BTW, check out the picture of Josh Brolin as Bush on EW's website. Brolin is looking spooky old.

It's not a bad movie by any means, but it's nowhere near as good as many people want to claim.

And I'm still convinced that Kelly doesn't have a damn clue what the hell he was actually trying to "say".

Anyway, I have to agree with those saying it was a fluke, or that the kid didn't know what he was doing. Shame on you, Kelly.

Leave well enough alone. Donnie Darko is a classic.

therefor,

WHAT

THE

FRAK?!?

What the fuck was Donnie Darko about anyway!?

Still, I'm just not feeling a Darko sequel....

someone please kill me.

please.

and OK, let's pretend for just a minute that it could work. samara is gonna carry a sequel to ddarko on her own? no maggie g., holmes osborne and prez roslin?

but if one thing's certain after this, it's that ANY movie can have a sequel.

say hello to "The Third Man 2: 4th m4n", "More Usual Suspects: Keyser's Revenge" and "Son of the Citizen Kane", to name just a few.

someone needs to make a comedy about making of donnie darko 2.

SouthLand Tales had a lot of the same themes as DD time travel, fate, destiny, but unfortunatley lost cohesion as was as MxG pointed out a tangled mess - shame cause Kelly almost got it (almost)

S Darko is just a cash grab why not write a similar themed movie with original charecters? It would probably be better recieved.

< p >

but of course without the spaces

Yeh, curiously ST feels like a movie you SHOULD hate... but when you are watching it you kinda feel grateful that SOMEBODY has made such an ambitious but messy film. It feels a bit like a student film (sorry Richard, I don't mean to insult you personally - that was harsh I know), but you can certainly armire someone for sitting down and trying to construct a screenplay out of those ideas.

The Rock remains the best reason to watch this film... along with Miranda Richardson of course.

As to this sequel, chances are it'll only be entertaining if it's preposterously bad. I mean, it's a film with no need for a sequel. The story is told. Where can they go other than to repeat the original with a girl?

P.S. Does anyone else remember that horrible idea for a Seven sequel that was floating around a few years ago? Talk about a film that doesn't need to become a series. It had something to do with, I think, Morgan Freeman developing psychic powers or somesuch. It sounded so bad I almost wish they had made it.

Movie Fan: "Look, just take a look at 'Donnie Darko,' see how it has interesting camera angles and cinematogrophy, stand-out performances, clever dialogue, compelling ideas at play and a dark, ambiguous ending that doesn't pander to the audience or talk down to us. It rewards you on repeat viewings and forces you to use your brain. THAT'S what we want to see more of. Something ORIGINAL!"

Studio Exec (while fingering his blackberry): "Uh huh ... uh huh ... uh huh ... uh huh ... ... ... gotcha. (rings his secretary) Get me a screenwriter. The kids liked 'Donnie Darko,' so let's greenlight 'Donnie Darko 2.' ... Yep, just like the first one, but uh, with a hot young lady in the lead. You know the kind. Something leggy for the frat boys. Oh, and let's get some blood in the film this time - I'm thinking killer bunny with a machete. Eli Roth available?"

Movie Fan: "Oh for the love of ..."

Donnie Darko, the original cut, is a damn fine movie, though flawed, but it presented a great world on screen. And it's a world that could be further explored, with or without Donnie.

While it may seem like a cash in, (and to a degree it certainly is) I can tell you that, at least at script level, this one is a lot more ambitious than your typical DTV cash-in. It follows rules set out from the first movie. It doesn't rehash scenes because they were in the first one. It's not a shot for shot remake with blander actors. And it has a lot of respect for the original. Like I said, this is in the script. The finished product may indeed turn into an abomination. And if it does, then at least you won't have to worry about Darko 3-D coming your way.

But are you serious? You're asking "So what if the script is good" in a talkback where everyone is saying this is such a crap idea? Gone is the 80s commentary, and in with the 90s commentary, the Kurt Cobain disaffected youth movement, when Clinton was in office. Remember those days?

Basically what I'm saying is that while yes, this is a misguided idea to begin with, there's no stopping it at this point. AND, it could have been a hell of a lot worse.

For fans of Richard Kelly who are offended, I understand, but even he confesses that he doesn't know what's going on all the time in his films. But, they are ambitious and actually trying something, even if not entirely successful. If a Darko sequel is inevitable wouldn't you rather someone actually trying to make something decent?

Regarding Donnie Darko, I have to admit that I still prefer the theatrical cut. It just feels far more intimate and personal (and therefore, more affecting). The Director's Cut seems to turn Donnie into some kind of "Chosen One" who ends up saving the universe. Not my cup of tea, sorry.