S. Darko: Um Conto de Donnie Darko

If you thought "How can they make a sequel to Donnie Darko?" then you should be warned. This movie fails as miserably as you would expect. It also lacks in the quality of the cinematography of the original. It is almost unwatchable.

The ending to the original Donnie Darko was absolutely superior. It absolutely completed the story and left the viewer to ponder the meaning and philosophical implications of the work quietly to themselves. There was no antagonist to be reviled from the dead to fight again and no antagonist, having saved the world once to be brought out of a failed marriage and rehab somewhere to save the world again. I do not mind watching movie series even movies such as Saw or Rocky. But Donnie Darko is not the type of movie that could possibly lend itself well to a series and it doe not deserve to be put in a category with those types of movies and the attempt to do so is a complete failure.

S. Darko is one of many sequels that has no reason to have been created at all. But even if one puts the original film out-of-mind, and only look at the sequel on it's own merits, the movie still falls completely flat.

The film picks up 7 years after the original left off, Samantha Darko and her friend Corey are on a cross-country trip heading for Los Angeles. When car problems leave them stuck in a little town by the name of Conejo Springs (which is populated by a community of horribly written character's), the girls are forced to mingle with the townies, and Corey finds herself at home with the boozy losers, while Samantha, still in pain over the death of her brother (Donnie), finds herself drawn to the Outsider by the name of Iraq Jack, a disturbed Gulf War vet who has learned through bizarre visions that the world is coming to an end on July 4th, 1995.

It seems that Nathan Atkins is a fan of Richard Kelly's work (including Southland Tales because the character of Iraq Jack seems similar to the character 'Pilot Abilene' & the end of the world date being on 'July 4th') But Atkins can't write believable dialogue to save his life. And the director 'Chris Fisher' doesn't seem to understand what made the original film so good, which was the feeling of being able to connect with the characters going through something this crazy. And if the audience doesn't care about the characters on-screen it becomes very hard for them to feel any effect of the narrative structure.

S. Darko is a hollow cash-grab by producers who must have never understood what Kelly was going for, but they now control the rights to the Darko universe, and they're hoping to collect any profit from this wannabe Donnie Darko replica.

As huge fan of the first Donnie Darko I was very excited to see this. It was such a shame that the original director didn't make this film. The film is trashy and brings nothing new to the table. It take a handful of special effects and concepts from the first one and turns it into a crappy teen flick. The main characters made me cringe and after the first half an hour I thought this is a disgrace to the original film.

This film is not worth wasting your time on. The sad thing is that some people will see this film without seeing the original Donnie Darko. This film should never have been made.

I am an oddball in that I have NOT seen "Donnie Darko" yet I watched "S. Darko". This is because I have an odd obsession--to see as many of the films from the Bottom 100 list on IMDB as I can. I also decided NOT to see the original film because from what I read, folks who loved the original (and it seems to have a cult-like following) absolutely hated this sequel...and I wanted to see if the sequel might be better if you never saw the first. So is this film bad enough to be #88 on the list? No...while it IS a terrible film in many ways, there are definitely many worse films that this one...not exactly a glowing endorsement.

The biggest problem about the film are the two female leads. Both play characters who are annoying jerks....and any film with annoying jerks in the lead faces an uphill battle. In addition, the acting of many (including one of the male leads) is terrible. They or the director seem to think that talking monotone and emoting very little is the epitome of cool. Instead, I just found the acting (like the characters) to be super-annoying.

As far as the plot goes, there are a lot of weird dream-like warnings about some pending apocalypse in a rural town in the American West (it was filmed in Utah). The special effects were very interesting...but the story was confusing and silly.

Overall, a film that I didn't like at all but TECHNICALLY it isn't completely terrible.

Oh my gosh. Why? I just don't get it. This has got to be one of the worst sequels ever made. Lets look at the list and take a look at everything wrong with this film. And by the way let me say i AM a big fan of Donnie Darko.

1. The acting is almost unbearable. 2. The story sucks... well if you even want to call it a story. 3. its so confusing and does not even come together in the end. 4. The characters are extremely unlikable if you liked these characters my heart goes out to you... but you have no brain. 5. SO MUCH LAME CGI There you go the top five list of why this movie is so awful. I give this film a F.