Admittedly, those who are fans of the original are probably wondering why there would ever be a need for a sequel to Donnie Darko. S. Darko does provide a more or less satisfying follow-up and although I don't believe that all who are in the Darko cult will be pleased, I for one enjoyed this little outing.
Chris Fisher, who has worked done more work on television than in movies, handles the material reverently and makes a fair attempt to extend upon some of the Philosophy of Time Travel mythos from the original movie. One notices a fair amount of similarity in the shot compositions and effects (lots of slow motion, several "force field" scenes, some "Abyss"-esque chest worms) and I would have to say that the storyline itself is nearly as (pleasantly) incomprehensible as the first film. There are no deeper answers or insights here, but I was content to go along for the ride anyway.
The acting was less than stellar, although I really enjoyed Ed Westwick as "Randy" and I'm sure we'll be seeing more from him soon. His performance was very reminiscent of Dana Ashbrook's portrayal of "Bobby Briggs" in Twin Peaks. In fact, I think there was something borrowed from the Lynch bag of tricks in terms of sheer weirdness and atmosphere. There were definite elements of the same soap-opera like tendencies in S. Darko. The characters all tend toward exaggerated caricatures: The devout but shady church lady (Elizabeth Berkley), the minister that you just can't help but get a creepy vibe from, the party girl with a secret, the troubles war veteran and town scapegoat . If they come off as two dimensional, I think it boils down to the intentions of the writer and director. This is an allegory after all; a morality play where characters represent various aspects of the humanity in an overt way.
The movie will not captivate the audience in the same way that Donnie Darko did, but that doesn't mean that we should treat the original as some sort of sacred cow that is too perfect to explore through the eyes of a different director.
Chris Fisher, who has worked done more work on television than in movies, handles the material reverently and makes a fair attempt to extend upon some of the Philosophy of Time Travel mythos from the original movie. One notices a fair amount of similarity in the shot compositions and effects (lots of slow motion, several "force field" scenes, some "Abyss"-esque chest worms) and I would have to say that the storyline itself is nearly as (pleasantly) incomprehensible as the first film. There are no deeper answers or insights here, but I was content to go along for the ride anyway.
The acting was less than stellar, although I really enjoyed Ed Westwick as "Randy" and I'm sure we'll be seeing more from him soon. His performance was very reminiscent of Dana Ashbrook's portrayal of "Bobby Briggs" in Twin Peaks. In fact, I think there was something borrowed from the Lynch bag of tricks in terms of sheer weirdness and atmosphere. There were definite elements of the same soap-opera like tendencies in S. Darko. The characters all tend toward exaggerated caricatures: The devout but shady church lady (Elizabeth Berkley), the minister that you just can't help but get a creepy vibe from, the party girl with a secret, the troubles war veteran and town scapegoat . If they come off as two dimensional, I think it boils down to the intentions of the writer and director. This is an allegory after all; a morality play where characters represent various aspects of the humanity in an overt way.
The movie will not captivate the audience in the same way that Donnie Darko did, but that doesn't mean that we should treat the original as some sort of sacred cow that is too perfect to explore through the eyes of a different director.