You probably shouldn't read this if you ever plan to see Donnie Darko. And you should.
---
S. Darko, a much maligned sequel to Donnie Darko, that no one ever wanted to be made or asked for, that actually could've been good, is as horrendous as it first sounded.
The plot: Samantha, Donnie's younger sister, is roadtrippin' through the desert w/ a friend in an attempt to escape the shattered life the death of her brother left her with. She sleepwalks, there's asteroids, shit happens. It's crazy.
Say what you will about Donnie Darko--you either love it or you hate it, I've rarely met someone in between. I think it's cinematic genius and one of the best films I've ever seen. That aside, if you choose to go along w/ its version of time travel and make the effort to piece it together, it actually does have a coherent plotline. I know, that in itself makes little to no sense.
Donnie Darko is in some form, about causality. Every event in the film leads directly to another event; without any one event, plot points cease exist. Fine, that's the goal of any good movie, but every major event in Donnie's life leads directly to another important event (donnie breaks the water main --> meets gretchen ross = makes the entire ensurance trap (motivation to save the world) possible, donnie sets fire to house --> child porn thing ---> ---> rose darko and sam leave home ---> halloween party ---> leads to gretchen's death ---> ensurance trap possible). In a more metaphorical sense, it's also a bit about fate. Ultimately, no matter what it's about, it has a point. A point to every scene, a story, a narrative, even if at the end you find yourself going wtf just happened.
S. Darko, beautifully shot, begins as simply a meditation on a young girl's life after her home fell apart, following Donnie's death. It should've stayed that way. It honestly could've been something great--what could be more poignant than a cinematic girl struggling to cope with madness and chaos after the death of her brother? It devolves into something entirely else; she becomes the manipulated dead (Frank, of DD), challenging someone else to save the world by dying (essentially). Along the way, there are multiple time warps, Sam dies a couple of times, and ultimately, when the movie finishes---LITERALLY NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
1. The basic reasoning that governed DD's world does not exist in S. Darko. The time warps that occur to random characters don't make any sense, they have no point to be in the movie. S. Darko throws around DD's plot devices and universe paraphernalia in a haphazard manner--yeah, in that first movie, water and fire were important...let's just work those into random scenes and not do anything with them but mention them, sure, that makes sense. Let's make every character Donnie Darko! Each one of them has a mission! Yet...none of these characters actually accomplish anything. Their time warps lead only to...nothing.
2 The major time warp, the saving of the world time warp, does in fact, do absolutely nothing. In DD, it's established that the world will literally rip itself apart if DD doesn't destroy the tangent universe. He thinks, that to do this, and prevent Gretchen from dying, he must die, so aforementioned sequences of events don't occur. Now, his death being necessary is up for debate. This is not the point of this digression. At the very least, in DD, his death and the events of the movie --> the universe stays alive as does Gretchen. Problems solved. While some, small plot points (namely child pornography) are left completely unresolved by this development, the larger issue, the destruction of the universe, does not occur.
In SD, not only are there bizarre "look I can reach through the tv and do magic" and "look I may actually be evil and want to destroy the world" subplots that make no sense and only are there to somehow "add atmosphere," the ultimate save the world death + time warp that ensues literally changes nothing. Also, it's aliens. Not joking.
A meteorite kills the lunatic that is supposed to be this movie's DD--this is supposed to be the grand finale, it's supposed to set the universe right. Except, in S. Darko's universe, portals, water, fire, living receivers--all of this stuff is just thrown around in a blender and dispersed as odd elements throughout the film. The meteorite is aliens--the "tangent" (not that these definitions apply in SD's world) universe ends w/ a an alien invasion of sorts and many meteorites rain down and...who knows, we don't find out.
In the "righted" world, where "Donnie Darko S Darko version" dies after being hit w/ a meteorite, supposedly preventing the meteorite from ending up in the wrong hands (which actually would not have prevented the aforementioned meteorite storm, let's just ignore that), the meteorite still ends up infecting someone, a child killer is still on the loose, not to mention that this still doesn't solve the impending alien apocalypse.
It's nonsensical, as nonsensical as this review. If this sounds complicated, well, it should, because no movie is ever meant to be this wrong.
Perhaps the filmmakers were trying to comment on DD's apparent insensibility, perhaps they were trying to comment on the fact that DD ultimately didn't have to die in the previous film. Either way, they did a terrible job, and ultimately made a terrible film.
Not only does S. Darko suffer from terrible writing and a terrible plot, aside from the constraints of the movie it's supposed to follow, it also shows a complete lack of any basic understanding of the first film. I count Donnie Darko as one of my favorite films, if not my favorite. You may disagree.
It's hard for me to say I've ever seen a truly awful film, mainly because I don't watch films that have been universally panned. S. Darko, at this point, is without a doubt, the worst film I've ever seen.
