot of ideas. it isnt meant to be resolved, hollywood-like, into one big happy thing by the end. it resolves into something because it has to, but how and why is left for you to decide - it is left FOR YOU, to take from the film what YOU want. thats what its about. if you start poking into its "one true point", and reading about metal and water, tangents and vessels, paradoxes and wormholes, then you are going to be terribly, terribly disappointed at having everything the film gave you taken away and replaced by a bent tin shell, so that youll wish you could go back to the way it was before you poked.

ps. donnies science teacher couldnt carry on the conversation because american (and maybe other, i dont know) schools can not make definitive speculations on religion. they have to stick right by the rules. if it got out that the science teacher had told a student that everyone had a destiny accorded them by god, and the rest of it, its just too... definitive a statement of speculation for schools to tolerate. its basically way too much of a hot potato - a subject that is not to be discussed in a controversial way. all of which is bullshit but its the way it is.

i didnt think this was so hard to get, but... the japanese girl has a book - a diary - with donnie darko on it, and cant talk to him, because she fancies him.

and the english and science teachers giggle about donnie in the staffroom because they are fairly young, new at the school teachers, still with a youthful love of the job in them and not hardened into old windbags yet, and they see in donnie... something they see in no other students. a strange enthusiasm (his questions in science, his understanding in english), an off the wall character, a wonderful weirdo who appeals to them both because its such a refreshing antidote to the rest - the zombie students. so they have merely to mention his name and they both know exactly what each is getting at, and share a sly chuckle about it. remember they are partners as well.

incidentally, i also read jordans link, and what both he and his link sound like are people desperately trying to defend themselves from a percieved attack, presumably by the film. so why do they feel threatened by donnie darko? tricky one...

to anyone having problems with the official website, dont worry. its crap. you remember hawksley's dununciation of david lynch as a posing weirdo, trying to appear as an out-there, wacko loony for the brownie points itll bring him? well, the darko site is just like that. weird for weirdness' sake. the only worthwhile thing on it is at the very end of its convoluted access crap, and that sucks too. a discussion between two fda/faa officials about how the "analysis" of the jet engine proves that the plane its id marks show it comes from is in full working order flying atlantic runs, or something. pointless.

---

hawksley (dhrupick@roystonvasey.co.uk) writes:

i whole heartedly agree with everything you have just said.

---

Tom Simington (Email address withheld) writes:

I Saw this film on a Whim and Like Hawsley has stated on this site i went into investigating the plot further through seeing it seven times and looking at the website and DVD extras after being amazed the first time i watched it.

The film tells a story cinematically in a way that wouldn't be as good through a book, usually the prefered of film and literature. The film is enormously visual and uses cinematic techniques to great dramatic ends. The film for me has to be one of my favourites. It tackled not only the story of the tangent universe dreamt up by the writer, Kelly, but it also addresses issues like the discrepencies in the eduction system through Drew Barrymore's character; but pure idiocy through the character of Ms Farmer, and an amazing sense of abstract family love, especially through the character of Rose Darko, Donnies mother.

I think this film is absolutely brilliant and i am on a mission to show it to as many people as possible, i hope you'll all enjoy my analysis.

Ohh and i love the scene were it tells Ms Farmer to forcibly insert the lifeline card into her anus

---

Alan Walker (Email address withheld) writes:

A masterpiece of a film, and like Dark Star, Blue Velvet and Repo Man a landmark in cinematic achievement. Had me gripped throughout the countdown to the worlds end.

---

Carol (Email address withheld) writes:

A very special film, liked the soundtrack, especially Tears for Fears "Mad World" and that the two most beautiful words in the English Dictionary are "cellar door" almost had me in tears. Sentimental, frightening and retro, haunting in the extreme.

---

gnt_R0bt (gnt_R0bt@yahoo.com) writes:

First off, I have to say that I loved the movie and the fact that sooo many people have written about it means that it in the very least has a great effect (positive or negative) on a lot of people.

One thing I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND though is that if you are someone who has not seen the movie yet, or only seen it once, that you should probably avoid the website and the dvd directors commentary. I began to listen to the commentary once and quickly shut it off! The fact is that PART OF THE FUN IS FIGURING IT OUT! You don't need any of Kelly's extra explanation anyway, everything you need to know to figure out the movie is there.

The movie is mainly about divine intervention. Dead Frank is a kind of agent of God that acts to intervene, telling and showing Donnie all these crazy things. Actually, it would seem that many of the characters (the therapist, both teachers, even Cunningham) in the film serve to direct Donnie in the direction such that at the end he accepts God's will, laughing right before his own death, confident the answers will come in his sleep.

To see the that the film is about divine intervention, just take another look and see all the references to God and where they are made. In speaking with his therapist Donnie says he doesn't argue with himself over the existence of God because of what Roberta Sparrow tells him - everything dies alone. But later on his therapist tells him if the sky were to open up it would be just Donnie and God - so everyone doesn't really die alone.

There are many BIG points in the movie that seem to have gone unmentioned in the discussion by everyone above. I'll mention two of many here:

One of these central points in the movie is about God's motivations and why he/she/it does what he/she/it does. It seems ironic that in giving Donnie these extra days after the world was supposed to end for him that he gets to have a girlfriend, and stop a child molester, and all these other things that he does. And yet in the end, Donnie still has to die. This is the irony of God, shown in the story of "The Destructors" - to destroy is in itself also an act of creation.

Another point Kelly makes as to the reason why Donnie is shown all of this in the first place is given in Donnie's class project, the Infant Memory Generator. The whole of Donnie experiences after the night of October 2nd are a kind of IMG for Donnie by God. The question brought up during the IMG discussion by Donnie's school enemies in class is a good one. They ask what if you showed violence or pictures of satan to your child in the IMG. Well in some part this is what God does to Donnie - showing him good and bad alike. Again this is the irony of the existence of evil in a world created by a loving God. But in the end, Donnie understands that he was supposed to die, and he realizes if he had lived, both his mother, sister, Gretchen, and Frank would have died.

In all, this is a really great film that deserves several viewings before a final judgement is made.

---

Carol (Email address withheld) writes:

Just for the record, I don't think an appreciation of the almighty should be a prerequisite for this film...my two cents worth.

---

nomack (pward671@aol.com) writes:

WOW watched the film 5 times now and all i can say is that it is one of the greatest experiences I have had. Not the best film ever (but up there). the whole Donnie Darko film makes up to a wonderful piece of cinema that moves you on several plains and will have you talking for days. Bought the DVD now and watched it with the Directors commentry on, at last I know who the fat man in the orange tracksuit is. I will be looking closely for the next outing of Richard Kelly.

---

jonnyboyo (jonandsez.jones@ntlworld.com) writes:

ive seen the film many times now...and each time i enjoy a warm feeling in my soul...the reason? well i dont think it matters, i think this film is all things to all men(and women). to me it opened up an inner debate within myself on religion,belief and faith and also how we are what we have been moulded to be, the person we become is a result of the world we live in and how it touches us ....

---

Tony Owl (Email address withheld) writes:

Refreshing to watch a film that actually makes you think. I have watched it twice now, been through the website and read all the above comments but still it doesn't make perfect sense,(which is a positive not a negative comment).

My wife fell asleep for the last twenty minutes of the film and asked me to tell her what happened - I didn't even bother to start explaining, she is one of those people who just would't get it, (see Jordan above)

Some things in life are not meant to be fully understood but are open to interpretation.

1. Have an imagination

2. Watch the film.

3. Enjoy the film

4. Draw your own conclusions

5. Read everyone elses views on the film

6. Realise that point number 4 is incorrect and redraw your own conclusions

7. Start dreaming about finding a wallet full of money

8. Realise Donnie Darko is starting to take over your life and thank god the final part of Lord of the Rings is due out soon to take your mind off movies that make you THINK.

ps I love my wife but she likes the simple things in life. (ie me)

pps I also love Lord of the Rings so I don't want any tolkeinites slagging me off.

---

jules (Email address withheld) writes:

omg this movie is amazing. FInally a movie which is woroth watching again and again and again. ANd not get bored. This movie is up there with american beauty and series 7

---

JonLeBon (wewillcutoffyourjohnson@uk2.net) writes:

Maybe we're not meant to understand..

Maybe there isn't an answer to every 'why'..

The most moving film I've ever seen.

Only Watership Down made me blub more than this..

( Oh, and Bagpuss ;-)

---

Nick (nick.miller@wanews.com.au) writes:

I've enjoyed reading this forum.

But I have to say I disagree with most of it.

For a start - ignore the extras, the website, the commentary. The blah. A film is a film. A film plus extras is something completely different. A different text. That's the theory. The practical reason is: if we encourage movies that can't be understood until we've bought the DVD and scoured the website, we're going to have even less spare time for kissing girls and flooding schools.

Anyway, even with the blah it still doesn't make sense.

Ok. So stand-alone, the film doesn't make sense. Full stop. For the simple reason that time travel doesn't make sense. You can't - CANNOT - force it into a logical sequence, because you end up hitting the old oedipal paradox, and killing your father before he has a chance to impregnate your mother. Or equivalent.

Darko whacks straight into this paradox. If he chooses to go back in time and kill himself... I'm not even going to complete that sentence, because nonsense awaits.

Mullholland used the old 'it was all a dream' loophole, which some have suggested for Darko, dressing up 'dream' as 'saw the future'. The old dream ploy is usually a total cop-out, but Lynch got away with in my books because those two hot chicks got naked together, and he cast a heap of Australians. Also because it was a dream of the past, not the future.

You can't tell me Darko really saw the future. Or more specifically, you can't say that and pretend it 'explains' the film. Because that would mean the future is already set, and that makes 'seeing the future' equivalent to time travel. And if so, all the paradoxes immediately apply.

So where are we? I loved Donnie Darko. Not because of the sci-fi bits, they kind of annoyed me because they didn't really make sense. I ended up just a bit disappointed, because I loved the tension between 'is he schizophrenic' or 'is the bunny real', so it was a bit of a let down when the two were resolved as 'the bunny is real and came back from the future through a wormhole'.

But I loved the film. The way it made you think, and feel, about madness and destiny and choice.

The cool music. The great acting.

Also it had some very funny lines.

A film doesn't need to be 'explained' to be great. It just has to be an experience worth experiencing.

The end.

---

gillian (gm_laird@hotmail.com) writes:

Hi everyone!

I watched Donnie Darko Darko a few months ago and, although I found it confusing, really enjoyed it. I have since watched it another three times with different people in order to get their analysis of it.Today, still with the film on my mind I decided to investigate it further and arrived here.

Although everyone has very good theories on the film and it's meanings you have made me lose interest in it. Not a bad thing though, and I really don't mean to insult anyone.

Aagh! I'm even confusing myself with what i'm trying to say!

Im not a big fan of T.V or film. I'm a reader. I occassionally find books which, once they are finished leave me feeling a bit empty. Does anyone know what I mean? A book which is so good and you become so involved in that when you finish you feel like part of you is missing? But I always find another book just as good as the last.

However, Donnie Darko, is the only film which effected me this way. I am glad to see it also had this effect on so many others. But now I am through analysing and wondering about this film. I am just amazed at how good it was and hope I soon see another film up to the same standard! xx

---

John (jcyall2001@yahoo.co.uk) writes:

Never before has a film grabbed me so tight round the neck and shook me! An utterly brilliant film which begs the question how complex can the human brain get!

Many theories on this page describe what people think. But none are correct!!! Time travel is too complex for the human mind! Especially in this film! When time travel is discovered (if at all) then that is when you will understand fully this film! Ask the writer, I bet he can't truly describe the ideas hes trying to get across. You can only watch at the brilliance that is Richard Kelly and this Retro futuristic Physcological Thriller!! Banging soundtrack by the way!

Better than words can describe or explain!

FANTASTIC

---

Ross Durham (VonWBA@HotMail.com) writes:

There are many elements incorporated in this film,that clarity of analysis becomes clouded.People have been placing to much emphasis on the time travel aspect and not donnies morose an aberrant mental condition;is it just a coincidence that the films protagonist isnt normal?

Donnie alone has the faculty to see into the future,or maybe its just a subjective dream,it doesnt matter.What is important is that he views future events as dire,so dire that hes willing to take the ultimate act 2 not become a part of them.He sees an apathetic adult world(you see donnie ally himself with the 1 thorn in the apathetic sides backside,that of drew barrymores character.He sees revered heroes as charlatans and benevolent,portrayed by patrick swayze.He sees an experiences bullying etc etc.And the culminating act in donnies pessimistic view is the cruel demise of his girlfriend.Donnies desire 2 learn about time travel,is 2 know whether the status quo will alter for the better.He doesnt get answers an decides 2 commit suicide,ergo eradicating the inevitable pain.

---

ROSS DURPY (VONWBA@HOTMAIL:COM) writes:

The film donnie darko is truly unique,the reason for this is because of the troubled donnie is getting so bored and depressed that at the very end he puts his life to end by time traveling.

He sees the world as a deceptive place and has no reason to carry on in this MAD WORLD:ROSS

---

Andy (Email address withheld) writes:

There's an overlooked explanation to the paradoxes and ambiguities of donny darko: not hidden meanings, not deep truths about god / timetravel and not satirical points about life as a american teen in the late 80's (height of reagan /thatcherism) and certainly not a commentary on mental illness.

Simply,its very difficult to construct a world of the imagination and keep it consistent. Tolkien and Asimov, for instance, were able to do it (whether you particularly like or dont like what they wrote - the point I'm making is that at all times the characters they created acted in a believeable and consistent way according to the physical/social/spriritual/whatever rules of the construct of the imagination they found themselves in)

In a way, this was the reason that the two matrix sequels were weak - having set up the rules in the first film, the directors were unwilling to break them but found that within the constraints of the construct they created they really had nothing new to say

So, applying all this to Donnie Darko, there's no consistent explanation that fits all the facts. the 'clues' are contradictory and point in different directions. example: donny attacks frank with a knife yet is unable to penetrate franks shield. two possibilites arise from this: 1. frank has supernatural powers that protect him, or, 2 donny is as mad as a spoon and is hallucinating giant invulnerable bunnies.

yet later, donny is able to kill frank with a pistol and frank turns out to be his sisters otherwise blameless boyfriend. it simply doesnt add up.

The only possible explanation that meets all the clues in the film is that we are witnessing our donnies hallucinations. In which case, anything you see means nothing - its simply a disconnected waking dream.

so its a directorial cop - out. having failed to create a consistent plot that would allow him to say the things he wants to say - he just says them anyway and lets the plot go hang. it reminded me of 'fear and loathing in las vegas' for this reason.

i'm glad i've seen it, technically nice, well put together, great lines, beautifully acted (all those criticising drew barrymore in this go and watch her in 'charlies angels 2 full throttle'...) and wonderfully haunting

BUT

the reason the plot doesnt appear to make any sense is because the plot doesnt make any sense. Any fool can spout disconnected gibberish. Creating a story with tension, believability and a form of resolution (and no, that doesnt have to be a standard hollywood 'happy' ending) is a surprisingly difficult thing to do and the people who created donny darko fundamentally decided not to bother.

And one last thought - whoever created that website wants to be ashamed of themselves. The internet is for SHARING information, not hiding it behind a great stinking pile of animated garbage. Get rid of the rubbish and just put the content up, OK?

---

Icon (Switzerland), 36 (Email address withheld) writes:

To me, Donnie Darko is one of the few films that left me behind with a mix of different and complex feelings, not just the clearly identifiable (?) happy feeling from a happy end (even whether there is a happy end in this film is up to discussion) or the sad feeling because a character you grew fond of died. A film that makes you feel is a good one. A film that makes you feel so many different things at the same time is a great one. I also was overwhelmed by the visual impact of the film and amazed by all the questions building up in my head just after I watched it (2 days ago and I'll do it again *s*). So I looked for an explanation of what I had just seen and I found a lot of them and I could relate to a lot of them cause they mostly made sense in one way or the other. And not only is this an outstanding film for making you think and feel about life and death and destiny in general, on a more simple level you can enjoy those remarkable lines (superhero name, bunny suit/man suit and so on). Together with the great acting and the sound and music it just all adds up to this unique experience. It is a film that is becoming cult because a majority of people who'll watch it just - as some of you put it - won't get it (and won't get those special feelings out of it) and that's probably the definition for cult, something that's special to certain people while most others will miss the point. Of course it feels good to be one of those who at least partially get it and you love the film for that, too *s*.

The film reverbs in you. It doesn't go away for a while. Almost haunts you. It's as if it touches something in you and you just can't quite put the finger on what it is. Or maybe you're afraid to. How real are we, how real is the live we live? What about existence and time? Sometimes I'm afraid there's a curtain in the back of our mind to sweep aside and look behind, revealing some hidden secret, some great and terrifying truth, a question we are not supposed to ask and when you're there, when you ask that all important but forbidden Question - you're not allowed to go on. You are taken out of the game. End of existence. Maybe Donnie found the question - or even the answer. I know I know, it's just a film. But in your mind it can become so much more. And right now this thoughts start giving me the creeps *uh*... *s*

This leads me to Mulholland Drive cause especially in the silencio-scene I had that same odd feeling about reality and how we may lie to ourselves about it to evade that existence threatening question. So Mulholland Drive left me with a similar but even more disturbing feeling.

Well, maybe I just vanish when I press the "Submit"-Button cause I'm not supposed to even talk about the possibility that there could be such a curtain. But more likely I'm just a little creeped out and tired and should go to bed and get on with my life without thinking to much about things like that.

And by the way, I'm much more afraid of living alone than dying alone. Although I might miss the point here. When is one alone anyway? When there's no emotional attachement to another person?

---

Steve Jenkins (Email address withheld) writes:

Just as a point of interest, has anyone noticed that on the dvd commentaries near the end, Richard Kelly contradicts himself a few times and gets a bit confused and Drew Barrymore has to correct him. Don't get me wrong i really like the film but i think that Mr Kelly doesnt really know himself exactly what the end of the film means and that the things that cant be explained are there through accident, not some greater meaning. I dont think he is really as deeper thinker as he has led us to believe! But then what would i know?!

To avoid fainting, keep repeating "It's only a movie. It's only a movie. It's only a movie".

---

Eamon Hegarty (fuctoff10-@hotmail.com) writes:

Without a doubt one of the best films ever created. It makes you think but not too much that it makes you miss parts of the film. Quite simply a must see for everyone and then you will want to see it again and again.

---

James Helyar (Email address withheld) writes:

WOW undescribable, i love surreal films and that hits it on the head. richard kelly where has he been all our lives. the man is still getting spots he's so young, which means he has many many years ahead of him to produce more cult gems like donnie darko.

---

Nathan Harvey (Email address withheld) writes:

This is one the the greatest films in creation, I loved it. I have watched it 7 time and plan to see it many more times.

---

Spaztasic (smartass_of_an_eminem_fan@hotmail.com) writes:

this is a fantastic film and i have absolutely no complaints. Yes the plot is hard to grasp but thats all part of the fun!

This is probably just me being really dense, but for the world to be rescues the bit of plane has to b sent back through the worm hole and i just dont see how that happens, it never goes back through.

Also duz Donnie go back through the wormhole?

And no1 has any clue bout Frank do they? cuz i dont either...

Thanx for any assistance

---

Jess (xleftxxxbehindx@aol.com) writes:

donnie darko was the most diffcult movie for me to understand theres still things a question...a good movie keeps you thinking!

---

la la (Email address withheld) writes:

erm id like to know what "cellerdoor" means in the film ........ i seem to understand everything else xxxxxxxps its an amazin film quite depressin tho

---

Mike Birbeck (Email address withheld) writes:

The best film I didn't see in 2001.

---

Donnie Darkos' Dark Ego, (The Bunny) (Anutasia77@yahoo.com) writes:

This is for:

Rachel (surfing.zone@verizon.net) writes:

Does anyone know what the title of Graham Greene's short story was in this movie? I'd really like to read it, because it sounds interesting, but I don't remeber if they mentioned it in the movie or not. Oh, and I really loved this movie. It's one of my favorites. It's thought-provoking in so many ways. And even though the ending is supposed to tie everything together, I've watched the movie 3 times and still don't understand all of it.

The answer is: "The Destructors" By Graham Greene.

---

Elisha (elisha117@hotmail.com) writes:

Brilliant movie, I love it too bits...and I think all that can be said about it has been said, so I'll just jump to my querie...why won't the site work...like I get to the whole her name was that of a bird thing...and I know its gotta be Roberta Ann Sparrow or just Roberta, or just Sparrow...or maybe even Grandma Death...but nothing works! Can ya help me out??

---

Samal (Email address withheld) writes:

one of the greatest films i've ever seen - in general i beliene that time travel stories make great films if they are done right... ie back to the future, donnie darko...

except than a great time travel film it also ads all the concepts that were refered from the other reviewers (fate etc...) that make it even more interesting.

i think that the fact that you see the film begs you at the end of it to review it makes it even greater...

thank u hawkley for your explanation

---

Nina (Email address withheld) writes:

Just watched the dvd and thought it was so very multi-faceted and thought provoking. Hawksley's wonderfully profound theories on the film have clarified any of my uncertainities.

Thanks

Nina x

---

Visitor (Email address withheld) writes:

A visual journey into the chaotic world

of a so called 'Psychic'. See all the pieces, but not the picture. As usual this ends in a frustrating 'Self Destruction.

---

chez! (Email address withheld) writes:

Donnie Darko is an awesome film, Jake Gyllenhaal is such a professional actor and really pulled the character of (donnie darko). The film uses production and story elements that interact and combine which each other to make the narrative and make the movie what it is. Well done Richard Kelly, at only 26 when he made this movie, it is astonishing and watch out for more, we want a Donnie Darko 2, this is because it left me and my mates just wanting so much more

---

Shorty aka Lil Jayde (gobbledock85@hotmail.com) writes:

I am only 14 and i absoloutly love anything Jake does... but donnie darko was different... it was amazing. It made me think about everything. I loved it. All my senses went off!! well if u havent seen it.. U HAVE TO!!!!!

---

Ems (Email address withheld) writes:

I only got around to seeing this film last night, despite the DVD being sat on my bookshelf for almost 2 months.

I have never felt the urge to ask so many questions about a film before, and yet, not really 'want' to know the answers.

Brilliant, entertaining, funny but chilling story - one of the best in my book!!

From 'your average chick flick kinda gal'

P.s Theory just takes the edge off what you really want to take from the film personally.

---

Joe (Email address withheld) writes:

Food for thought: How did Donnie's physics teacher come to be in possession of Grandma Death's book in the first place?

---

(Email address withheld) writes:

Wait unless I'm missing something wee Donnie Darko self sacrifice saves fuckall and certainly does return the jet engine to where it should be. i.e. the 31st of oct IN THE FUTURE (I think that is the date) So the mad world scenario will continue with a whole different alternate reality going on untill that engine does not fall in the worm whole. Unless I am wrong this is an absolutley crucial difference rendering Hawkeys explanation invalid theres nothing christ like about Darkos death. God must be thoroughly pissed of with Donnie throwing jet engines through time to squash him, but not before cursing him with schizophrenia. Perhaps It's a comment about the madness of the wierd thing that reality is. Or a schizophrenics, schizo explanation for schizophrenia. Bloody good movie!!!!

---

(Email address withheld) writes:

That should read doesn't return the jet engine to where it should be.

---

jonnie lake (Email address withheld) writes:

in my opinion this is one of the best movies i have ever seen. I just have a couple of questions. I dont understand why donnie had to die. If he knew how all of his family ends up dying and how gretchen dies then why doesnt he stop the time travel after he leaves the room so he doesnt die and then jus not go to grandma death's house and not burn down the creepy porno freek's house so that his family doesnt have to go on the plain and then just hurt his little sister so she can not go to the dance and then all would be good. Even though the end is sad this movie really makes you think and if anybody doesnt like this movie it is just because they are dumb and do not understand it.

---

(Email address withheld) writes:

err well what can i say about one of the all time worst movies ever made. Simple as. The directing and writting is the only good part. It is boring and totally confusing. The special effects rox my blocks.

---

Liz (Choco_monsters@hotmail.com) writes:

I love this film so much... it really has not be publisised in the UK and Jake Gyllenhaal is only being publisised because of his new movie..

I think Donnie died to save everyone else... has a bit of a religious connetation going on!

I think the whole point of the film was to get people thinking and make these explanations ... i wonder if there is a real one?!?

About the website... i could not work it but now im at some bit with Donnie and the date and it won't go any further.. its called burn it down. I think you need to click on random things to make each page turn up.

---

sarah (Email address withheld) writes:

So is the reason Grandma death always walks back and forth to her letter box because she knows donnie is going to send her a letter in the future? Can anyone tell me what the significance of chenita the chinese girl is? Thanks sarah x

---

Dean Agius (dean_agius@ipcmedia.com) writes:

Raising Helen

There’s something funny about love this summer. The Spiderman sequel swings onto the big screen bearing more than its fair share of arachno-attraction. Shrek 2 will entertain the kiddies with some good old fashioned ogre-on-ogre loving. And we’ve already had the love that resulted in a big wooden horse (reader is referred to Troy – and consequently to a doctor for clinical depression). Into this cirque d’amour timidly shuffles Kate Hudson’s new flick, the no frills romantic comedy Raising Helen.

Directed by Garry Marshall (Pretty Woman/Runaway Bride), Hudson plays the eponymous Helen, a twenty-something party girl whose career at a top Manhattan modelling agency is on the rise. She spends her days at fashion shows and her nights at the city’s hottest clubs. However, this carefree lifestyle comes to a screeching halt when she suddenly finds herself playing mother to her sister’s orphaned children. She is axed from her job – her domineering boss (Helen Mirren) is called Dominique, clever that; falls for a pastor (Sex And The City’s John Corbett), and falls out with her older sister, played excellently by the facially elastic Joan Cusack, on what it takes to be an All American Mom.

I wanted to like this film. No really I did. Remember the harmless charm of those other self-indulgent-adult-forced-into-pseudo-parent-position comedies that were so popular in the late 80s: Baby Boom and Three Men and A Baby? No, me neither; but it does seem fair to have thought that bringing together a successful rom-com director (Marshall) and the star of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and Le Divorce (Hudson) would have resulted in some jolly engaging saccharine fluff. Regrettably it doesn’t.

Fundamental problem 1: the children. Such an integral part of the film, these youngsters evoke neither depth nor charm. 5-year-old Sarah (Abigail Breslin) has trouble tying her shoelaces without mom’s bunny story, and you can’t help but feel would be a touch more endearing if she wet the bed. Henry (Spencer Breslin) draws skulls and has a wit years beyond that of an average 10-year-old. And Hayden Panettiere, playing 15-year-old Audrey, does a Britney (post-2001) and tarts herself up, before doing a Britney again (pre-2001) and tarting herself down – a veritable tart rollercoaster for poor Audrey.

Then there’s fundamental problem 2: Hudson’s daft and irksome Helen, whose emotional upheaval involves many bittersweet ‘realisations’. These include the discovery that dancing at 3am doesn’t mix with getting the kids to school on time (Duh); that buying the latest Elle magazine may not be as essential as getting groceries for those bloody annoying kids; and that when you feel like the audience may well be losing the will to live, fall up some stairs – that’s sure to raise some laughs.

Overall, this movie comes across as poorly scripted and too long. Marshall seems unsure of what his message is, and Hudson plays it with a distinct lack of comic timing. Frankly, attempting to raise The RMS Titanic carries a greater chance of success than Raising Helen.

(UK release date: 27th August 2004)

---

Sue (mick8webb6917@aol.com) writes:

I don't know how old all these comments are or if anyone will see this comment of mine added on 23 July 2004. BUT! if anyone's watching: First of all, let me begin by saying that as far as I can see, the dates are 02 October, then the 30th and NOT the 31st. Why the 31st? Who decided that? In any case, I believe that Donnie saved the world (as is written on the dvd box) - now there's a clue, and not merely some wayward town folk in his neighbourhood. Donnie calls Jim Cunningham the "anti-Christ" which indeed he is. I beleive that the film was set in the late 80's to show that, had Donnie not done what he had to do, Jim Cunningham would have become President of the U.S. by, let's say, the year 2001. In this position he is able to secure the destruction of the world. As a nun, Roberta Sparrow was sent a vision of this by God and was instrumental in ensuring this did not happen. I accept this is vague but for you die hard fans who have been attempting to make sense of this film I think you'll recognise that the point is indeed this simple (eventually)! If my theory is correct, then this has got to be the cleverest film ever made. Richard Kelly has presented us with the classic good versus evil but we won't be able to quite work that out unless we can permit our minds to travel through time ie. the past where we "see" the terrifying vision that Roberta Sparrow witnesses to the future where we "see" Jim Cunningham as President. Cheers! Sue x

---

Bridget (genx@hotmail) writes:

I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this BUT ...

This is not such an interesting film more of a fashion statement. A good story has a start, middle and end - cliche and true.

The time loops are annoying and used for dramatic effect rather than any code that needs to be cracked.

The one eyed rabbit suited man from the future thing rang bells like Christmas and explained nothing.

I don't think a school movie aimed at adults encouraging nostalgia was a good idea.

My friend loves this film because the lead actor reminded him of himself as a young man. His pain was evident on leaving the cinema.

---

(Email address withheld) writes:

how does donnie know that if he doesnt kill himself his mother and sister will die?

---

Jessica (Email address withheld) writes:

LEGEND!!!!!!

best film ive seen all year.amazing.very thought provoking!!

---

Liam (liamjohnmay@hotmail.com) writes:

Donnie Darko is the most overrated film i have ever seen in my life. I hate it. The main character is extremely weak and the supporting roles from the likes of drew barrymore and patrick swayze have not charisma at all.

An extremely boring watch!

---

Paul (php@sold.co.uk) writes:

I think Donnie Darko is good because it doesn't explain everything. Why should it? Its one of the few films that leave you thinking and confused.

So can anyone tell me does the Director's Cut spoil the original for you? I'm frightened to see it as I believe it contains a lot more explanations.

Incidently I think I can state a new movie rule that any film with a giant rabbit in it has to be good, eg Harvey, James Stuart's 6 foot high invisible drinking companion and the Night of the Lepus, which is an under rated radio active horror movie which has the imortal line 'Get into your cars and drive awy there's a herd of giant killer rabits heading this way.' And the actor who said that without so much as a smile didn't get the oscar that year.

---

HEc (HEc@hotmail.com) writes:

Thanks alot Hawk I finally understood it for a bit untill you added that last bloody comment :) good anwsers to it settled my mind for a bit.

---

Laura (Email address withheld) writes:

I'm only 13 and I love this movie!At first it didn't make sense but then I went to the Donnie Darko website and ever since it made sence to me I've loved it!Jake was very good in this movie

---

kimberley (Email address withheld) writes:

hey' ok so im a BIT behind, its the 24th january 2005. im 17, live in england and ive watched donnie darko twice. i love it and will probably continue watching it many times throughout forever.

this film has a quality, an essence. yes it is only a film but other people's thoughts and in this case creations are essential to your thoughts and development. i think it depends to wether you see this as a 'creation' or a 'film', and this effects what you take away from it (i hope that make some sense:)

yes, the film has question marks over certain parts and depending on who you are depends on how you interpret them. i got the 'time space donnie has to die' thing first time but had trouble with characters- reading this site (which is brilliant and has taken me forever!) has maybe confused me and added new information into the mix. but im gona stand by my interpretation which im not gona share, not beecause im selfish but because its up to you and your ideas.

hey to everyone who has made this site brilliant including jordan! (you rock in your own way)and hey to all the late-comers to the magic (or maybe not in your opinion).

xxx

---

Richard Dias (r1chard_d1as@hotmail.com) writes:

WOW!!! that was one of the best films i have ever seen. ever. this makes me want to be an actor even more. i usually hate films that end like that but WOW. i'll be in a stunned (with awe) mood for the rest of the day. i've only seen the vhs version, i just borrowed it, this makes me want to get $7.00 out right now and borrow the movie on dvd. then go out and buy the dvd. or just buy it. in fact, i'll go do that.

bye!

---

Phil (Email address withheld) writes:

Watched the film for the first itme tonight and I must admit I found it hard work... however having read some of the expalnations on this site I'll give it another go tomorrow... hopefully then it'll all be clearer

---

adam timberlake (hotmale_7253@hotmail.com) writes:

iv seen this film about 50 times and iv pretty much got it. There are many explinations, but i think that know one will eva under stand it. it isnt ment to be under stood. it is ment to make us think about it. so here is one explination.

Donnie Darko follows a boy of superior intelligence whose emotional problems propel him on a very strange trajectory through a tangent universe. Donnie’s journey begins when he dreams about a rabbit telling him to leave the house. He follows the rabbit, and escapes being killed by a falling airplane part of unknown origin. But the rabbit tells him that the world is going to end in twenty-eight days. Donnie’s been given life and death at once.

Donnie Darko boldly attempts not only to transcend the time travel conundrum, but to link it explicitly to the biggest question of all: Does everyone die alone?

If God exists, he must by extension have a plan for the universe, a path for everyone to follow. If we are following a path that God knows from start to finish, then we should be able to jump to any point on that path because it already and always exists. Donnie is able to see these paths as Abyss-like arrows emanating from people’s chests. He tries to ask his science teacher what it all means, but his teacher can’t answer—he’ll lose his job. He can’t tell Donnie how to travel in time because it means telling Donnie that there is a sovereign God who created time and who oversees its unfolding.

Donnie’s bible is The Philosophy of Time Travel, a book written by Darko character Roberta Sparrow, a.k.a. Grandma Death. Sparrows are the birds most commonly associated with God’s providence. In the Bible, Jesus asks that we “consider the birds” to understand how God will take care of us. Shakespeare riffs on these words as Hamlet, confronted with his own mortality and understanding that he must take action, says, “There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow . . . The readiness is all.” But the dark side of God’s providence is death. Hamlet understood this—the readiness of which he speaks is the readiness to die. Throughout Jesus’ teachings, the idea is that true devotion to God will remove the fear of death because of the trust that God is sovereign and he will provide, even after death. As the existential optimist Job says, “Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him.”

So why, then, does Roberta Sparrow say to Donnie, “Every living thing dies alone”? This question throws Catholic schoolboy Donnie into a tailspin. He thinks that the world is going to end and he’s going to die and be alone and there’s nothing he can do about it. Even as he falls in love with Gretchen and comes to know the depth of his mother’s love for him, Donnie watches his world spiral out of control. He finds destruction of his own making and destruction that is unavoidable. He can’t make heads or tails of any of it and comes to find that the world is a terrifying, dark place even as there are pockets of goodness.

Donnie is learning the meaning of what the biblical writer John calls “the now and the not yet.” The Christian believer lives in the paradox of knowing that salvation (from the eternal consequences of sin) has already arrived and that salvation (from the sorrow of living in a fallen world) is still to come. The conflict will be resolved only when the believer sees Christ face to face—that is, on the believer’s mortal death. Chiefly loving the “now” will lead the Christian to try to turn this world into heaven, to seek happiness in the temporal. Living solely for the “not yet” sends the believer into exile, devoid of intimacy with God’s much-loved children, dreaming only of an escape hatch. Choosing to (try to) love both creates a holy neurosis that might be what Paul meant when he said, “For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Or what Jesus did when he laid down his life for his friends.

As the clock runs out, Donnie makes love with Gretchen and then goes to Roberta Sparrow’s. He’s found love, and now he needs answers. If everyone dies alone, then it doesn’t matter that he loves Gretchen. What he finds is death, destruction, sorrow, and despair. The complete darkness of the fallen world is laid bare before him, and Roberta Sparrow is nowhere to be found. And then the sky starts to fall.

Donnie watches the clouds gather above his house, and then scenes from the movie run in reverse. Donnie is back in his bed on the night of his death. He laughs. He should laugh: he has time traveled, and now he will die—but Gretchen won’t be murdered. His family will weep but the world won’t come to an end at the close of twenty-eight days. He’s sacrificed himself to prove that God exists, that God is indeed sovereign over everything—and if God exists then no one dies alone, it is safe to die, and the world doesn’t have to come to an end. His death does change the future, profoundly, but he laughs because he’s learned that death isn’t the worst thing that can happen to a person, not by half.

---

AStext (astext@gmail.com) writes:

I thought Donnie Darko was a flop, an absolutely boring movie. Nothing in the story made me want to keep watching. I found myself indifferent to the characters and thinking the plot was a rehash of a Jimmie Stewart movie.

Sorry, couldn't see any redeeming features. A complete dud, 0 out of 10.

---

toni (theira@3mail.com) writes:

class film had ta watch it a few times first but got there in the end. dvd is class

---

kareem essayyad (Email address withheld) writes:

i think it is the most frightening film i watched .and the most tragedic also.

it put me in an abnormal state,strange,aweful and so beautiful.

i just asked myself if the name "grechen"makes some relation with THE story of faust.

very thanks to richard kelly for that philosophical wonderful genius work!!

---

sidney bergstein (onein271million@yahoo.com) writes:

Well I watched it, and all I got out of it was that white american conservative males (reduntant?) hate fat asian american women. Furthermore, watching a white male telling an asian american teenage girl that he wished she were molested is just outright disturbing. At least it is to me. Now, if white americans find that humorous, then I supposse I now understand the racial divide that exists in the country. Also, the Cunningham character and the gym teacher character were...well, CLICHES!. I can only say that I understand why Americans didn't take to this film; it sucks. However, the cinematography by Posner was worthy of a second or third watching; that is, if you're into cinematography.

---

Wolfgang (Email address withheld) writes:

This quite simply is a bizzare but brilliant film, nuth said. Still no Aardvarks, though. Which is always a shame.

---

a.s (Email address withheld) writes:

the first time i watched this movie was when i was in year 8. i didnt really understand it and thought it was boring but because i was young, then, i thought id give it another try. so i am watching it again and can understand it more but i still find it very very boring.i also found this movie disturbing.

---

blah (Email address withheld) writes:

sidney bergstein....

If you only got that White conservative males hate fat Asian women from Donny Darko, then it is obvious that you were asleep during all but one or two lines of the movie. In my opinion it is not smart to post a comment on a movie that you really haven't watched or understood. I completely agree with you that the comments made were racist. But, this does not mean that the writer was racist, or wanted any of the viewers to be racist, the fact is, racism happens, it sucks, and it's sad but it does. I am sure that you have seen examples of racism in your life, does that mean that the theme of your life is that "racism is good"? no, it is simply the reality. I did not once look at the chubby young girl, and think that what they said was funny, more the director made it so blantanly obvious that the people who should be laughed at were the ignorant, young boys who were makign an attempt at being funny.

You say that Donny Darko was a horrible movie, and didn't get anything out of it, and yet you are trying to base the racial divide of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on this one film. Take this film for what it is, a hollywood blockbuster, that gave a realistic portrayal of stupid, ignorant highschoolers, along with many other messages, that must have been over your head.

---

Judge Dredge (Email address withheld) writes:

I am just a poor boy though my story's seldom told.

I have squandered my resistance for a pocketful of mumbles,

Such are promises.

All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest, Donnie Darko

---

Ads (Email address withheld) writes:

Going backto the fat man in the red suit. I believe he is like an agent of god, who was sent down to watch over Donnie to make sure he was doing gods work, and making sure hes making the world the normal place its meant to be.

---

Add your comments about Donnie Darko [About]

---

View most recent comments

View a listing of all comments