Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut

Great review dev. I agree with a lot of your points and can understand why so many seem to be lamenting the lack of amiguity in this new version.

Isn't it just as possible that, rather than pandering to new demographics (ie morons) the film has gained within its fanbase, that Kelly simply had one single interpretation for the film all along and got tired of people coming up with other theories?

If there was one answer to your riddle - wouldn't you get tired of people getting it wrong?

I just think that - if there was one interpretation of the story from its inception as Kelly says - that ambiguity did nothing to serve the story. All it did was keep its cult and arthouse fans feeling like they had a little secret the rest of the world didn't. Which obviously was never Kellys intent.

Seeing the film tomorrow night, courtesy of CHUD.

Some great points for discussion are brought up.

My first experience with Darko was a great one. I actually was late for the film and missed the opening and didn't pick up the film until after Donnie drops his bike and comes through the door of his house. And after watching the film, I sat around and waited for the next showing to see what I missed. In some way I think that enhanced the pleasure of this riddle and also speaks to why it's so good: it's confusing and weird and forces you as a viewer to almost extend the narrative on the spot by writing some fan fiction in your mind. It's the mystery that makes it so interesting. I remember wanting to see the film again in the theater but I never did and I think I just wanted to sit with that viewing for a while. I bought the DVD and shared it with friends and they loved it and I enjoyed greatly seeing it again. I watched the DVD a few times but more for the funny details (like Donnie's hilarious friends). I never watched the deleted scenes, never listened to the commentary, never went to the website. DB Cooper's post on Chud here was a far as I went into trying to figure out what I saw. And I liked it that way. The movie stayed odd and indecipherable and wonderful. And that's the way it should be. With DVDs and internet message boards and even the way we go the theater two, three, four times --- I think we've lost something, we've dilluted the power of movies. We know too much. Dellamorte has some views on this I know. And I always go back to my conversation with Chris Nolan (speaking of Memento). And how he said he didn't want to have a DVD of Memento which wrecked the illusion of the film, which explained too much, which imposed his view of the film and cemented exactly what it was because it was coming from its creator. He wanted the audience to own the film for a while. Maybe ten years down the road he'd do that. I think that's so smart and it shows how much Nolan understands cinema.

Anyway, I got around to watching those deleted scenes and didn't really like them and I thought I'd go see the director's cut but I think now that I won't. Fuck that.

(I'm not just saying this because I was so exalted in this review) dev, your insights into films have just got better and better and you're becoming one of the more engaging reviewers to read. And I'm talking across the board, the big boys, the Eberts and the Village Voices and the Salons of the world. Very impressive.

I'll add that a reason that Garden State fails is that it tries too hard to explain everything, sum it all up, at the end. Director's Cuts like DD do the same thing.

Donnie Darko conspiricy!

Hi my name's Ash and this is my first time posting but defently won't be my last!!

I saw Donnie Darko when it came out on DVD where most people first saw it which shows on its success on the format. I loved it, it was charming and funny and weird and i was hooked. In fact i ended up watching it many times in the first week i had it trying to figure it all out and obviously i ended up with different interpetations which then led me to lending it to my friend who ended up loving it to. Then we spent alot of time talking about our interpetations. We loved Donnie Darko!

So when i hear about the Donnie Darko: Directors Cut revealing most of it just ruins it for me. I don't want to know it inside out, i liked the way the matrix was never really solved by the end of revolutions even though i didn't like that film much at least it didn't feel the need to answer all the questions when it had such an enormous audience. I was looking forward to the new version of Donnie Darko but now i might not bother to see it.

I haven't seen garden State as mentioned above, i really really want to see it but i live in the UK so along time to wait yet. I got the soundtrack today and i highly recommend it! PURE BRILLIANT!

c ya round
ASH

One thing I really liked about the review that stuck with me, Dev, was your willingness to admit that you were motivated by the "It was unknown, intimate, and all mine...now it's well-known, bigger, and I don't love it as much!" phenomenon.

Good honesty. A lesser writer would waste paragraphs trying to rationalize away something that obvious.

I think you make a good case for removing too much of the mystery, yet it's easily the most interesting film hitting theaters (save for Sky Captain) for the next several weeks, so I'm compelled to see it anyway. I haven't watched the original in awhile, so maybe memory lapse will keep some of the mystery intact for me.

Any added scenes feature the fat guy in a jogging suit?

My problem with the film was that it left too much stuff out, so I guess I'm just the opposite of Kirby on this. Some of the deleted scenes, like the "Watership Down" moment or the pre-end reference to deus ex machina, just need to be in there to fill-in some of the unnecessary gaps that the movie has in it - different than the intentional gaps Kelly wove in. I like "Donnie Darko" - the original - but it feels like a movie that could be great and isn't. Looking at the deleted scenes, it seems like some stuff was yanked simply to shorten the running time. I was excited to hear that Kelly was "fixing" these problems with a director's cut and I still really want to see it. However, maybe, and I'm going off Devin's review here, it just served to bloat up the film or make it awkward in a different way. Maybe it's just not a fixable flick and always will be just good instead of great.

I just don't always need to know exactly what the hell is going on. I think DD evokes a feeling, a mood, and it doesn't really matter to me what it's about. I equate to a jazzy poem or an experimental piece of literature: it's not totally lucid, but it doesn't have to be. As long as the narrative isn't super-flimsy, you get the gist. What matters most is that it puts you in a place and again, evokes something in you. It's a fine line though.

Don't get me wrong, I think the movie has that quality in spades, but I wonder have much of it Kelly actually intended. I think the filmmaking is actually sloppy in places, because of what was cut, and I know that has to bug the shit out of Kelly. I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I remember one of the things that bugged me was Donnie's relationship with his teacher, played by Barrymore. When she leaves, they have this touching moment - that might have been touching had there been a scene before it that better defined their relationship. Just a little bit more, and that's the stuff I'm talking about. Like I said, I like the intentionally awkward stuff in "Darko", and I certainly don't require films to explain themselves to me. But, I think, this flick needed some more polish, some more base added back in. Maybe Kelly overdid it and it hurt the movie even worse.

Polish, sure, I can agree with that. It is a first time filmmaker. But the passion behind it makes me forgive a lot I guess. I can agree about Barrymore and I think Watership Down adds to the relationship, but I don't know, the way Donnie answers the question about GG, how she deals with the new student, I don't know, I just sort of got that she felt a certain way about him.

Well, I think the new version works better. Simply because it does make more sense of Barrymore's character and the film flows a bit better.

Sure, seeing those pages overlaid like chapter stops is very distracting. They're never up long enough for you to read them completely, but they do pull you out of the film and clarify some of the context. That being said, I still thing the ending is vague and mysterious enough to inspire debate and conjecture.

But if Kelly had a single interpretation of the film - whats wrong with making that clearer?

Im all for ambiguity if it serves the story and aids interpretations when more than one is valid, but obviously that wasn't Kellys intent.

Obviously Kellyhad an answer to the riddle.

Is that so wrong?

It'd been about two and a half years since I last saw the film, so it was like seeing it for the first time again.

I will agree with Devin that Jake Gyllenhaal's performance stands out more now that we've seen him in more films and his talent really shows in this film.

Seeing the pages from Roberta Sparrow's book is kind of jarring, but the film is still very engaging and their is still a strong air of mystery to it, considering that you don't really get the chance to read the bits from the book as they flash up on the screen.

I have to commend Kelly for choosing some fantastic 80's tunes to play throughout the film and I like the opening to this cut better. He uses INXS' "Never Tear Us Apart," which I think is a perfect song for this story.

Also, I hadn't noticed her before, but Donnie's little sister is played by Daveigh Chase, who played Samara in The Ring and also provided the voice of Lilo in Lilo & Stitch and the voice of Chihiro/Sen in Spirited Away.

The scene I was most excited to see placed back in the film was the one where Mr. Darko and Donnie are sitting in the backyard and chatting. It helps to flesh out the father character a little more and also showcases the great Holmes Osborne. What Mr. Darko tells Donnie is probably some of the best advice any father can ever give his son and it's also one of the funniest and most endearing bits in the film.

Overall, it was an enjoyable evening and it was nice to get reacquainted with this fantastic little movie.

That immediately became one of my favourite scenes in the film.

It really helps us understand that Donnies Dad actually does "get" his son a lot more than the theatrical cut led us to believe IMO.

And its a beautifully written and acted scene.

Very touching.

Surely tho Kelly must have thought this to a certain degree to want to make a DC so soon after the theatrical release anyway?

On the science fiction level sure.

Didn't make the scene any less poingnant emotionally for me personally.

Imagine if Kubrick had gone back to 2001 and explained what the hell was going on. Would the film be nearly as powerful? Fuck no.

Kelly screwed the pooch.

Dev, I really only see what you're saying applying once they establish the "ensurance trap," with Donnie as the Receiver being compelled by Frank the manipulated dead to set everything right before the universe collapses on itself. And even then, Donnie makes a clear choice to sacrifice himself for the good of existence at the end of the film.

It's not like he, or the film itself, is on rails at that point. The books excerpts could've been edited in better, but I think they serve the story to better highlight what connection Roberta Sparrow has to this whole thing.

Like I said, the avergae joe isn't going to read those pages the way they are in the film (quickly displayed and laid over actual action and dialogue) and put everything together immediately. The audience chatter after the film was proof of that. It still takes some thought and effort on the part of the viewer. The film is still powerful.

I just don't see the harm in highlighting the most logical conclusion. Even with endings as explicitly spelled out say A.I. or The Matrix Revolutions, alternate theories are still formulated and put forth. SO what if the director has his? It doesn't ruin it for resonating as something else entirely to the individual viewer.

Somewhat self-serving question for Micah and Dev and Andrew-- what was the quality of the print like ?

aything more with that crazy old women ? That part always puzzled me. Only seen it once though

Seemed good, but it's playing in Atlanta at a somewhat crappy and rundown theater. So it may be even better than merely "good."

It's just that the edit was produced on digital and then outputted (output? outpet ?) to 35mm for screening prints. It's actually released in an HD digital format in the UK. I've seen both and I know what my thoughts are, just wondered how the print played to a regular audience..

Ah, the arrogance of the internet reviewer...

Clearly Kelly had an idea as to the story he wanted to tell and the message he wanted to get across, he didn't get them across clearly in the theatrical cut so he released a version that allows him to get that point across better. Now all the people who loved the mystery and the philosophical quandries of the original release get all pissy because they aren't the only ones who "understand" it:

What Devin is doing here is patting himself on the back for "getting" the film on the original release and saying that the filmmaker (the man responsible for getting the point across) has lessened his film by making it more accesible. It's elitism. Yes, clearly Mr. Kelly thought the original was a failure, or at least not as good as it could have been, so he released a director's cut. Now this movie that movie geeks loved is being seen as incomplete or a failure and they seem to need to justify their love of the movie by seeking the elitist higher ground, as if they know better than the filmmaker what the intent of the movie was.

I'm sorry that you no longer feel "special" Devin, but taking it out on a director and his movie is the height of arrogance and elitist attitude.