S. Darko (2009) User Reviews (130)

A great movie that will have you watching it over and over and..what?

[satellitepictures · 3/10 · 13 May 2009]

What? Oh S Darko? I thought you said Donnie Darko. Oh...well that changes things. Um... Let me take all of that back then.

OK on a serious note there are a lot of posts on here that will say that they A.) Were huge fans of Donnie Darko B.) Thought the girls were hot and scantily clad C.) Thought the effects were not so special d.) Thought this was kind of rehashed

I agree with all of these statements. I also tried looking at it like it wasn't involved with the first movie at all and you end up with a no so brilliant, watered down less than mediocre movie. The problem is this is a Donnie Darko movie. You have fans who have watched the original over and over, read countless summaries of not only the movie but the "mechanics" of how that universe worked and then came to your own conclusions. You have fans that (myself included) donned (no pun intended) the skeleton costume and grey hoodie for Halloween. When you try to add to a cult phenomenon like Donnie Darko, unless you do your homework, you are going to fall flat.

To me this movie felt like someone watched Donnie a few times, wrote down some key elements from the movie in a notebook and then tried to incorporate it into a new movie.

As a huge fan of the original I can't find myself "hating it" in the same way that I can't hate the Star Wars prequels, so I gave it a 3 out of 10. I don't want to betray it even though it betrays the original and its fans. It was by no means one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but it is a let down of a sequel. I also gave it a 3 because I understand what this movie was trying to do (involving others in the timeline plot to change destinies) but I don't think it was done well. You still have some of the mechanics involved in the first, although altered. Even the characters are somewhat the same (the sexual deviant priest vs the sexual deviant motivational speaker, etc)

Even some of the lines used are to try to get a reaction from original fans. It just comes off as a bad rip off.

When you were done watching the original, you felt as though you wanted to watch it again and learn more. You felt a sense of witnessing something special.

How does one suck a F***?

[Shaun_of_the_Dude · 4/10 · 3 May 2009]

As soon as I had heard about this hybrid sequel (and it is a sequel), I immediately thought that they had gone and done it again, I thought they just couldn't help themselves, I thought that it was just another money spinner and it was produced to simply draw in the gradual pulse of Donnie Darko fans.

After watching it though, it really didn't disappoint, my initial gut instinct was right. This film follows in the footsteps of other previous solo films that they just couldn't leave alone.

This film has so many Donnie Darko cliché's, it's unbelievable, the visual effects (which I could have done myself), the stylised music of the time, the time lapse scenes (which are OVERUSED), the times caped school scene (with Tears for Fears)... Everything... Everything that made Donnie Darko the artistic and visually spectacular film it was, has been transposed to this and it has been transposed, woefully.

They have even cast a couple of Jake Gyllenhaal lookalikes for some of the parts, and there is NO way this is an accident, because they act so badly, they must have been cast on their uncannily resemblance to J.G.

It's a bit like when Dennis Leary, Ripped off Bill Hicks, it's rather sad seeing someone else trying to imitate someone else's joke, you still laugh at it for a minute, but afterwards, you just want your money back.

This film is a bit poo, I can't even comment on its "plot", because, you can see "the plot", has been moulded around the model of Donnie Darko, you can see that the plot was the last thing they thought about, which funnily enough, in a Donnie Darko fashion, was probably the first thing though about in Donnie Darko.

I don't know though, for some strange reason, this feels more like a bad re-make, than a sequel, and people probably will say something like "You have watch this movie, independently, don't think that it's a sequel to Donnie Darko, try to see it for what it is.", okay, that would be a fair thing to say. But as soon as you release a movie, with one of the same actors from the original, with the same title as the original (nearly), with the same freaking emblem as the original, pfft... well... You can't cook a cookie from a recipe and say it's your own.

Now, let's get to the acting. The acting is awful, there really doesn't seem to be any interACTION, between the actors, it just feels as though they are saying the lines to each other, it really does, there doesn't feel like there is any co-character development, there doesn't seem to be any rapport at all, and more importantly, there doesn't seem to a distinguishable emotion, throughout the movie, honestly, watch it... The best actor throughout, is one of the actors who hardly has a scene John Hawkes, from, From Dusk Till Dawn and Identity.

There are also 2 shady looking characters in the film, who don Men in Black attire. They look like two bloody elephants in a fridge, they really do, they look SO out of place and so uneasy on the camera, that they were probably just picked from the town that they filmed in, either that or they are two tecchies from the production team.

As I've said before, the production looks shoddy, it really does, the effects from Donnie Darko, looked much better and that was.. what? 8 years ago? And 8 years, is a long time in technological terms. Even in one scene (this is supposed to be set in 1995), you can see post 95 produced Cars in the background, and an up to date Budweiser sign.

(I wish I could do the time travel thing and go back in time and NOT watch this film.)

All-in-All, this film is bad, I suppose my advice could be to watch it with an open mind, but I would be misadvising you, this film is obviously aimed at making a few quid from Donnie Darko fans and with that in mind, I just can't get past the audacity of the reason for this film. It is a much asked question of films, especially sequels, but I am going to ask it anyway.

Why?

I have given this film a 4/10, and that is primarily because I think that the lead is hot, she walks around a hot state, with practically nothing on most of the time and the fact that she looks like Jessica Biel, that is how skin deep I feel, after watching this film, which is no doubt, how the producers thought throughout the process of making this film.

If you are thinking of buying this on DVD for a present for someone you know who is a Donnie Darko fan, then don't, A. It will disappoint them and B. It will only spur on, more crap like this.

And as for one KILLER line in the movie...

"Like... Drugs and Anus Sex!" Best line in the whole movie.

Not the worst movie ever, but really bad in a lot of ways

[TheEtherWalk · 3/10 · 19 May 2009]

S Darko. Yeah they really made it. If you liked Donnie Darko, you will hate this. If you never saw Donnie Darko, you will have absolutely no clue in hell whats going on in this movie because the filmmakers don't explain anything and assume everyone knows Donnie Darko like the back of their hand. And even if you know every last detail of the first film, understand tangent universes and own a copy of Roberta Sparrow's time travel book, you will be totally confused as well.

Samantha Darko and her friend are driving, somewhere and they wind up in this town with all these really unconvincing people. It's funny that some parts of this movie tried to be scary, but the most unnerving thing of all is the MISCASTING. Iraq Jack is supposed to be this crazy Iraq war veteran, but he looks like he just skipped class in highschool and wandered onto the set. There's this nerdy guy who tries to hit on Sam, except he looks way too pretty to be a nerd. Everyone in this movie is PRETTY. And all the guys have long hair and look really phony. Even the costumes look like they were picked up at Goodwill. Daveign Chase herself wears nothing but her underwear for pretty much the entire movie. Not that I'm complaining though.

Did I mention there is a TON of secondary characters, all of whom do nothing but tell Sam she has a destiny and that God is watching and blah blah blah. It's supposed to sound deep and meaningful, and some of it is well written but it never amounts to anything. All of the actors are pretty terrible, but Daveigh Chase herself is really bad. She looks good in front of the camera, but mumbles her way through her lines at several points. Ed Westwick should get an award for never moving his face during this entire movie. I'm serious, I don't think he blinked. Elizabeth Berkely shows up as a devout Christian housewife, with some completely idiotic dialog. She also looks totally haggard every time she's on screen.

The mystique of Donnie Darko has been totally lost here. The story of the original was supposed to be left open to interpretation at the end, and this is a really bad interpretation of that story. Somehow since Sam dies in one flow of time during this movie, she can become a manipulated dead... while she's SLEEPING? She goes around as this pale ghost self and changes some things. She makes someone burn down a church for no real reason other than to mirror the first film. And apparently she 'doesn't dream' according to the words that open the movie. She can create unicorns running in the clouds with her mind though. And somehow characters in this movie can simply go back in time at will, and something about a glowing blue feather. Doesn't this totally go against what happened in the first movie? Donnie Darko didn't have 'powers'. They tried to explain everything that was ambiguous in DD, and by doing so they confound all continuity with the original while leaving nothing to the imagination, simplifying the themes and creating nothing original of their own.

The plot of this movie is basically just ripped from the first movie. Iraq Jack has to get crushed by the meteor in order to close the time loop, pretty much the same as Donnie. This is about the only thing that really makes sense. Both the female leads wind up dead at points in the movie, but there's no emotional weight to this at all because we KNOW they will come back to life. The nerdy guy appears to have a flesh-eating disease that is never explained. Then his face turns all black and weird like a demon. Did I mention Iraq Jack is Roberta Sparrow's grandson? What's the point of this and why does he create a Frank mask? Who locked the two kids in the cave?

All in all, a very sloppy film with almost no redeeming values. A lot of it probably looked good on paper, and there are some promising scenes, but the execution is just lazy. Daveigh Chase in her underwear almost makes it worth watching. Almost.

I Doubt Chris Fisher's Commitment to Sparkle Motion...

[Otto-Maddox · 2/10 · 8 May 2009]

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.

Should never have been made

[maddern · 2/10 · 3 May 2009]

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.

More like "ASS Darko"

[jason-coffman · 1/10 · 13 May 2009]

I was honestly shocked that this film was actually worse than I was expecting it to be. It really seems like the writer and director got hired for the job, watched about half of the first film before they got bored, and then set off to make something roughly similar. Awful dialogue, careless (and painfully obvious) anachronisms, and some jaw-droppingly bad CG effects. I'd be willing to bet they had more money to make this than Richard Kelly had to work with on the original, and none of it's up on the screen. Maybe it cost them a lot of money to license "Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe" by Whale.

*cough* Anyway, as far as cash-grab sequels go this has to be one of the all-time worst. A suggestion: tape an episode of "One Tree Hill" or "Gossip Girl," then put on some red-and-blue 3D glasses, and pretend one of the cast members is saying stuff like "Remember the future" and "My farts taste like cherries." Then watch the show on rewind for about twenty minutes and do it all over again. Repeat for 102 minutes total, and you've had roughly the same experience. Utterly shameful.

An embarrassment to the Darko name

[versacemedia · 1/10 · 29 June 2009]

Before anyone gets on their high horse saying I am one of those Donnie Darko fans not giving this new movie a chance, I gave this film a chance and spent the five bucks to rent it straight away after learning it existed.

The only good thing about this film is that it ended. OK, that may be harsh, the film's colour and surrounding landscape it unfolds in is pretty cool but that is it. The only other interesting elements, whether technical in filming style or plot-wise of this film, were ripped straight from the first film. What was cool in Donnie Darko is merely imitation here.

The plot is weak and has logic holes which fail the Donnie Darko/tangent universe test from the first film. As fans of the original we cannot help but compare the two films because s.Darko centres on characters and memories from the first one and rotates on the principles that drove the original as well. How can you not compare the two? What almost borders on insulting in this film are the straight repetitions of acts, scenes and quirky characters from the first one replicated in this one. I don't want to spoil the film if you are drawn to sit and endure it but you'll see what I mean, you cannot miss the weak, formulaic repetition, especially if you are a fan of the original.

Basically, s.Darko is the same model car like Donnie Darko but has different paint colour and chokes along on a four-cylinder engine whereas the first one rumbled along on six.

If you thought "How can they make a sequel to Donnie Darko?"

[jh-goldsmith · 1/10 · 10 May 2009]

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.

Arrrrrgggggg

[andy-salter · 1/10 · 3 May 2009]

well where do i begin. i never expected much from this film but i hoped for so much more than i got. the plot is randomly all over the place with hints of donnie darko crow bared in to make it relevant to the original(and probably the idea was to interest fans of the original). the acting is very wooden, the story is totally rambling and the end is stupid in so many ways. it seems very much like the makers have gone way out of the way to appeal to fans of the original, well i am very much one of those fans and i hated it with more than a passion, i only found out about this movie about an hour before i sat down to watch it, i wish i never found out about it.its obvious why it went straight to DVD. so if you are a fan of the original stay away from this one and just keep on loving donnie darko.

I just had one thought running through my head while watching this . . .

[BremenDruid · 1/10 · 2 May 2009]

I just had one thought running through my head while watching this . . .WTF? Seriously, that was pretty much the only thought running through my head as I watched this movie. Every time something happened, I thought, WTF does that have to do with anything? And I don't mean that the movie is mysterious, I mean there's a lot that just doesn't make any sense.

Okay, Donnie Darko is my favorite movie of all time. Even after watching Donnie Darko the first time I didn't quite understand everything that happened in it, I was wondering why certain things happened and how some things affected other events. So the first time I watched Donnie Darko I was also wondering: WTF? But even with that I still understood the idea that Donnie went through this whole movie so that in the end he would sacrifice himself for the sake of the world. (It also made me obsessed with Mad World).

Having said that I don't understand what the whole point S Darko really was. In S. Darko, (Here comes the spoilers, but trust me it may be better to read about it than to actually waste your time watching it) the whole thing starts when a dead version of Samantha appears before a man who goes by "Iraq Jack" and tells him that the world is going to end. (Another messed up thing about Iraq Jack? He's the grandson to Roberta Sparrow, what bearing that has to do with anything? I have no clue).

Anyways, Iraq Jack gets obsessed with the dead version of Samantha (and even more messed up is that Samantha apparently turns into her dead self at night when she sees a glowing feather . . .WTF?) So this dead version of Samantha tells him that the world is going to end, and he goes about making a mask that is supposed to replicate the look of Frank the Rabbit from the first movie, apparently she shows him a drawing that Donnie did of Frank the Rabbit and he creates a mask that looks like the drawing.

Now . . .There's a problem with that. Okay, Donnie first meets Frank the Rabbit on the night when the Tangent Universe opens when Frank calls him outside to avoid being killed by the jet engine. When he goes back into time to save the world, he goes back to exactly the same night that he was called outside and therefore the tangent universe never opens. So, unless he decided to randomly draw Frank the Rabbit while waiting for the engine to crush him (Oh, and storing it somewhere in his room where it won't get ruined by the said jet engine), that drawing shouldn't exist. (Except, of course, the sketches that Frank had, but I doubt that he knew Samantha well enough to give her a copy).

So anyways, he creates the mask that invariably kills Samantha later on (which actually Samantha dies twice in this movie, but I won't get into that too much, because the first time is actually quite pointless). So now, the world is coming to an end, Samantha is dead, and the dead version of her springs Iraq Jack from jail so that he could go back into time and die by the meteorite.

Okay, so they're pretty much replacing Donnie with Iraq Jack (who happens to be Roberta Sparrows grandson, but really, who cares?). Here's the problem with that, Donnie was a pretty messed up kid, but the experiences he goes through in the movie moves the audience to feel for him when he does actually die. This doesn't work for Iraq Jack, because quite frankly no one cares about him. Seriously, the only shots you see of him are him rambling like a lunatic, or him digging through trash, or other random shots of him talking to the dead Samantha.

No one cares for him, the audience doesn't care about him, so when he does die (smiling and waving at the meteorite like an idiot) it doesn't have any effect on the audience. It's like watching someone step on an insect, no one cares.

That's just the main plot, but then you have some other stuff in the movie that's just completely inane. Like, for instance, this random rash that (I don't even remember what the name of the character was, seriously he was that unimportant) some dude got from the meteorite, that apparently ate away at his skin and also made him super aggressive. WTF? Here's another thing that didn't quite make sense. Samantha has the Philosophy of Time Travel book. . .Why? For those that don't know or maybe for some reason or another might have forgotten, Donnie receives the book from Dr. Monnitoff, his science teacher, when he starts asking him about time travel. His inquiries are all brought on by the fact that Frank the Rabbit talked to him about time travel, so if Donnie went back in time to the point where the tangent universe opened and died, he never received the book. So that means that Dr. Monnitoff should still have it (or if you go to the Donnie Darko website you find out that it was actually given to the Library of Congress Rare Books Division after Dr. Monnitoff died in a car accident.) These are just some of the things that I've noticed, but right now I don't think I could continue to rant about this movie. I think instead I'm going to find Nathan Atkins (the guy that wrote the screenplay for S Darko) and I'm going to get a refund for what I believe 2 hours of my life wasted on his piece of crap movie is worth.

Don't waste your time.

Far better than I expected.

[justonesp00lturn · 8/10 · 19 May 2009]

I'm a huge fan of the first film. That said, when I heard they were making a sequel, my first thought was simple: "Why?" However, I consider myself an open-minded person. I knew I'd watch the movie before passing judgment. My expectations were incredibly low, however. I figured that it would either be a poor attempt at cashing in on the first film's success, a cute film that made a decent attempt, or a surprise hit that blew my mind. The large amount of time since the first film made me doubt the first option, and the fact that Richard Kelly would not be involved made me doubt the third. So I figured it would be an okay film, worth watching once, and then forgetting about. The film finally came out, and I decided to rent it. I watched it with a friend, also a big Donnie Darko fan. My final verdict: I was indeed blown away. I will say that this film is not really on the same level as Donnie Darko. But it was far better than I had expected it to be. In terms of cinematography, the film is superb. In smaller terms: it LOOKS like Donnie Darko. You'll find fast-motion clouds, slow-motion parties, and upside-down, rotating shots. All of the rules of the first film are kept intact. Those who are very involved in the mythology of the film will likely not be disappointed. Everything about time travel, water, metal... all remains intact. My major qualm is that some things seemed directly lifted off of the first film. Of the now four people I know who watched both the first movie and this sequel, all four have found that to be its biggest flaw. But it does have its own story, and it's a beautiful story. The effects are wonderful, very beautiful. Overall, the movie is worth watching. I expect a lot of people will cast it aside and hate it simply because it exists. Good for them. But this movie is a good continuation, a great sequel (considering the original mastermind was nowhere to be found) and it was put together by true fans, for true fans. Where Donnie Darko blew my mind out of this world, this movie at least blew my mind out of my chair. That's more than can be said for a lot of films. In short, this movie is not Donnie Darko. It is what it is, and it is good.

Its no real Darko but it is still good

[emphedokles · 6/10 · 7 November 2009]

Well, i reed a lot of comments about how bad this movie is. Normally i trust the comments on IMDb, but this time i decided to watch the movie.

And hey, it was not that bad. If they did not had named it s.darko i would say it is a greate movie.

It really has not anything to do with Donny Darko. But except of this it is very entertaining. Cute chicas which looks like 17 are stumbling through a kind of screw back time horror movie.

The story does not make any sense and there are way to much Beverly hills 90210 look a like people in it. (including the nerd who looks totally cool after he took off his glasses and changed his shirt)

But it totally entertained me. There are greate pictures of wide desert landscapes in it. The girls are pretty and the story is mystical without looking like a cheap scifi channel story.

If you are bored and open for 90 minutes of easy entertainment, then it will not be a waste of time. (except you wait for darko greatness. this will not happen)

i honestly wish i never saw it

[alfredblue2 · 1/10 · 25 October 2012]

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.

The "S" in S. Darko stands for sucks

[mbrooks-8 · 1/10 · 8 May 2009]

Seven years after a jet engine fell on her brother we find Samantha Darko on a road trip with her best friend Corey as they both want to escape their former lives. Their car breaks down in a small town in Utah and they are stuck there until their car can be repaired. Samantha of course has Darko superpowers and while she sleepwalks her time traveling zombie ghost girl self wanders around giving advice to the local nut (a post traumatic war veteran), and warning that the world is going to end in a few days. There is also the "Mystery of the Missing Boys" to be solved (spoiler: it's not) and a gaggle of weird characters to meet; the drunk teen who is brother to one of the missing boys, the nerd who is infected by a meteorite, the aforementioned crazy vet, the creepy motel manger, the priest with a shady past and his freaky girlfriend. The movie rewinds the time line twice so that we can see things happen differently, with no real logical effect or reason, and the second time is just a big f*ck you to the viewer who has just wasted 100 minutes of their lives watching this piece of crap. Richard Kelly has nothing to do with this sequel (it's directed by Chris Fisher) but after Southland Tales I'd still like to blame him.

Couldn't they have just Let Donnie Rest in Peace?

[donmoore444 · 1/10 · 22 May 2009]

First off, I want to say I love the original Donnie Darko. The plot of creator Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko was confusing (leaving doors open and making the audience thinking for days after viewing), the acting and characters were colorful, the dialogue was crisp and unique--all which paid off and made it great film. Casting was great, though early in his career he appeared as Billy Crystal's character's son in City Slickers, I don't remember seeing Jake Gyllenhaal in a movie as an adult until Donnie Darko (nothing memorable anyhow.) The overall tone of the movie worked wonderfully. And a healthy Patrick Swayze in a triumphant, yet disturbing return—great stuff. s. Darko's answer to a comeback is Elizabeth Berkley (aka Jessie Spano) with a not so much a victorious return to the screen in perhaps her worst movie (and she starred in Showgirls.)

Once I got over viewing the movie, I watched the making of s. Darko special feature. First off, Chris Fisher states that he hasn't even seen the final cut of the movie. How does that happen? I think it says a lot when the director doesn't even watch his huge mistake. The funny thing is that most people involved in this movie seemed to know and are willing to admit they were making a tragic mistake getting on board for this what people kept referring to as a "continuation" to avoid the Hollywood cussword, "sequel."

One of the co-producers, Jennifer Connelly (not the actress), even comments about her hesitancy to become involved and mentions how "sacred things should not be toyed with by unfamiliar hands." She should have stuck by that statement and steered clear. Perhaps if Richard Kelly was involved, instead of allowing others to play in the universe he created, the movie may have had some redeeming qualities, but obviously he knew it was a bad idea or he would have been there. If you want to watch a bunch of Hollywood professionals squirm, watch this special feature, it's much more entertaining than the film itself.

To sum up the ridiculousness of the plot of this movie, actor, John Hawkes, makes a funny comment about asking him what s. Darko is about. His answer, "it's about an hour and forty-five minutes or something like that and, and I know it's in color."

In s. Darko, the screenwriter, Nathan Atkins (who implied in the making of special feature that he was hesitant to write this because he is a huge fan of the original and seems somewhat ashamed by the outcome. He even asked himself when the idea was brought to him, Why do this? I guess the answer is money.) In his "chapter of the saga," (hopefully the final chapter) Nate uses many of the cool elements of the original, the infamous creepy rabbit head being, the stream of CGI liquid that leads the characters (their destiny spirit), and the concept that water and metal are essential to time travel, but it's all done awful, and he too often tries to explain things that were left to the imagination of the viewer by Kelly to no prevail which I feel is a big no, no and a kick to the Dick. If Kelly watched this movie and ran into Nathan Atkins on the street, he would deserve an apology.

I don't like to hold the writing completely accountable, because I know there are so many elements to making a film work and a lot of the time the story looks great on paper, but when it's made something goes terribly wrong. Here it's the overall story for me. Set in the mid-1990's (in order to correlate with the original film or O.F.), Sam (Donnie's younger sister that shook a leg at the dance recital of the O.F.) and her friend, Corey, are driving to Hollywood when their car breaks down and they are stranded in a small hick town--a plot point that's had to be in at least a million movies by now. Sam has hallucinations that warn her that the end of existence is near. Some weird guy from Desert Storm is rummaging through dumpsters and just plain old being weird. Another dorky dude's got strange sores going on. All the characters speak in clichés and over explain plot points. I'm not explaining anymore of the ridiculous, uninspired plot.

Using the idea of time travel from the O.F., s. Darko fails to come up with anything innovative. The characters are blah. The town is tired. The dialogue is laughable for bad reasons. The wannabe trippy effects are not worthy of a video game. ZZZZZZZZ. Then I woke up and started it from the point I remembered last seeing and nothing changed--just another bad sequel to a movie that should have been left alone. In real life and in any movie, people should never wake up and start all over again (except in Groundhog Day.)That is bad storytelling and a cop out which the original had done tactfully without dumbing things down. I was really hoping to have at least something good to say by the end of this disaster, but now all I hope is that True Romance, Dark City and Fight Club never spawn a sequel.

Though my review for this film is bad, I admire anyone who creates a movie, Chris Fisher, Nathan Atkins, the cast. Keep making movies. That's why I give anything a chance. So why get so fired up about a movie that sucks? A. Because without bad movies there can't be good ones and without comparison there is nothing learned. After watching the making of featurette, I think everyone involved in this mess will turn down working on a "continuation" or sequel of another film they love; then again, money talks. I bet they all feel dirty now. Some great stories don't need to become sagas and should just R.I.P. unlike poor unfortunate Donnie.

This movie isn't worth to see

[frudda · 1/10 · 11 July 2009]

This movie is trash if you've seen the first Donnie Darko movie. It has nothing to do with the original. And the actors are really making the movie boring. I saw 1 hour of the movie then I got really angry, and turned it off.

I wanted to give it a chance..

The movie has an feeling of those teenage movies that gets released pretty often. I can't understand the director what he thought when he made the second part like this.

It might be a trend that all second part followers movies gotta be this way. Why waste money on something thats not come from the heart.

R.I.P Donnie Darko.

Pungent Universe

[emdrgreg · 1/10 · 22 December 2009]

I'm in agreement with virtually all of the negative reviews so far. This film is completely derivative and almost completely unoriginal. In fairness, though, there may be some things that make S Darko a little less incoherent. The basic universe of S Darko could be the tangent universe of Donnie Darko. The universe problem in the first film is not that the tangent universe cannot and must not exist, but that any universe cannot be contaminated by a tangent universe. My interpretation may be completely wrong, but the tangent universe plane engine in Donnie represents the contamination that must be corrected. Otherwise, why did Frank wake Donnie? If the ongoing reality in S Darko is that Donnie was killed by a still unidentified engine, then S Darko is an exploration of that tangent universe that Donnie saved us from. In DD, it has to be that the engine that killed Donnie is from the real universe, and from the plane that WOULD HAVE been carrying Sam and her mother had they gone to the competition. Donnie accepted death because that is how our universe should have unfolded. Maybe the rest of Sparkle Motion died, or maybe none of them went. Unfortunately, this probably suggests that in the tangent universe, Sam and her mother are both dead.

That said, the S Darko filmmakers were too intent on maintaining the rules and structure of DD in this film, and rather than an homage they made a very unconvincing re-make. They painted themselves into a corner. Exploring Donnie's tangent universe would be OK to do, but it should have opened up new levels of reality rather than to cram us into the old ones.

Poor acting and unlikable characters.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 20 March 2019]

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.

Bad bad movie makers . . .

[tetrill · 3/10 · 15 June 2009]

I've watched DD once when it first came out. I don't remember anything about it so this review is coming from someone who has a relatively fresh aspect on this.

This movie is bad. Really bad. No plot, no excitement. I had a few jumps in the beginning when the dead girl appeared here and there, but that's about it. The best part of this movie was the skin shown due to some unknown pajamas addiction the main actress had. I understand that sequels are ten times better after watching the original or prequel but, shouldn't they still make some kind of sense? A sequel or follow-up is not going to be good just because the original was awesome. All good movies, sequels or not, have a few things in common . . . a) they make sense b) the characters win your heart or interest c) they make sense d) there's a freaking plot somewhere buried in the movie! Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for a flashback or miracle or ANYTHING to appear that would make sense of this compost pile of a movie. Bad, bad movie and bad, bad movie makers. If my fingers weren't too busy clawing out my eyes, I'd give you a thumbs down.

A waste of time and money.

[Harlemer · 3/10 · 18 December 2009]

When I found this DVD in a store on discount, I was stunned. I couldn't bring myself to believe that there were people stupid enough to make a sequel to a movie like Donnie Darko, when there was no indication at the end of the film that a sequel could even be made.

If you've seen and enjoyed the first movie, you'll know how unique and one-of-a-kind it is. The sequel, however, is a pile of messy, incoherent trash that obviously and thankfully was not worth sending to theaters, despite the fact it's a continuation of a cult-classic, cult-following film.

The "story" follows Samantha, the least developed character of the first film, played by the same actress. And let's just say, her acting as a nine-yea-old was better than her performance here. She's on a road trip with her trendy Maggie Gyllenhaal look-alike friend, when their car breaks down and are saved by a hip, cool-as-ice boy played by Ed Westwick, whose most notable role prior to this movie was Alex, from Children of Men. His character, Randy, likes to act cool, meaning he has no interesting qualities other than his adequate good looks. He brings the two girls to a motel in his sleepy home town where a meteorite strikes a windmill, and another Gyllenhaal look-alike predicts the end of the world. What ensues is crappy writing, drama, sub plots, and characters, all which add their own flare to this piece-of-junk movie.

The only redeeming quality about this movie is how they got a little bit creative with the main character, making her not the living receiver, but the manipulated dead. But that's it! There's NOTHING interesting about this movie, and it's nothing but a rip-off of the first one, creating nothing original, but creating quite a bit of similarities. A sequel is supposed to be it's own movie, as well as a continuation, but S. Darko failed at that. Plus, it was an unnecessary sequel, sent straight to DVD where it belongs.

All-in-all, I don't recommend this movie. It's boring, poorly-paced, and just a terrible piece of work. Spend your money on a better movie on the discount shelves.

Much about this movie to like

[rokcomx · 9/10 · 31 July 2009]

Given one of the most dubious and potentially pointless tasks in movie history, "Make a sequel to Donnie Darko," I feel the filmmakers did a thoughtful and somewhat marvelous job.

It's no Donnie Darko, don't get me wrong – the original is one of my all time faves, but this story of Donnie's little sister Samantha isn't meant to be and shouldn't be taken as a "continuation," despite taking place a few years later. Rather, it's more of a flipside – the Darko universe, where timeslips can cause ripple effects that destroy reality, as it relates to the "manipulated dead," who are charged with the task of at least attempting to mend the damage. Whether they want to or not.

Frank the Doomsayer Bunny in the original Darko was one of the manipulated dead – this time, Frank's POV is examined as his task falls on others (note the plural – S. Darko isn't just the story of Donnie's sister, even if it seems to be during the first hour or so…it's that sort of Serling/M Night/O Henry/D Darko turnaround of all you thought you knew that allows S. Darko to successfully capture the feel of the original, while telling an altogether different story).

I recommend that S. Darko viewers listen to the DVD commentary, and you'll see what I mean about the careful thought and consideration put into it by the writer and director. Every little detail in their film fits perfectly into world(s) portrayed in the original cult classic. They are clearly true fans of Donnie, and they truly understood (as well as anyone can) the universe created for the characters to exist within --- Part of S. Darko's appeal, for me, is the LOOK – filmed with a new "red camera" technology that allows for digital film that still closely mirrors 35mm, I was astounded by the Utah landscapes and the way the characters and their dusty little town appear so crisply delineated, yet still so warmly rendered, with a depth of field that flatters and beautifies both inanimate objects and the charismatic cast, all of whom are outstanding.

I'd single out S. Darko herself, Daveigh Chase, reprising her original sparse role in the original as Donnie's little sister Samantha, as particularly riveting. Not just because she's lovely, but for her wandering and ethereal portrayal of a lost young woman whose fate – in life and beyond – is something she seems to already know that she has no control over.

Samantha even keeps acting out her fate in various ways, as if rehearsing for a play she's never read and doesn't even know exists, before it actually happens to her, remaining aloof and apart from the world around her, even as events in her life illustrate her integral (if involuntary and possibly unwilling) role in saving that world – Some people in the Darko universe have the power to change the future – but, perversely and sadly, others are doomed to play supporting roles that ensure the big-picture events play out fated. Else the universe could be destroyed.

SPOILER 'GRAPH (most obvious spoiler, anyway): Great to be the essentially superpowered (or at least super-evolved) Donnie – except you have to die to save everyone. Bummer to be his sister, or to be one of the Manipulated Dead – except their role in saving the universe is no less important, perhaps even more so, else the powerful Donnie(s) would never know what to do or how to do it (or even that anything needs to be done at all).

OR, think of it this way – gotta have apostles, even tho there's only one Jesus, and he gets to call the shots AND gets all the glory. But every single thing we (think we) know about the Jesus story comes from the apostles, doesn't it, and how could Jesus' have happened without them???? ---- Sher, there are some "red herring" bits that never really pay off (and may in fact be continuity errors) in S Darko – same with Donnie, tho I admit it's more of a challenge to piece together what you've just seen after viewing S. However, I DID find myself thinking about S a lot after viewing, reaching several "aha" conclusions that may or may not be valid or intended. Just like after I viewed Donnie the first time (and the second, third, and fourth times).

And the new metal bunny head, obsessively created and worn by Iraq Jack even tho it makes his head bleed, totally rocks! THIS is a bunny that'd get my attention – and inspire my life-changing and world-changing action – a lot quicker and better than the fuzzy dime-store Frank of the original Donnie! I have to wonder if someone saw S. Darko who was completely unfamiliar with Donnie wouldn't find it a fine movie? Maybe they'd love S's ambiguous and thought-provoking story and cast a bunch, just like so many as they first see Donnie.

If someone's first Planet of the Apes movie they see is Escape From the Planet of the Apes, the third entry where the entire story is flipped upside down, they'll probably like it fine, perhaps even better than the Heston original once they finally see it. The original is great, sure, but Escape – tho completely different – is also a great flick. Same universe, a couple of the same characters, but a wholly different take and setting --- I wish more people would give S. Darko a chance. It's no Donnie Darko, sure – but it's a fine Escape From the Planet of the Apes.

It makes sense to me

[azmuzik61 · 6/10 · 13 May 2009]

On first view of this film I thought it was a horrid waste of time. Afterward though, I thought on it and the original movie, and I found it to slowly make more sense.

The movie does appear to be rushed in many places but I think that the story eventually makes sense. However it opens up for a possibility of a third film to explain the reasoning in this one.

The whole movie is about saving Samantha Darko, not only from the "end of the universe," but from herself. Her character is the inverse of what Donnie was in D.D. She needs to start living her life, other lives are sacrificed for her to do so. Donnie had to die for everyone else to live. When they speak of saving the universe I feel that Samantha Darko has something that she needs to do in the future, something she needs live for.

This is why Donnie had to die, so that she wouldn't perish in the plane crash. This is why when Samantha dies in S. Darko, that she needs to be saved by her friend sacrificing herself. This is why, in the end, she must be led away from the small Utah town where it is going to be destroyed by meteors. She cannot die until she saves the universe. The events I feel are yet to come.

Her character may be more important in the grand scheme than originally conceived in the original Darko film.

This is why I think it is opened up for a third film.

I am sure many fans of Donnie Darko would be very angry with this film, but I've accepted it, as I do with all sequels and remakes that come out these days. I suggest you take it, and run with it. No use complaining.

S. Darko is how one sucks a f***

[blawson2010 · 2/10 · 5 June 2009]

I saw Donnie Darko not long before the release of S. Darko. I've watched Donnie Darko countless times so i originally viewed it and was interested in the sequel. I felt this movie would fall to the usual sequel stereotype of being ridiculous, cheesy and trying to ride on the fame of the original and i was right.

S. Darko takes place seven years after the event of Donnie Darko. The film starts with Samantha Darko (Donnie's sister who was ten in Donnie Darko) and her friend Corey on a road trip to Los Angeles but their car breaks down just outside of a small town called Conejo Springs, Randy, the local dark and moody kid, gives the pair a ride to the mechanic. Corey becomes immersed in the town's party scene with Randy.

From there the movie just tries to recreate the mood of Donnie Darko and dramatically fails. They even parallel some the memorable lines from the first one "Why are you looking at me funny?" "Why do you look so funny?" It is clear director Chris Fisher saw the original film well enough to make a copy but didn't follow the depth or meaning behind any of the original movie.

The acting was definitely sub par, it seems the casting crew went for beauty instead of talent which is not what Donnie Darko was ever about. Surprisingly the special effects were pretty standard, nothing to ridiculous but nothing to write home about either. This movie followed the typical teen movie guideline, hot chicks, crazy stuff and action.

S. Darko will fall short of Donnie Darko fans expectations. Even a person who knows nothing about Donnie Darko will have trouble enjoying this movie.

S. Darko is how one sucks a f***

S. Darko --- S. for Spoiling

[barney2001 · 3/10 · 29 June 2009]

Seriously... what the hell was that??? OK, I never stop to write reviews about anything, but that movie was just plain bad / wrong, whether you're a fan of the original Donnie Darko or not. I read a few comments beforehand (given the 4.0/10 rating) and thought to myself "Well, people are always very critical. It's never as bad as they say / write." Well, I was wrong. Daveigh Chase has amazing eyes; that's the ONLY good think about this movie. Therefore, it is my role as a human being to warn you.

I thought this movie was going to talk about the original story seen through the eyes of Samantha (I never read the summary)... but NO! It's much worse: seven years after Donnie's death, Samantha falls victim of HER OWN "Time travel" experience. Oh, I get it: the first movie seemed so likely to happen in real life, they figured "Well, why not just have the EXACT same thing happen to two individuals from the same family? That's got to even out the odds!" They try to mimic EVERYTHING from the first movie, but SLIGHTLY (and I insist) differently. Elements from the first movie reappear for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. They could have AT LEAST given the poor girl her own story... I mean, after all she's been through! Oh, did I say story? There IS NO STORYLINE!!! It's not even obvious who's supposed to play which role in the movie. Manipulated living? Manipulated dead? FORGET IT! Don't even try to guess: I think they just switch randomly!

*** SPOILER ALERT PAST THIS POINT *** : I think they were aware that the "story" was bad and they just decided to shove three "stories" into one.

OK... and the final straw. Remember Roberta from the first movie? It's the old woman who always checks her mailbox and wrote the book about "The philosophy of time travel". Well, believe it or not, Samantha ends up in this small secluded village (where the entire movie takes place) and Roberta's grandson actually lives RIGHT THERE... in that small secluded village! That's awesome, isn't it?! Yeah, and he even has a MAJOR role in the outcome of the events and has been chosen to resemble somewhat Donnie. How unlikely is that? Well now, I'm convinced!!!

Oh, and for the people who haven't seen the original "Donnie Darko" movie, rent that one instead and forget that this one ever existed!

You have been warned...

Im too angry for a summary...

[almo-8 · 1/10 · 5 May 2009]

OK I'm with Andy, though I don't think his post contained enough anger, or enough tears to fully explain this movie. Anyone who has seen the first can see plot twists (sorry... "twists") coming from a mile away, not only did the movie completely rip off the first one, it started all over again halfway through and ripped it off a second time. The whole thing looked low budget, as if it was made to feel like it was made around the same time as Donnie, as if someone wanted it to be a cult classic years ago, though it never could or should be. Anyone who thought "oh this could never be like D Darko, it must be completely different" is sadly mistaken. The thriller of Frank was replaced by some sort of horror, badly done at that, and what relevance did frank have at all to S Darko? Dialogue was terrible, semi rehashed lines from the first, and don't even get me started on the soundtrack...

Anyone who even mildly enjoyed the first movie should stay away from this one, or at least make sure you drink the whole way through the dragged out, overly long story so that when you pass out you wont remember a thing in the morning and we can all pretend that it never even happened.