did anyone actually understand donnie darko?
594567
Donnie Darko follows a boy of superior intelligence whose emotional problems propel him on a very strange trajectory through a tangent universe. Donnie’s journey begins when he dreams about a rabbit telling him to leave the house. He follows the rabbit, and escapes being killed by a falling airplane part of unknown origin. But the rabbit tells him that the world is going to end in twenty-eight days. Donnie’s been given life and death at once. \n\nDonnie Darko boldly attempts not only to transcend the time travel conundrum, but to link it explicitly to the biggest question of all: Does everyone die alone? \n\nIf God exists, he must by extension have a plan for the universe, a path for everyone to follow. If we are following a path that God knows from start to finish, then we should be able to jump to any point on that path because it already and always exists. Donnie is able to see these paths as Abyss-like arrows emanating from people’s chests. He tries to ask his science teacher what it all means, but his teacher can’t answer—he’ll lose his job. He can’t tell Donnie how to travel in time because it means telling Donnie that there is a sovereign God who created time and who oversees its unfolding.\n\nDonnie’s bible is The Philosophy of Time Travel, a book written by Darko character Roberta Sparrow, a.k.a. Grandma Death. Sparrows are the birds most commonly associated with God’s providence. In the Bible, Jesus asks that we “consider the birds” to understand how God will take care of us. Shakespeare riffs on these words as Hamlet, confronted with his own mortality and understanding that he must take action, says, “There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow . . . The readiness is all.” But the dark side of God’s providence is death. Hamlet understood this—the readiness of which he speaks is the readiness to die. Throughout Jesus’ teachings, the idea is that true devotion to God will remove the fear of death because of the trust that God is sovereign and he will provide, even after death. As the existential optimist Job says, “Though he slay me, yet I will trust in him.”\n\nSo why, then, does Roberta Sparrow say to Donnie, “Every living thing dies alone”? This question throws Catholic schoolboy Donnie into a tailspin. He thinks that the world is going to end and he’s going to die and be alone and there’s nothing he can do about it. Even as he falls in love with Gretchen and comes to know the depth of his mother’s love for him, Donnie watches his world spiral out of control. He finds destruction of his own making and destruction that is unavoidable. He can’t make heads or tails of any of it and comes to find that the world is a terrifying, dark place even as there are pockets of goodness.\n\nDonnie is learning the meaning of what the biblical writer John calls “the now and the not yet.” The Christian believer lives in the paradox of knowing that salvation (from the eternal consequences of sin) has already arrived and that salvation (from the sorrow of living in a fallen world) is still to come. The conflict will be resolved only when the believer sees Christ face to face—that is, on the believer’s mortal death. Chiefly loving the “now” will lead the Christian to try to turn this world into heaven, to seek happiness in the temporal. Living solely for the “not yet” sends the believer into exile, devoid of intimacy with God’s much-loved children, dreaming only of an escape hatch. Choosing to (try to) love both creates a holy neurosis that might be what Paul meant when he said, “For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” Or what Jesus did when he laid down his life for his friends.\n\nAs the clock runs out, Donnie makes love with Gretchen and then goes to Roberta Sparrow’s. He’s found love, and now he needs answers. If everyone dies alone, then it doesn’t matter that he loves Gretchen. What he finds is death, destruction, sorrow, and despair. Th
278313
Did you even try???\n\nhttp://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Donnie+Iris&btn=Yahoo%21+Search&tab=Web&ei=utf-8&fr=my-vert-web-top
802662
Donnie Darko. Definitely.
375100
So... the dumb man saw the blind man's wife being kidnapped by a deaf person... how will the dumb man tell the blind man? By speaking to him?\n\nA person who doesn't use spell check asks a question (riddle). Other people read it and it doesn't make any sense. It was supposed to be a riddle that made you think, an instead you had to try to figure out what was being said to beging with. Who's the idiot here?....\nobviously me for putting in any effort, let alone this much.
434566
Yes, it coincides with the Bible.\n\nIt shows that god send himself in human form (Jesus, Asland) to die for the sinner (us, or Edmond.) and redeemed him (duh.) it coincides almost perfectly with the Calvinistic view.\n\nThe devil, or white witch, can pretend to be your friend while s/he stabs you in the back in reality. And s/he doesn't show his/her true point of view till it's too late.\n\nAslan says in the movie that he died, not because he had to, but to make a point. we (or Edmond) didn't force him to die, but he did it of his own will. this contradicts some Christians, but agrees with a lot of others.\n\nsin, of course, is bad. In the ,movie, you have to die for betrayal. In real life, you have to die for your sins. Asland/Jesus died to save you/Edmond from sin.\n\nI hope this answers. Unless you are a second grader, I don't think you'll be able to copy/paste this due to its unofficial style, so don't plagiarize. But I hope I helped you out here, kid.
473068
...actually, what I have read, was it was "Dark Side of the Moon" Queded up with "The Wizard of Oz"\nI forget the actual instructions for it, but I tried it once, and it does kind of work...\n\n...even though David Gilmour has denied it...
814689
Is this a question or an advertisement?\n\nGlad a film totally changed your life.\nBetter be careful what else you watch.\n\n\nI thought it was interesting, but it didn't rock my foundations....\n\nMar 14, 2006 - New York Times - New York, NY (Newspaper)\nFar Out, Man. But is it Quantum Physics? by Dennis Overbye \n\nCan physics save your soul? Two years ago, a movie with the unpronounceable title "What the #$!%* Do We Know!?" became an underground new-age phenomenon, raking in $11 million out of midnight screenings and word of mouth, spawning an industry of books, tote bags, clothing, DVD's and "biofield" jewelry. It purported to argue, based on the insights of modern quantum physics, that reality is just a mental construct that we can rearrange and improve, if we are enlightened or determined enough. Science and spirituality have tied the knot, and the world is your infinitely deformable apple. This winter an expanded version, "What the Bleep, Down the Rabbit Hole," began to play to audiences who say that the movie confirms what they already thought about the cosmos, some vibe they had that it is a slippery, woo-woo-woo kind of place. The movie just finished a two-month run in New York and is to be shown in May at the Quest for Global Healing Conference, in Ubud, Bali, with luminaries like Walter Cronkite and Desmond Tutu attending.
185095
Nobody knows what God is thinking, or why He did certain stuff, or what His intentions are. I doubt anybody can get inside His head (not literally) and fathom His unfathomable reasons for everything.\n\nHowever, it does not hurt to speculate, just to make a little sense out of everything. Maybe God wanted the Devil around so that Man can realize how horrible the Devil's Way is and how wonderful it is to live in the love of God. You can't realize what light is unless you know what darkness is. Like, in the Garden of Eden, everything Adam and Eve needed was given to them. They experienced God's love, but they took it forgranted when they disobeyed God. So, God sent them out of the Garden, probably to make them realize that they were wrong and that they needed God and His Grace and His Love.\n\nWhat do you think?
677748
Mad World (on the Donnie Darko soundtrack) is by Gary Jules. I think it was originally done by Tears For Fears.
474205
I totally just watched it.. what was UP with that hotel scene!!??  \n\nWeird seminary hard ons.  RANDOM!!! \n\nADDICTED!!! YES!!! hahaha
896683
I, too, felt a bit confused when I left the theatre. But after I took some time to think about it, I began to understand it better. I am by no means saying I understand it fully now, but here's my current take on the film:\n\nThis film cannot be taken literally, and Darren Aronofsky did not intend for there to be a lot of simple, straightforward, closed answers. Several parts are there for the audience members to make his/her own conclusions.\n\nI think that the only real timeline in the story is the present day one. The other two are Tommy's thoughts/fantasies as ways to deal with Izzi's nearing death. The 16th century timeline can be viewed as Izzi's book, or Tommy's fantasy of himself on a quest for immortality, or both. The 26th century timeline can be viewed as another of Tommy's fantasies of himself searching for immortality. He imagines himself bringing the Tree of Life to the Mayans' Underworld so Izzi can be alive again. The 16th century timeline is more simple fantasy, while in the 26th century timeline he also sorts out his thoughts and fears. It is in this timeline, or during these thoughts, that Tommy comes to terms with death, thus setting in motion the last 5-10 minutes of the film in which he "finishes it": he finishes Izzi's 16th century story as well as the other two timelines in a way that he accepts death and discovers rebirth.\n\nMy take on the Mayan's First Father reference (First Father being the person Izzi pointed out to Tommy in the museum) is that the First Father understood death and rebirth, even if Thomas (the 16th century Hugh Jackman) didn't. The result is Thomas being unable to use the Tree's sap to live forever--because immortality is not meant to be-- and the rebirth is symbolized in his sprouting flowers. The understanding of death and rebirth is shown in Tom-- a character who is separate and yet the same person as Tommy and Thomas-- when he nears the dying star: the tree flowers to life and dying, self-sacrificing Tom is shown with back arched, limbs outward in the same position as the First Father in the museum.\n\nBut even all that is taking the film too literally. I came to understand all this after the film was over, and yet, while I was watching the film, the most important element of the film still came through: the themes of love, life, death, and rebirth, and the message that we must accept these these things. Tommy could not accept death, and yet Izzi neared death with such grace. But finally Tommy, visiting Izzi's grave with a smile on his face, accepted death. For me, this all came though while I was watching the film, and that turned out to still be the most important part once I fit together some of the details.\n\nPlus, confusing plot aside, the film was absolutely beautiful. The cinematography was amazing, the acting-- especially Hugh Jackman's-- was superb, and the music was beautiful. Despite the seemingly incoherency of the film, it was gorgeous, and I believe that several aspects of it deserve an Oscar nod.\n\nI still feel that I would have cut the film a little differently to make it more clear that the future and past timelines are Tommy's fantasies such that the film begins with the present, not the past, and such that each part of his fantasy correlates more to what he just previously experienced in the present. Despite that, I still think Aronofsky put it all together to make it work if the audience is willing to think a bit. "The Fountain" is a beautiful, profound, and momentous film.
697201
I completely feel you on this...I've seen that movie myself, and a few others.  There are so many questions, I don't understand how people can just ignore it...and in fact get mad at you for questioning it!  Isn't that the point of democracy, being allowed to examine what's going on and make an educated decision?  Don't let the mean remarks that you will inevitably get bring you down...you are a thinker, and that is to be commended!\n\nEDIT: Nikki, here is the link:  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218920724339766288&q=loose+change
475579
I've read alot of manga that determines he gets super powerful once the crecent fills up to a full moon.Since the third movie shows his dad has no moon,he must've gotten it from his(who's a complete mystery,good luck trying to find any info on her,believe me I've tried)mom.It must've been herditary.
793761
The song is Mad World.  It's originally by Tears for Fears, but the version that's on the trailer itself is by Gary Jules, and oddly enough it was also used in the ending of Donnie Darko.
440114
Origins:   Much  \ndebate centers around the contents of the briefcase in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. A theory that has been passed around via e-mail and is prominent on the Internet is the following: \n\n\nIf you all are anything like me then you had no idea what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. So, through a friend of a friend of a friend who had a two hour conversation with Quentin Tarantino himself, I now know, and I thought I would pass along the information because it makes the movie even 100 times better than it already is. \nRemember the first time you were introduced to Marsellus Wallace. The first shot of him was of the back of his head, complete with band-aid. Then, remember the combination of the lock on the briefcase was 666. Then, remember that whenever anyone opened the briefcase, it glowed, and they were in amazement at how beautiful it was; they were speechless. Now, bring in some Bible knowledge, and remember that when the devil takes your soul, he takes it from the back of your head. \n\nYep, you guessed it. What is the most beautiful thing about a person: his soul. Marsellus Wallace had sold his soul to the devil, and was trying to buy it back. The three kids in the beginning of the movie were the devil's helpers. And remember that when the kid at the end came out of the bathroom with a "hand cannon," Jules and Vincent were not harmed by the bullets. "God came down and stopped the bullets" because they were saving a soul. It was divine intervention. \n\n[Note: Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that "when the devil takes your soul, he takes it from the back of your head."] \n\nHowever, that this interpretation came directly from Tarantino conflicts with other accounts. According to Tarantino A to Zed: The Films of Quentin Tarantino: \n\n\nTarantino has admitted that there is no official explanation behind the briefcase's contents, and that it was simply written into the screen play as an intriguing McGuffin. \nAnd from Rober Ebert's Questions for the Movie Answer Man comes the following statement by Pulp Fiction co-author Roger Avery: \n\n\nOriginally the briefcase contained diamonds. But that just seemed too boring and predictable. So it was decided that the contents of the briefcase were never to be seen. This way each audience member would fill in the blank with their own ultimate contents. All you were supposed to know was that it was "so beautiful." No prop master can come up with something better than each individual's imagination. At least that was the original idea. Then somebody had the bright idea (which I think was a mistake) of putting an orange lightbulb in there. Suddenly what could have been anything became anything supernatural. Didn't need to push the effect. People would have debated it for years anyway, and it would have been much more subtle. I can't believe I'm actually talking about being subtle. \nThere have been many other theories on what is contained in the mysterious briefcase. A contest run by the Toronto Star to decide the contents produced several popular answers: \n\n\nThe Oscar that Quentin Tarantino hopes to win  \n\nA human head \nThe ear from Reservoir Dogs \nO.J.'s other glove \nMichael Jackson's other glove \nThe diamonds from the robbery in Reservoir Dogs \nRudolph's nose \nThe winner of the contest claimed it was a homage to Robert Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly, which centers around another briefcase, glowing because it contained a small nuclear bomb. Tarantino maintains that the similarity was purely accidental, although he apparently liked the idea. \n\nLast updated:   11 July 1997
810358
Had a look on the commentry of the film and they just say, 'some people ask, who is he talking about?'  on the part where the little man (tollouse) crys, but do not explain why. Maybe it's just artistic, as it makes you think there is bad things to come in the film, as we have just seen a very colourful energetic development of love, to a loney small man dressed as a clown, but is not colourful at all underneath dispite apperances especially when in company. There is a scene later on in the film where Christian has been thrown out of the Moulin Rouge, and as Christian is helped into bed, tolousse explains that 'things aren't always as they seem' and although others see him as a drunken gnome deep down he believes in art art and love.  \nIn answer to your question I  think it shows him crying because things aren't always as they seem.\nHope this helps!
966898
Are you analyzing the just the symbolism of the sows head or the entire movie?  I think the movie shows what the basics of human nature are and how we will revert back to them once survival becomes a primary concern.  Nice work on the analysis.