The final song of the film “Donnie Darko” (2001) by Gary Jules (he sings in the video, the video sequence of which is 99% of the frames of the picture) and Michael Andrews (composer of the film). She first appeared on their 2001 album Trading Snakeoil For Wolftickets, and was later included in the film by Andrews. In general, this is a cover of the eponymous song by the group "Tears For Fears", which also participated in the recording of the soundtrack for this film. As for the film itself, it is above all praise, in my humble opinion, and remarkable that it is the only film, if I am not mistaken, where sister and brother Maggie and Jake Gyllenhale starred together. They also play brother and sister. Wonderful actors. . .
“The search for God is absurd. Yes, if everyone dies alone.
In his career, Richard Kelly was only remembered for this film, but that was enough. The mystical picture of a teenager suffering from schizophrenia resonated (even years later) among many rebellious high school students of the MTV generation, becoming a kind of consolation. And even later, the director will release a polished version of the picture, unleashing many plot knots and strengthening the cult status of the picture.
One day, Donnie’s character goes to the call of the rabbit Frank, who tells him, with meticulous accuracy, the date of the end of the world. Such punctuality cannot but rhyme with another pedant rabbit from Alice in Wonderland. And in general, the film itself, with its surreal atmosphere, is a bit like a dark homage to Carroll’s work turned inside out.
Donnie uses this month until the end of the world to try to prevent him, falling in love and visiting a psychiatrist. She's diagnosing a guy with schizophrenia, and we can refer to her as a viewer to explain the film. The narrative is so confusing that we see the world through the eyes of a mentally ill boy. The plot works ahead of time, spreading hints of upcoming events even before they happen. Like the spiral on the turbine of a crashed plane preparing us for Donnie's hypnotherapy session. The hypothetical situation in the lesson about the found wallet will become real, and the hero will find the wallet of a pedophile coach. Or the inscription “They made me do it” at the school monument, which later students will rewrite on the blackboard, will sound in a new context as an evil joke of fate.
And the theme of fate and predestination plays a key role in this movie, as the hero looks for ways to travel in time to prevent disaster, trying to disrupt the established course of things. In this he is helped by school teachers of physics and literature, who seem to know much more than it seems. One rational, scientific, the other moral and sensual pole of extremes, but at the same time both push Donnie Darko to solve the puzzle. Is man free, or is he merely a "managed dead man"? These are the same limits as “fear” and “love,” between which a stroke is required.
Cellar door or the history of youth through a fantastic prism.
The film “Donnie Darko” should be watched if you want to take a breath of fresh air in the environment of endless similar teenage dramas.
Battered stories about the relationship of fathers and children, teachers and children, finally, children with each other, including school bullying, are harmoniously combined with stories about natural psychological problems and time travel.
The journey with Donnie is psychological and existential. Doubts about the reality of what is happening do not leave the viewer until the end of the story. This raises the question of the meaning of human existence in the face of absurdity. Is it necessary to be happy Sisyphus or to reject an unenviable fate with all the strength of your soul?
My personal answer to the mysteries of the film: everything that happened was in reality and is an ornament to the existential content of the movie. It is necessary to live by accepting the absurd, to create the meaning of life, no matter how much it remains.
I've heard about this movie many times, but it just kind of passed me by. And now, the moment came when he began to spin in cinemas in honor of the anniversary. I didn't regret going to him at all. On the contrary, I was absolutely delighted.
I will not say that in the end I fully understood the essence of the picture (I had to look for answers in the analysis of the film). And yes, I was watching a naturally directed version. If even there are things in it that don’t immediately add up the puzzle, I imagine how difficult it was for people to understand the cinema in the theatrical version. The author very skillfully works with the theme of different worlds, human predestination, mental state. You are incredibly interested in watching the story and thinking about what will happen next. Cinema captures from the first second.
The atmosphere is so cool. You feel like you're in the eighties. The town itself, the people, the music (it's really great). Richard Kelly loves Stephen King. Here so much is taken from him, and not small details, but huge pieces. The film is incredibly lively, you immerse yourself in it without a trace.
Surprisingly, the author managed to show a variety of genres that work together. Sometimes it’s a very nice comedy with really good jokes. School themes, dramatic moments, a small romantic line. And all this is combined with fiction, mystical component and horror part. It is a rare case when such a mixture of styles goes in a plus picture.
Acting is good. It’s nice to see so many stars, many of whom were still taking their first steps in cinema.
Movies like Donnie Darko give a very different range of emotions. You start thinking during and even after watching the story. You laugh. You are drawn to a mystery that you want to follow. They are trying to take you out of a state of comfort by pumping up the atmosphere and cranky moments. Cinema is incredibly sunk into my soul, leaving behind a pleasant impression. Beautiful work.
Psychological problems of adolescents in the time paradox - this is how I would describe the events taking place in Donnie Darko'. It’s hard to criticize this movie because it’s the most unusual movie I’ve ever seen. I’m going to go through the basic evaluation criteria.
The plot of the film is very strange: a teenager with schizophrenia sees hallucinations, engages in vandalism, meets a girl and waits for the end of the world. Some things happen, and then they seem to be related to the future. Do you think you've seen this before? It seems to you that the events themselves are as strange as possible. Honestly, I got confused for a while. Due to the unusual nature of the plot, it is even a little interesting to watch.
The atmosphere of the film is permeated with dark psychedelics. The viewer watches the halluns of the main character, his mad smile. This atmosphere is combined with the atmosphere of a teenage lifestyle: school, good and bad teachers, rebuffed and shy classmates, Halloween parties. It all comes together very strangely, but there is something in it.
The characters are pretty good here, too. The main role is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, personally I really liked how he played a closed freak who, however, has enough courage and good intelligence to bring a stupid teacher to hysterics. I really liked their lovely couple with Jena Malone. I also liked Donnie Darko and his sister. It was fun to watch the Dark Knight's girlfriend during the turbulent school years.
The film was shot in less than 30 days. For such a short period, it turned out to be a great film, but, in addition to its atypical and philosophical reflections, Donnie Darko' has no trump cards.
6 out of 10
The guy sees a rabbit man who predicts the end of the world. Film search
The film is a misunderstood genius, or the description of the search sucks. A good thriller should wait for us on the seed, but on the output the film does not roll into this concept.
Complex, confusing, "DD" as if he did not decide what storyline leads and how he is going to present it to the viewer, especially the lines here are enough: thoughts about the illusion of choice, the plot of self-sacrifice for the sake of saving the world, and a metaphor for "Groundhog Day", up to the agenda about the existentiality of human presence in this world.
And on the one hand, the film caresses these themes, but on the other, it leaves a feeling that I don't catch on. Or I catch it wrong.
In general, the film holds perfectly until the middle, only then it becomes porridge, which you eat with a very complex face.
Whether it's a genius or a dog's dream...
But acting is really good, that's a fact. The film pays off its time, but then leaves a dubious aftertaste.
6/7 out of 10
I’ve only watched this movie a couple of times, and I have to say, I have a strong feeling that I can watch it for a long time.
As has already been noticed by a lot of reviews - the idea of the film implies the possibility of different interpretations of his ' general idea' and ' guiding thought' and this is his absolute beauty.
The fact is that everyone perceives the world around them based on their experience, and 'Donnie Darko' allows people to find their meaning (provided that the person really wants to find it there).
I will give a way to read the meaning that I noticed on the last view:
The story of how a troubled teenager feels. He tries to live life as he can, but in his attempts to change something, he only destroys his own world. We can say that Donnie falls into the trap of ' self-fulfilling prophecy' - once, having decided for himself that it will come ' End of the World' he goes through different stages of acceptance until he inevitably comes to the conclusion that the world will be better without him and he is the cause of all troubles. He himself is the cause ' of his ' of his ' of the world' (' End of the World') because, as he thinks, only his presence in his own life makes him ' history' problematic. The tragic paradox is that Donnie Darko’s story is a tragedy until he dies. Sounds like a teenager's fantasy about how ' it'll be good for everyone without me'
Whether you like the movie or not depends on whether you can find something close to you. After all, art is for this - so that everyone can see in it a reflection of their experiences.
I always love movies with Jake Gyllenhaal (and here the Gyllenhalov whole family gathered), and this tape was no exception. “Donnie Darko” though a cult picture, but still belongs to the category of those author’s works: strange and incomprehensible, preferably with a taste of sci-fi and mediocre production (optionally, but for a full combo is required). I didn’t understand much, but overall I was satisfied.
It all starts pretty pretty: blissfully asleep Jake Gyllenhaal wakes up somewhere on the road, and while he rides home on his bike, and the sun’s rays flood the screen every second frame, there is a kind of acquaintance with the home environment of the protagonist, and it all looks more like some family comedy than a creepy thriller. At dinner, Donnie Darko loses his temper, his older sister is flooded with sincere but ironic laughter, and the younger asks awkward questions, complementing the picture of the perfect troubled family. When an aircraft engine falls on Darko’s house out of nowhere, and the main character meets two new friends, 1 of them fictional (though who knows...), and the sun seems to disappear completely from the screens, the narrative finally moves away from the family niche and shifts to the field of science fiction and theology, which, no doubt, is paradoxical. Parallel to his attempts to understand his own mind, Donnie Darko confronts the sectarian and dogmatic society surrounding him, where the suspiciously cheerful author of a motivating book imposes his ideology on others and does so quite successfully. Despite the large number of storylines that end up intertwining with each other, completely confusing the present with the fictional and mixing the inner state of the hero Jake Gyllenhaal with the real state of affairs, in total there is only 1 question: who is Donnie Darko? Schizophrenic? Messiah? Chosen? Or is he a toy in the hands of someone who is little more than a man and little less than a god? Or just a hostage of the strange situation he had the misfortune to get into?
Donnie Darko, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is very good. It is rare to see such a tired and tired person on the screen (even Ryan Gosling in Blade Runner 2049 is not so good at it!), but what is important is that Donnie is not permanently loaded with his own thoughts, in his mood there are a bunch of other shades and sharp mood changes that Gyllenhaal plays on a magnificent level. But the film also does not allow the viewer to forget that our hero is actually a complete psychotic and schizophrenic and his sinister and blissful smile, amplified by the camera reception, sharply expands the set of emotions that the viewer can get only from the game of Gyllenhaal - not many actors are able to give such a range with such quality. At the same time, his sister Maggie Gyllenhaal charmingly played Donnie Darko’s sister: without something bearing the brain, but just pleasant, and more importantly – a live actress in the frame, from which she blows a certain lamp and home atmosphere – this is what this tape sometimes lacked and what prevents her from finally sinking into darkness. At the same time, my girlfriend Donnie Darko (Jena Malone) didn’t impress me much, but rather the opposite. I don’t want to talk much about her, but still note that the whole film is held with a stone face, occasionally giving out body movements with eyebrows – to a certain extent, too, talent.
To understand the meaning of Donnie Darko, I should have watched the movie one more time or another, consult some YouTube site or video, but I decided that I would make my own vision (I would not compose anything at all). Moreover, here you can see thoughts about the illusory nature of choice, and the plot of self-sacrifice for the sake of saving the world, and a metaphor for Groundhog Day, and in general you can come up with anything up to the agenda of the existentiality of a person’s stay in this mortal world. And the rabbit Frank in the third generation, who is clearly battered by life, but still she seems to expect something from him and does not want to let go, and some connection of this rabbit with a real sect, promoting populist, utopian and hypocritical ideas promoted by the school, and against this background the dismissal of teachers who have an author's approach to education - all this together looks especially suspicious and all this is not just like the stepfather who beats the heroine of Jena Malone and the story of children who broke into the house and destroyed everything there. Or maybe not: in all the abundance of details, coincidences and connections, the main thing is not to overdo it with SPGS, because if the director wanted, he could shoot the conditional “Schizopolis”.
To sum it up, Donnie Darko is definitely a movie with meaning and probably not even one, but it has so much in it, it's so vague and metaphorical that obviously my brain can't understand all its meanings. One can only marvel at the fact that the author of this creation is a person who has thought everything out and written such a script, and for him everything is clear as day. I still love art house, and although this one is on edge, but Jake Gyllenhaal and interesting images pull it out.
7 out of 10
Holy shit, military, they made you in a hurry. . .
I won’t write anything about Lynch and Shyamolan, let’s look at the characters, because, as you know, the work is as good as its villain. By the way, where is he? I, sinfully, thought that this was a school bully, but it was not him ... and, in general, his line ended indistinctly - at all prices he scares other heroes, but at the first hint of danger he dumps first. There is also the Old Woman-Death, but her role is a typical grand piano in the bushes, and she does not pull on the villain, but about this below. Who else do we have left? Pedophile obscurantist? But he doesn't feel the climax.
Of the characters, there was no mention of anyone. The physics teacher just passes Donnie the quest item and disappears. The teacher of literature is one allegory for what is happening. She's eventually fired, but it doesn't affect the plot, we just move on with that information.
Other characters are not even created to promote the plot, but only in order to show our superhero essence in dialogue with them. I'm afraid the director's alter ego wasn't enough.
A special pleasure is given by dialogue. Sumbure, stupidity and pathos. Perhaps it was our translators pumped up, but considering that we have Donnie a superhero and cuts the truth-womb left and right, and those around him look into his mouth, then I think the dialogue in the original was somewhere close to this. Tarantino ran into the corner and cried.
In the beginning, when we see an aircraft engine in the bedroom of a strange guy, we immediately realize that he actually dropped it there, and for the rest of the film we wait for an explanation of how he managed to do it. I paused the film, built theories, analyzed the message of the book. However, the finale of the film showed that the hero was not involved in this. No, really? Is it that simple? Considering that the Book was about a Dead Man to be sacrificed by a Time Traveler, I thought our Donnie was not a Traveler but a Dead Man, a puppet in the hands of a true Traveler. But no, he is the same traveler, and the victim, turns out to be a girlfriend, at the same time by accident. Perhaps the real Traveler is the Old Death Woman who wrote the Book specifically to kill the Dead Man and go to another time? Unfortunately, after the climax, we didn't see it, which means it's not her either. The main problem with the film is the ending. By the end, the main character has to go, he has to make a choice, but in this film Donnie just goes with the flow and all events happen by themselves. Donnie does not make a choice “Life of a mother and sister and a city without a pedophile obscurantist or his own life”, no – everything happens by itself and this is a terrible mistake of the writer.
Chekhov, when he said: “If there is a gun hanging on the wall, at the end it should shoot”, criticized the hobby of theater directors with details that developed at that time, they say, distract the viewer from the main idea of the work. He said you just need to focus on what drives the story. In modern cinema, we have a phenomenon, thanks to Evgen, Bondarchuk Guns. Yes, all of the above, it's just a fantasy of my imagination on the theme of abundantly hanged by the director "guns Bondarchuk". What about the end of "as is"? And it’s as simple as a moo – everything happened by itself. From the point of view of dramaturgy, this is a very weak move that deprives us of the arch of narrative. Since the main character at the moment of the climax of the plot does not make a choice and everything subsequent is not the result of his choice, he is deprived of his own arch. There is no character arc, i.e. on the one hand, we have an active protagonist who makes a rustle in the town, on the other, he does not determine his own fate.
Often, film reviews say that this film is a vivid example of a mixture of genres. There is no change in characters, so there is no drama. There is no active antagonist who embodied this monstrous plan - there is also no triumphant villain, in the end, in fact, there is no detective. What is it? There is a vinaigrette of references, allegories and nowhere leading leads.
To summarize, what can be said about this work? There is a poor elaboration of the script - the dialogues are corny not read out, the characters are not worked out properly, the ending is crumpled. Yes, the film had potential, but the young director never managed to bring it to mind. Often, experienced specialists are assigned to beginners in order to help avoid childhood stupid mistakes, apparently, this is not the case. I understand people who liked the film – there is an intriguing plot, and a lot of leads on all occasions, and, it would seem, there is something to think about. But that's only at first glance.
“Life is one long crazy trip. Some people just have better directions.
The subject of life and death in cinema has always been complex, but extremely interesting for both viewers and directors. It is thanks to people’s interest in what is “on the other side” that a whole genre of mystical films was born. “Donnie Darko”, along with such paintings as “The Butterfly Effect” and “Destination”, are a vivid representative of it.
Can a man cheat death? It seems to me that this question is at the center of the narrative. It is around him that the plot revolves, abundantly flavored with urban legends and the reflection of the director, betrayed through the psychological problems of the main character - a sixteen-year-old schoolboy.
"Donnie Darko" was the debut for director Richard Kelly. The film failed to collect a good box office at the box office, but after the release of the DVD gained cult status. The popularity of the picture is not surprising, because the young director managed to collect a truly percussion cast. This film, in my opinion, is still the best acting work of Jake Gyllenhaal. Only “Stringer” can compete with him. But I found the role of Donnie more profound.
The film makes the audience think, so it is not suitable for relaxed viewing. Of course, it can not be fully called an art house, but I can not find another definition for the picture.
Dark thoughts about life and death, using the dogmatics of "time travel philosophy" Robert Sparrow is at the heart of the plot and many references that you notice only after watching it again. For me, Donnie Darko is still one of my favorite movies to watch during the fall melancholy.
The film is certainly interesting, and, as they say, watchable. I would say this is an art house that is interesting to watch. The sound in the film is grand. But towards the end, it became clear that there would be something in the final. "hat," and that's what happened. To understand the film, you have to read Wikipedia. And in the DVD edition, they say, there is even a video - a direct speech of the director, who explains what really happened there. For such bullying, I lowered my grade, or then during the viewing I even thought that I would put a “ten” in.
Donnie Darko is a very strange and multi-valued film that has a powerful fanbase and cult status. Suffice it to say that even in RuNet there is a fan site, which contains all versions and interpretations of what this movie is about and what genre it belongs to. The main concepts are three: fantastic, socio-psychological and mystical. None of the concepts (and the explanations that follow from them) are exhaustive and flawless, leaving questions, so debate is inevitable. This ambiguity, in turn, also has a corresponding explanation, the film is specially built in such a way that everyone can see in it what he wants to see and what the viewer has an inner mood. I was initially set to watch the film as fiction, and there was no internal dissonance when watching it. But someone interprets the film as a cinema metaphor of schizophrenic personality disorder in the main character, someone perceives as a social drama about the stagnation and contradiction of society, in which a difficult and extraordinary teenager has to exist, and someone generally sees the film as a religious mysticism or a superhero movie. Note, I watched the director's version of the film, which is 20 minutes longer than the rolling time. It gives additional clues that tip the scales in favor of the opinion that Donnie Darko is first of all film fiction, and then everything else. However, the argument over this did not stop. Of particular interest: the film features a fictional book 'The Philosophy of Time Travel' written by one of the characters. However, this book is also available on the original English-language website of the film, and a copy is available at the Library of Congress. There is a Russian translation available on a Russian fan site.
A fertile heavy man for perception. Many individual small episodes merge into intertwined storylines, and there is nothing superfluous to understand the idea. It is only difficult to decide what is the main thing in the strange story of a teenager who accidentally realized that he is able to influence the chronology of events and argue with the pragmatic laws of being.
The picture resembles the works of the cult David Lynch with a special mystical atmosphere of small American towns, where extraordinary events occur against the background of ordinary life, in which the main character, his family, friends and classmates are involved. A similar mixture of dream and reality, secrets and illusions, the same balancing on the boundary between the terrible and the ridiculous, the same irony over the mores of society. But all this together turns out to be more than Lynch can give, not only because there is a place for youth romance and adolescent problems, but also because the mysticism of what is happening can be explained not only from the standpoint of a psychologist and a detective, but also with the help of reasoning about movements in space and time.
Yes, and the field of application of sarcasm is significantly expanded: from the system, which is formed from the school bench (what is only imposed by the stupidest teacher primitive and goofy adaptation of the Freudian doctrine of libido and Mortido "love-death") - to the laughter of the spectator unit, caused by a clumsy Chinese girl. When you start noticing at what, and together with which of the characters of the film you laugh, and think - is it right? The fact is that each of the heroes of this fantasy has its own skeleton in the closet. Take Donnie’s parents, former hippies, and now one of the pillars of local society. In his youth, they scored on everything and had fun so violently that the offspring sit on serious medicines.
The main character also has his 'skeleton' Only he is not a disgrace to the essence, but an imaginary friend, and tries to help find his purpose. Connect with yourself.
Quite a youthful dance macabra plus... a reference to the parables of all religions of the world, which reveal the meaning of the phrase about the inscrutable ways of the Lord, although Donnie still had freedom of choice! Just the happiness of those you love outweighed the joylessness of vegetation among rude and limited people with their integral cabinets, from which all fall out and fall skeletons and stacked. . .
' What was that?' This is probably the first reaction after seeing this nonsense.
Can you call it a movie at all?
Some ' soup set' typical anti-stamps: Omezhka is the protagonist who is smarter than the rest: almost the whole town, selectivity and involvement in supernatural forces, rejection by society, its opposition to public, brightly emphasized hypocritical morality, a non-standard teacher who sympathizes with him, as well as mental disorder in the form of another heap factor - the obstacles between him and the rest of the world.
'How original! How fresh and creative! How unusual! We've never seen this before, honestly!' - that might have been my reaction had I seen the world of cinema yesterday.
However, it did not happen yesterday - that's the catch, what prevents me from falling into the mythical ' unconventional' 'Donald'.
I have not watched Shyamalan’s films, because the sense of logic has not yet left me, and I am not interested in watching fairy tales served with stone bells.
Therefore, I have no idea how Shyamalan relates to ' Donnie', but if there is also an indistinct plot in the films of it, the characters who do something just like that, without any motivation, for example, discussing the behavior of their son suddenly decide: ' And let’s get divorced' or have sex 15 minutes after it became known that one of them disappeared, and possibly kidnapped the only one of the close people by someone very dangerous who can kill - then in absentia all Shyamalan’s films are also units, because unconventional and somewhat different things.
Ala, people, the difference is not difficult to understand.
Of the positive, I can only note 2-3 songs from the past, successfully inserted into the beginning of the film, that’s probably all.
Firstly, the line with Rabbit flickers little, and secondly, it is also inconclusive due to the general deception of the filmmakers about the plot.
Surprise!
If you expect 'Back to the Future' then there is no time travel per se in the film.
Let me explain: in the film the character sees only some tunnel worms, which are laid everywhere and that’s all.
Along the way show the title of chapters from the book about travel, quotes, but no one works on this skill.
Donnie asks the scientist about the topic, but suddenly, like Masons everywhere, he says that he can not say more, because it is fraught.
If anything, the world and logic of the film are normal and treat such things as if you were questioning any physics professor.
But that’s probably not the same thing.
In the film there is a mysterious traveler, the author of the book, who allegedly has already traveled in time, but the hero with her throws over the whole film only a couple of phrases.
In the end, like all plot moves in the film, everything happens by itself and because.
The film is full again of ideas from the book ' Philosophy in 5 minutes', teenagers of course this can hook.
Full of vulgarities, which is also close to the immature masses.
There is a plot twist with a preacher, but again, I would not say that this is not a cliché and quite beaten by time, and.
The film, as already probably read, due to the lack of a clear genre it was difficult to push on the market, but for some reason it is served as a feature, although in fact it is a bug.
There's nothing comedic about the movie. Dramas are superficial and due to the unmotivated actions of the characters, it is impossible to feel them. What distinguishes their pattern ' conflict of fathers and children' and ' conflict of brothers and sisters' from similar anywhere, I also do not understand. Apparently, change the pink wrapper to darkness and hallucination - and this is different, this is already original.
The romantic line also does not shine with elaboration.
Maybe a thriller or a horror?
And again past: for the thriller there is no psychological element, and the actions of the characters in the context of Donnie’s disease are stupid and fictitious.
Donnie himself is normal to live with all this.
Like horror, there is nothing in the genre.
I would rather characterize what I saw as very gloomy, gloomy in a subcultural way, you know, when the same people at the level of mentality for some reason (usually the same) choose subcultural parties, instead of the usual, such a color game ' Life is strange', only with an ever-smiling schizophrenic in a conservative environment and without the “#39” butterfly effect '.
Although in 'LiS' there was a clear plot, which is not in 'Donnie'.
However, although it does not deserve anything higher than one, I would advise you to look at it. (who is 18, children - go to teach lessons)
To make sure that the film is undeservedly overrated, well, and enjoy the gloomy atmosphere, perhaps someone will like it.
1 out of 10
Donnie Darko (2001) (debut work by Richard Kelly)
Earlier, a couple of years ago, I loved to watch English screenings of films and endings of films and often got to the screenings of the film Donnie Darko and found very good ones.
When you often stumble upon a movie, you are drawn to reconsider it, refresh emotions and feelings in memory.
I think if you like interesting and at the same time strange movies you have seen this movie.
Donnie Darko is one of my favorite movies. The story resonates 100% with the feelings I felt as a teenager: the strange and seemingly out of nowhere changes in you, the interest in life and death, the search for justice, your life path, the lack of understanding of yourself and your emotions for other people, uncontrollable anger, the inability to remain silent, the desire to express what you think everyone should understand, the feeling that you are put in a framework from which you can not get out, protest and at the same time the desire for light and happiness.
I love that in the film, there are people on whom the narrative is based. Their words are like a link between something that seemed crazy and fantastic and close and real. In the film you do not need to unravel anything, understand, you just need to listen and trust what you see.
I understand that all this sounds so formulaic, but this movie, oddly enough, tells and touches on these seemingly banal things. You can compare yourself with the main character in each situation described and think how you would feel.
You know, sometimes movies hook us with their atmosphere, sometimes with dialogue, sometimes with beautiful pictures, sometimes with the sensation of something painfully familiar. This movie caught me all at the same time.
A simple game of imagination, but embodied marvelously, a great game of actors, a protracting plot, this is what you should pay attention to this movie. I would recommend that if you haven’t seen the film yet, watch the director’s version to better understand what’s going on. I promise he's worth spending a little time in his life on.
I don’t know, it’s schizophrenic, but there’s something about it, I loved the movie, and Gyllenhaal’s performance is great. The film encourages you to think and think about life, even in this way. . 10 out of 10.
I do not understand the excitement of this picture. What conclusion should the viewer draw? I emphasize not a choice, but a conclusion. Since this ' white rabbit' leads to a complete dead end.
When, in 2003, I read in a magazine just unearthly praise for this film that “opened my eyes, now I look at the world differently” and “enchanted my magic” I had very big doubts that did not let me down 15 years later. I will say this, namely the shortcomings that immediately catch your eye and negate all the advantages:
1. The actors - the character Gyllenhaal is very adult for a schoolboy. It's very conspicuous when he's sitting in a classroom with real 16-year-old schoolgirls sitting next to him. Mystique on the face. Barrymore -- you can't see her here. No play, no emotion. A small plus will put the hero Patrick Swayze behind the scene with his “exposure”.
2. The plot is more interesting. Yes, the idea with a rabbit is unusual, but it is absolutely not terrible. Well, imagine a freak came to visit you in a carnival costume and rubbed you with some nonsense. The feeling is similar.
3. The soundtrack is not memorable. A little teas for fears at the end. I am not a fan of them, just an unusual insert was fun.
4. The main problem of the film is a skinny thought for almost 2 hours. Well, the rabbit predicted, so what? Have people changed? Have your actions changed?
I'm going to exaggerate, but there are some similarities to Terminator, where Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 also predicted something. But if there was a tangible Skynet in the Terminator that actually posed a threat. This can be seen from the initial scenes. And looking at it, you believe it's not just Kyle and Sarah's dream, it's a harsh reality. It's not here. Rabbit came and said it in two. Should we accept this as a great truth? No background, no explanation.
Conclusion: despite the unusual picture, the special effects still lose to the same Terminator with a crushing score. The director had a good idea of the apocalypse and various human phobias, but I repeat, it is impossible to enter the same river twice. No matter what.
(See the full author’s version of the film with inlays from the fictional book 'The Philosophy of Time Travel' to better understand what is happening.) )
After watching, I just sat and looked out the window, trying to accommodate the impressions that overwhelm me.
Kelly was very logical. But it's not about logic, it's about serving. A deep, penetrating pitch is deeper than emotions and thoughts.
4 weeks of existence of the Tangential Universe - one of the temporal universes created for the periodic salvation of the Main Universe. Tangential universes only exist for a few weeks and are only needed for the course of the main universe. Although the people living in it are real, with their own problems and joys.
Shows the life and mission of one of the Guided (Manipulated or Living receiver - The living receiver), whose actions should help the Basic Universe to once again be saved ... at the cost of the life of this Known.
It is interesting to show how people living in the Tangential Universe secretly feel its doom. So does Wiedom. He knows what they don’t know, he’s weighed down ' superfluous' for the average person, knowledge and ability, he can change everything... except his fate. And many of those around him are the Manipulated Dead, for their existence is a bargaining chip for the existence of the Universe. When changing the course of the Basic Universe, many of them feel something like deja vu, or belated repentance, or even pain in those parts of the body that caused death in the Tangential Universe. But they will tell themselves that these are 'dreams', just dreams. Tomorrow they will do their daily business.
The idea of an artifact linking both universes is very interesting. As the book says, these are usually metal objects, like Mayan tips or medieval swords. In this film, the aircraft engine acts as an artifact - the only thing that behaves the same way in both universes and connects them with some action; from it in the Main Universe, the Wiedom dies.
Writer Samantha Sparrow: They may have been Vedoma in their past; perhaps her presence was only needed in the Tangential Universe. She may have died in the same way in the Main Universe without writing her book. Everything is possible in this world where infinite freedom of possibility and absolute predestination are so closely intertwined.
This movie I watched at 14-15 years old, almost nothing I remember. In the memory imprinted strange Jake, a terrible huge rabbit and an incomprehensible plot. And now the other day, after reviewing, I am wildly delighted! I want to share and talk about this film as much as possible, but the trouble is, this movie is not everyone’s taste. But I love strange things so much that for me, this tape automatically becomes my favorite. Everything is perfect!
Crazy liked the plot decision, time loops ring the film with details, emphasize fiction, but bringing a detective with the notes of a thriller. All 2 hours look in one breath, leading to a world of strangeness and allusions. How deep is this hole?
It’s impossible to describe what’s going on in the movie, how it’s going on, because all I’m going to say is the storytelling. This is a layered cake of good dialogues, quotes, and the icing on the cake is a meaningful finale, revealing to us the whole secret plan and delineating the boundaries of all reflections in timekeeping, putting everything in place. All the details that are so skillfully scattered around the film suggestive, and in the future, in the subsequent part of the film, the plot is divided into chapters, telling in brief what awaits the hero! Incredibly interesting!
What is surprising, coupled with the multidirectionality of genres, drama is perfectly woven, cinema awakens emotions, from which, considering the plot closer, you stumble upon unusual turns, this is a very good script decision!
Jake Gyllenhaal pleases, with his crazy smile he brings even more strangeness to his hero - Donnie Darko. But here's the thing: the closer and further I get to the hero, the more I like him. Let him not be like everyone else, but thoughts and reasoning are correct.
By the way, along with Jake played his own sister Maggie, in the film she is also his sister. I can’t single out someone and put them on the same shelf with Jake, but I can’t throw them out of the plot either. Everyone looked good, playing their roles well.
Life is one long crazy trip. Some people just have better directions. Is it possible to change what is intended? Recommend!
In the facts about the film it is reported that due to the genre uncertainty, the picture was difficult to promote in theaters and it could immediately go on DVD.
And I think it is fantastic in this case and there is a necessary frame so that the film can be somehow identified.
Yes, you can see here a confusing puzzle and make the sense of viewing its solution. For her, even the director’s version was made to be clearer this part of the plot.
But for me, this film is primarily about the essence of things on planet Earth.
The main character is Donnie Darko, a young guy who has mental problems. Wrap a house with toilet paper or burn it down, call your mother a bitch, flood the school - not a complete list of him ' pranks'
At first, he may seem mentally retarded, well, or not very smart, troubled teenager, to whom a dubious hare began to come, but then ...
The first time this will happen is when Donnie is the only one in the entire class to see the metaphor in Green’s book 'Destroyers'.
Then, when a devout teacher, who looks like a messenger of hell, teaches children that everything in the world is divided into fear and love (conditions are good and bad) and asks students, after reading the situation from life, to refer it to the first or second. Man after man comes the turn 'psychology' Donnie, who immediately makes it clear that life is not so simple as to divide everything into two categories, black and white, that there are much more colors, and even shades. The teacher is annoyed, perhaps intuitively she understands that his words have meaning, but she doesn’t need it. For herself, she has found a simple and convenient theory that explains the entire universe and begins to threaten Donnie with a deuce if he does not choose one of the two. This is reminiscent of the system of sanctions for dissent, society provides adherents of the system with certain tools that punish dissidents. Darko, of course, decides to get a two, and at the same time sends the teacher into the anus.
Further down the list is a situation where the adherent of the same theory (fear and love) and apparently one of its leaders, Jim Cunningham, comes to Donnie at school, where answering difficult children's questions, like 'How to understand who I should become in life?' or ' How to protect myself from peer attacks?' always responds with a template 'Love yourself, others, etc.' Donnie asks his question and it sounds like this ' How much do you get paid for it?' and after a short discussion calls Cunningham the Antichrist, for which the director takes him out of the audience. Later, Cunningham will find materials 18+ with children who are still far from 18. Donnie is going to burn down his house.
To me, Donnie Darko is not a psycho, but a man who tears off his masks. Where there is falsehood and hypocrisy, he does something. These actions are antisocial, so he is considered abnormal. Frank wears a hare mask, strange, even ugly, it seems that he is hiding something very scary, mysterious. But as it turns out to be just a person, nothing unusual. And Donnie asks him, why are you wearing it? Why are you wearing a mask of a person? That is, we all wear masks, they can look very attractive or vice versa repulsive, but under it is always just a person.
Donnie's bored in this world, he's trying to have some fun. In the film, the phrase 'Perhaps some people are born with tragedy in the blood'. Apparently, tragedy means something real, able to see the essence and apparently doomed to misunderstanding and unhappiness, since all the heroes are capable of this: Donnie, Grandma & #39; Death & #39; Karen Pomero, they all meet with tragedy.
If we do not say that the film is simply boring and not fascinating, then we can say that he, being fooled by his pretentiousness, did not cope even with his vulgar task, obsessively passing the red thread. in the film there is an idea - a condo idea, but there is, and this is even a problem, about what later - clothed more in a leaky plot, but not in a sane script and plot.
The exhaustion of Richard Kelly, who specialized in creative waste, repeats the same mistake that many iconic osers of the time, which I called “the vividly sensitive period of mediocrity and bad taste syndrome in cinema.” If the plot by definition is broader than what it includes, then the creators of Donnie Darko, instead of the film, shoot the idea for hipsters, spitting on the intricacies of the script and narrative side, leaving a bunch of gaps in the narrative, and especially in terms of chronology and facts, and the stylistic basis has nothing to do with it. The script is simply emasculated: dialogues to the nausea of pathos, trivial and merge into a pile of beaten truths and meaningless lyrics, without sparing timekeeping; thanks to an ill-conceived plan, unsuccessful staging and editing, what happens does not fit into some bizarre canvas with completed constructions of the work, as Lynch managed, but flirtatiously loses itself in its own threads of chaotic logic, causing more irritation and sympathy than the questioning of the hero, allegedly not sympathetic and sympathetic in the performance.
But an idea brought to an end with grief cannot be the work itself if the content consists of banal clichés, boring quotes and alogisms. Neither the selection of actors, nor the plot and script part – none of this makes this film either deep or exciting. Despite the mediocre editing, “Donnie Darko” is known for rather cute pieces of monolithic camera work, reflecting images of allegorical ideological expressiveness that allow you not to fall asleep while watching this nudity. But otherwise, the atmosphere is poorly sustained, if sustained at all: the primitive, skinny wall of the sound part is tortured by the simplest solutions; the film does not cause either a sense of curiosity or anxiety, which is aggravated by the pseudophilosophical truism of the leitmotif from pathetic replicas of unworked heroes. In any comparison with such really valuable innovative tapes as “Jacob’s Staircase”, designed in the related style of magical realism, this vanilla craft can not go, because all its artistic value is wildly exaggerated by marketing, fashion and all sorts of bombastic fools extolling this “masterpiece”, like some “vanilla sky” and other shit.
In general, if I was wrong, it is still not deep, because the average assessment of this film - taking into account some advantages of more or less stylish visuals in the plans, albeit with mediocre special effects - a generous ceiling.
Total: mediocre, overrated film allegedly “with meaning” for teenagers and unseen, rather boring and boring for the film “for the evening”; one-time gum and castrated stylistic parody.
This is the case when the meaning of what is seen completely slips away, which gives a rich opportunity to come up with even more illogical explanations than the denouement offers. The film leaves some bewilderment after itself, from which there is an outburst of petty disappointment, which also quickly fades out, because your own opinion is ready instantly, but here the main thing is not to dig deeply, or the rabbit will visit you.
Of course, the main theme on the surface is the complex teenager and this brutal world, but simplifying the film to this degree would be a blatant crime.
The main character, an antisocial personality, capable of petty, and not very, hooliganism in the name of something meaningful, takes pills for his psychological ailments, which cause vivid hallucinations. The guy quietly goes crazy, delighting the viewer with his judgment. Even the craziest of his mouth seems like something fundamental. The viewer is ready to believe, because the world around without taking any pills, looks much more sick.
Never perceived Gyllenhaal as a truly gifted actor, did not work out with him, but this picture was a big exception. His talent was so strong that the character came to life, completely separated from the personality of the actor - the very magic of cinema happened.
I will recommend the film for viewing, it is a rattling mixture of genres, plus all sorts of references to other famous paintings, but without any secondaryity, with a non-trivial plot. A strong psychological thriller, a family drama, a teenage movie and a creepy phantasmagoria against the background of time travel - all this is only for you and it should not be missed!
I wish everyone a pleasant viewing!!
Donnie suffers from somnambulism, so she constantly wakes up in different places. One day, an engine from an airplane crashes into his house. His family believes that Donnie died, but due to the fact that Donnie was walking in his sleep that fateful night, he was not in his bedroom. A successful rescue is overshadowed by the fact that Donnie’s imaginary friend, the rabbit Frank, reports the imminent death of Donnie in 28 days.
Richard Kelly directed a mystical-philosophical film. The story of Donnie Darko is rich in parallel, thus the analysis of the film implies many different interpretations. The other question is that technically, the viewer will have only two choices - either to assume that what is happening to Donnie is a reality created from the outside, or a fantasy caused by inner experiences. Precisely if we were to look at what is happening through two systems – Jung’s open or Freud’s closed. You can try to combine reality and fantasy, but with this approach, for some reason, the argumentation still returns to internal experiences. So we're stopping at two positions. I’m closer to seeing this film through the reality of what’s going on, so the whole analysis will be built on that foundation. You only need to watch the director's version, as soon as it reveals most of the meanings.
We know from the narrative that Donnie has an illness and probably more than one. He drinks pills, goes to a psychoanalyst, hears voices and is in a special position in his family. There are several other signs that suggest Donnie has schizophrenia, especially after he meets an imaginary rabbit named Frank. But the more we get to know Donnie, the more doubt grows that Donnie is suffering from some kind of disease. He is very well versed in the subject of discussion, attentive to small things, has a reasoned position. They usually have a conversation after they are involved.
Donnie doesn't operate with a single concept. He consistently asks questions, goes beyond accepted categories, tries to look at reality through the whole spectrum of human emotions. This is one of the conflicts between Donnie and the adults around him. Adults in the film always have only two positions - what they say and what they do. From this we see Donnie’s surprise, and in fact our surprise, when each of the adults or those who try to act as an authority always offers two solutions. But we are surprised because one decision refutes another. As an example, the main moralist says that the path through life should be righteous, but for the sake of winning the dance competition dresses girls as a stripper with the appropriate music program. The director cites many such examples where characters voice one thing and do another. In his arguments, Donnie cites the versatility of choice as a search for quick decision and action. Adults rely only on external morality and the reaction of others, so they act so as not to upset this balance.
From the ongoing hypocrisy, Donnie experiences stress, which begins to intensify, besides, in his views, Donnie is lonely. At such a moment, the rabbit Frank appears from the future, who represents only one position - the only correct one. The rabbit speaks, does, and performs without any hidden subtext. Johnny realizes he can't disobey Frank's request. Despite the external pressure and hopelessness in which Donnie finds himself, he unwittingly understands the irreversibility of what is happening. This increases fear and at the same time, curiosity prevails. The image of a rabbit is a reality that you need to get used to, which is what happens to Donnie.
Through the themes of time travel, the film explores the process of personality formation, in this case Donnie. To the question, “How do I know who I want to be when I grow up?” the answer is that you need to look into your heart, see love and go to it. The explanation is correct in meaning when he has lived most of his life and is completely unsuitable for a young brain seeking quick and universal answers. Does Cunningham understand that - certainly? Donnie, too, understands that Cunningham is sly in his simplicity. The people around Donnie, or more often than not, are unable to support, to form an equal company - so the only thing they have left is just to love him. The same goes for his family. The foregone conclusion of the future only serves to show how individual Donnie's path is. Even the plurality to which Donnie operates at the time of making a choice or decision becomes a single line. The paradox of freedom of choice in a film only matters as long as you think about it. Actions that are already taken have consequences.
There is another important element of meaning. The film shows that no matter what each person is, there is an event when the individuality of a person is erased. For example, the reaction after sleep. When you wake up in your head, there is only one interpretation of the events you see. It is this image that can give feedback, determine whether the choice and consequences of it are true, and also think about the path of life. Perhaps this is the moment when a person is able to adjust his life scenario. Movies like Donnie Darko are important to watch until the viewer is not satisfied with simple solutions and tries to look at life from different angles, has freedom of choice. When the viewer becomes stale, he turns into Frank's rabbit with the only reality in his life.
10 out of 10
The debut picture of the young director Richard Kelly made a lot of noise at the time of its release. The tape received mixed reviews and was not very successful at the box office. Many simply did not understand the original idea of the young author, but there is a reason. The director was forced to severely cut the picture in timekeeping, because of which many key points necessary for a general understanding of the plot were cut from the rental version. But after the release of the director's version of the film, it received a cult status and the title of one of the most mysterious films of recent times.
The picture balances at the junction of several genres. This is an amazing mixture of science fiction, psychological drama, mysticism, thriller and even horror. It is difficult to determine which one is the main one. The film has a very complex plot structure. He's mysterious, mysterious, even psychedelic. This is a classic puzzle film that combines elements of surrealism. He asks questions, but does not give clear answers, and therefore the viewer will have to think of many things himself. The director himself in the interview gave many hints for a general understanding of the meaning. But at the same time, he did not give an exact definition of his film. He only said that every interpretation has the right to life.
The tape provides a rich ground for reflection and psychological analysis. It touches on the typical teenage problems, the difficulties of growing up and the young guy’s attempt to find his place in the world. The philosophical content of the picture is also very rich and mainly affects the issues of life, death and existence of a person in the surrounding world. Scientifically, the film explores the concepts of time, time loop and parallel universe. But there are also mystical motives that can be interpreted both scientifically and with the belief in the existence of something irrational. Mysterious rabbit "Frank" with an ominous grin, clear confirmation of this.
Of course, the lack of directorial experience affects the overall structure of the narrative. Excessive symbolism does not always benefit the film. Although such a plot construction allows you to explain any logical hole. In general, the picture resembles the hypnotic works of David Lynch, with their nonlinear development of events. So fans of building theories and giving their own explanation will have something to do.
And a separate mention deserves a brilliant composition "Mad World" performed by Gary Jules. This is a cover version written specifically for the film. After watching it, it sounded in my head for a long time. Precise hit.
The performer of the main role Jake Gyllenhaal already then gave high hopes and as it turned out not in vain. It is now he is deservedly considered one of the best actors in the world, and then he was just a young boy. Who brilliantly appeared as a troubled teenager. Patrick Swayze acted in an atypical role for himself, emerging from his usual role. Drew Barrymore not only played one of the main roles, but also contributed to the release of the picture on the big screen.
Donnie Darko is an author, deep, mysterious, complex film that combines elements of different genres. The film raises a large number of philosophical, scientific and simple human questions. This is an unusual work, under which it will not be possible to relax the brain. To understand what you see, you will have to look very carefully and perhaps more than once.
"Why are you wearing a rabbit costume?" “Why are you wearing a costume?”
16-year-old high school student Donnie suffers from schizophrenia and puberty. Once in a dream, he is beckoned by someone’s voice, and Donnie, walking a sleepwalker, meets the mysterious character Frank, dressed as a creepy rabbit, who heralds the end of the world in 28 days. This meeting saves Donnie from death, because at this time, an incomprehensible turbine from the plane falls directly on his room. Their meetings with Frank become permanent. Sometimes Frank says something vaguely, and sometimes he asks you to do something. However, the announced deadline is close, and Donnie needs to understand / remember / do something.
The plot is quite intriguing, isn't it? However, the film came out very controversial. And in 2001, it also caused a controversial resonance. He does not have a certain genre - it is kind of like mysticism, a thriller, a slice of youth life, drama. Because of this, there were problems with post-production and for a long time could not find producers. And when found, the film was given the wrong advertising in the form of a “youth thriller”. As a result, it was not the audience that did not appreciate it. As a result, critics were delighted, and the scores of ordinary viewers left much to be desired. However, the film took its toll when it later came out on DVD and even took a place in the TOP. But time has put everything in place and now it occupies exactly the niche I think it deserves: CP/Imdb 7.6/8.1. Strangely, just over time, this niche is not occupied by other films that clearly lingered in the TOP (and some do not understand how they got there), as the same “Escape from Shawshank” proudly occupies the first line of the charts, and how to me the film is not bad, but rather mediocre.
The director said in an interview that he tried to show his childhood fears and phobias in the film, providing them with a mystical environment. The director also provided references to more than 45 films. And it was a risky undertaking, because if you go too far with it, you get a tracing or some kind of parody. However, the film did not fall into this.
What does Donnie Darko look like now? And that's the problem. The years have taken their toll, with all these space-time paradoxes and heaps of references we are no longer surprised, and in the dry remnant we have a rather stretched picture (2 hours) with a weak plot dynamics and nevertheless a good plot fint at the end. Well, it was a Shamiliano movie. However, if you overpower yourself and examine, then the layers of the film open up. And what is really interesting is that despite the fact that after some time you seem to bring the main plot threads together, but nevertheless with the knowledge of this he encourages a re-examination, because much remains beyond understanding and awareness and would like to clarify the details. But immediately it is difficult to do, because it was so boring to sit for 2 hours.
And there are really a lot of references. And both ordinary, from life, other films, books, and, for example, religious. Some believe that the director deliberately stuffed everything there and, they say, there is no deep meaning to look for and learn all this. Others tend to find almost fifty references to our lives and other films, books, etc. In principle, both are right, but the bottom line is that our viewer does not understand / find even half and this is one of the reasons for the lower score on the part of the KP.
And discarding the unrecognized references, we have a film about teenage growing up, cruelty, detachment, the search for the meaning of life, God, sacrifice, as well as the ordinary American school with its problems and deeds. And the part about youth and school in principle succeeded well, here you have adolescent problems and school characters are curious: a spineless head of school, a hysterical teacher who suddenly imbued with a “new philosophical doctrine” and slaps it all in a row, a progressive and democratic teacher who will suffer because of this, school hooligans, concerned friends, a new girl in the class, etc. Plus the problems of Donnie himself, who suffers from transitional age and schizophrenia. The rest of the time catches up mystical suspense, which does not particularly affect the plot and dynamics of what is happening. And only at the very end "the maps open" and becomes interesting, but alas - the film is over.
So I don't even know what to say. Technically, the film is not so good, but the background ... That is, discussing it later, digging into the details, reading for it, etc. was more interesting than watching. It seems that he did not leave indifferent, and like all these cases over time we have already seen, and kind of even encourages re-watching and kind of bored during the viewing. How do you evaluate these disparate emotions?
Probably a score of 7, because I wanted all this, but “more bashful” or something. Games over time, we already had time to see, and school dramatic affairs also did not stir much – we saw and more exciting, so as “a panorama of American life, the truth of the womb cuts alive” this also does not pass.
What else can I say? Actors are good. And by the way, this is a directorial debut, so taking that into account - very, very good.
It’s a good idea, but should I recommend this film to anyone or not? I think I should advise, because I would like to know what the other person will understand and how he interprets everything from what he saw. It’s like with Lynch movies, where you can’t pull a ton of guesses and subjective explanations on forums. By the way, some scenes were quite Lynch filmed and served.
At the end of my review, I think I’ve written a lot. So the film did some strings hooked - and this is another criterion for viewing. At least the film is not stupid and original.
Donnie Darko is a movie where you’ll probably ask, “What the hell was that?” And indeed, after watching this tape you will have a lot of questions, what really wanted to tell us the Director? Richard Kelly created a truly unique world where utopia reigns, every inhabitant of Middlesex behaves as if his whole life is already predestined by God strictly following his law and not violating any prohibitions and not not noticing anything in front of himself.
The director could well have been inspired by Stephen King, namely his novel It, remember what the city of Derry was like? For the most attentive, Kelly left a reference at the very beginning of the film. Among the lost people is Donnie, a 16-year-old boy with schizophrenia. The teenager is his imaginary friend Frank, a 2-meter man in a rabbit costume, who looks rather creepy (very similar to the hare from Silent Hill 3). Thus, the director makes it clear that among the crazy city, Donnie is the most alive and real person! The general tone of the film is rather gloomy, and more like a psychological thriller, and sometimes even a horror (Frank’s mask is really scary).
The main feature of the film is not a linear narrative, the director does not drag us by the hand and even looking at the credits, not the fact that you will understand the main meaning, just because the viewer must decide for himself who is Donnie Darko, the savior or the usual psychopath?
I've been postponing Donnie Darko many times, I don't know why. Maybe I wanted to prepare myself for watching something psychedelic, maybe it was just a pity to spend 2 hours on the film.
And here in front of me on the screen, a young Jake Gyllenhaal (which you can immediately see is one of the most talented actors of our time), sitting in a movie theater with a girl and a huge rabbit, and I have just an explosion of thoughts in my head.
First of all, I didn’t expect the story to capture me so much. The film is slow, measured. And maybe not everyone will master it the first time, but it is really original, unusual. Interesting. A kind of anthem for troubled teenagers.
Second, acting sometimes just blows the roof. You look at Jake Gyllenhaal and you really believe he has a problem with his head. This is amazing.
Well, the voice of this rabbit causes goosebumps, it is so creepy.
The way you show the story puts you in a trance, it's hard to get away from the screen. A scrappy, slightly torn installation makes you stare at the screen without blinking - this is cool.
A powerful film that you need to watch for those who at least once thought about the mistakes made. That is everyone.
Back in 2001, at the age of 25, young Richard Kelly shot the film “Donnie Darko”, which at that time was his first large-scale project with a budget of $ 6 million. Given the cast, that’s not much for such a high-quality project. And the total fees of the film did not even "recapture" and third cost. But what he shot, after 16 years still gaining its new fans, and the old forces to review again and again.
In the course of the narrative, the film is divided into two main parts: that is, it reproduces the “history” within the “history” itself. This technique is simply called “Mizanabim”, it is very much loved by Christopher Nolan, it is also very well expressed in the films of Federico Felini “8 1/2”, Michel Gondry “Eternal radiance of the pure mind” and also in many films by David Lynch. This artistic technique in the film industry has always been in demand from the “savvy movie man”, who has already become legible and “banal” things do not surprise him. When this “effect” is embodied competently, it almost always settles in the memory of the viewer deeper than others. The painting “Donnie Darko” is one of the most striking examples of tapes of such orientation.
At first glance, the uncomplicated story of a teenager with slightly typical problems is “weaved” by the second story about a certain “Tangential (Touch) Universe” and his role in it. In the course of the story, the viewer is introduced to the course of the situation, but very gradually, giving him more and more reasons to think. The viewer is introduced to a rather “interesting” position, he has to follow and analyze the development of events Donnie and his surroundings, as well as solve the puzzle on the book of a certain “Roberta Ann Sparrow”. Which has all the answers to the most intriguing questions. Only when the viewer is shown the final 12 chapter of this book, everything falls into place, the film reaches the catharsis to which it originally went.
It is such moments in the films of the genre “Mizanabim” that affect the viewer the most. It’s like “the maestro opens the curtain with his fingers”, “You don’t need to go far for an example: remember David Fincher’s Fight Club, because it’s when the protagonist realizes that Tyler Durden is himself that an entire city collapses under the soundtrack “Where Is My Mind”, a real tremor breaks through, and you realize, “damn it was excellent.”
So in our case, when the maestro waved a wand, "4 Dimension / Tangential Universe existed for 28 days" collapses without destroying or harming the main dimension, Donnie, like the viewer understands that he coped with the task of "Living Conductor". We are shown Chapter 12, which says: (c) Manipulators are awakened from their journey in the Tangential Universe, often haunted by memories. Many of them won't remember anything. Those who remember the Journey, often repent of what they did, buried in their dreams, “the curtain collapsed” and gave us the last piece of the puzzle under the magnificent composition “Mad World” I demonstrate to us: these same people from Donnie’s entourage who wake up only remember a strange dream, analyzing their actions they plunge into reflection.
Summing up, I can only add that the film was very successful in two of its main aspects, as the film is a mystery twisted by an interesting theory about the existence of a certain “Tangental (Touch) Universe”, and a film about people, which raises in its 113 minutes a number of acute fundamental social issues, spurred by sharp quotes from Donnie in dialogue with the surrounding “individuals”.
With the help of a great acting, young and at that time little-known actor Jake Gyllenhaal, Donnie Darko turned out to be a really “juicy” hero, one of his facial expressions when Frank comes to him is worthy of a separate discussion. I will highlight the image of an English teacher, created by actress Drew Barrymore.
Undoubtedly, this tape may or may not like, as Donnie Darko himself would say, “Dividing everything only into the bad and the good is too easy.” It’s a cast of films that don’t necessarily taste good. To judge for this is stupid, it is a very authorial and original film. I can guarantee one thing: if you are imbued with this story and solve the puzzle, then at the end you will find such a pleasure that will make you watch even the credits, until the last second of the film perceiving what you saw, you will remember these feelings for a long time, when from speakers of any kind, in any place, the same piano sound will sound and sound: "All around me are familiar faces ...".
Note:
If you still decide to watch this picture, then you need to watch the director's version and best of all with subtitles. Since I personally watched this film 3 times and only 3 times with the necessary subtitles. Comparing several episodes, it became obvious that the translator translates very incorrectly and only complicates the perception of the film.
Here is the smallest fraction of the damage done by mistranslations: We are born with tragedy in our hearts. Some people are probably already born with tragedy inside. The difference at first glance is not large, but in fact very significant. And as for the incorrect translations of the explanation to the viewer of the theory of 4 dimensions, everything is much worse.
In all kinds of information sources about cinema, DD is often included in the lists of films recommended to the public with taste. I want to periodically rank myself among the audience with taste.
The film did not touch any strings at all. Either the ambitions were greater, but it turned out that it turned out, or it was initially torn from everywhere images that needed to be put together in one canvas. In a stuffy provincial world, a pathological teenager makes demarches, being in a mystical connection with a slurred rabbit. Along the way, a teenager discovers the possibility of penetrating into a time portal to change the past.
I've seen all this somewhere. Acting is a standard Hollywood, which periodically tries on the image of not a commercial structure, but something that is related to the creation of deep non-commercial projects.
No character attracts, except Patrick Swayze, perhaps. It is a pity that to squeeze more from this image on the plot did not work.
There is a layer of cinema where everything is clear and chewed up, but which are nevertheless perceived hurriedly as deep and, as they say, “we need to think.” Each of these films is confusing.
The soundtrack downloaded separately, quite himself.