Away we go (2 Stars)

Burt and Verona are a young-ish couple expecting their first baby. I emphasise the "-ish", because they're in their early 30's and think they've left it too late. Come on, guys, lots of women don't have their first baby until they're over 30. It's completely normal.

Burt finds out that his parents are about to move to Belgium. This worries the couple, because they want their child to grow up in a family environment. They spend the next few weeks on planes visiting friends and relatives to find a new place to live. For one reason or another, the people in every place are unsuitable to associate with their new child.

The film isn't completely serious, but it's not a comedy either. I felt myself wanting to kick some sense into Burt and Veronica. There are many children who grow up with only their parents and no other relatives. As for friends, people can make new friends anywhere they live. It's never been a problem for me. Don't waste hundreds of dollars flying around the country. Stay home and concentrate on preparing a good home for the child.

Success Rate:  - 1.1

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

Incredible! I've been given another chance to see "Donnie Darko" in the cinema. That's the way it ought to be seen. It was shown today as part of the "Best of Cinema" series. It really is one of the best films ever made. German cinemas are cultivated and show the very best. I was also impressed that the cinema was almost full. There were only a few empty seats in the front row.

Here's a question for my readers. When Donnie, Gretchen and Frank are sitting in the cinema, what film are they watching? Don't google it, that's cheating. If you don't know the answer, watch the film again.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Stranger Than Fiction (4½ Stars)

I'm returning to this film only nine days after I last watched it. Do I have an excuse? More to the point, do I need an excuse? It's an incredible film. I first saw it at a friend's house. I knew straight away that I had to see it again, so I ordered it on Ebay before I went to bed. It took a week to arrive because the seller was in England. Now I have the Blu-ray in my hands.

Even more than the first time I watched "Stranger Than Fiction", I've been thinking about the philosophical implications of the film. What if my life were being scripted not by a master being (God) on another plane of existence, but by a neurotic writer who lives just a few miles away? Would I even want to know? It seems like a freak of nature that allows Harold Crick to hear Karen Eiffel's voice narrating his life. It's a book she's been writing, on and off, for ten years, so she's been watching over his life for a long time, long before he became conscious of it.

I know Emma Thompson, of course, but this is the first film in which I've ever really paid attention to her. Her performance as the writer Karen Eiffel is outstanding. She's unaware of the power she has over life and death. She's already written eleven novels, and in each book the main character died. Were all of them real people whose deaths she unwittingly caused? That's suggested, but not followed up. If that happened to me, I would be traumatised. I wouldn't be able to live with the knowledge that I've caused one person's death, let alone eleven. On the other hand, being the victim of an all-powerful novelist wouldn't bother me. I'd just ask her to give me a good death.

Harold Crick has to die. The whole novel has been leading up to his death. It's too late to change it, without spoiling the ending. How can he spend the last few days of his life? He can learn to play the guitar, or he can fall in love. He should forget the guitar. That's not something he can do in a few days. Falling in love only takes a moment.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Stranger Than Fiction (4½ Stars)

I've known about this film for years, but I never bothered watching it. It stars Will Ferrell, so it must be a comedy, and I've never liked his type of comedy. Putting it simply, I don't find him funny.

Today the film was presented in a group where we watch films together once a month, and my friend Anna called it one of her favourite films. So I watched it, and I realised that I'd got it all wrong. It's not a comedy at all. I'm not sure what genre it belongs to. Could it be deemed a supernatural fantasy? I'm not sure. It depends on the way the film is interpreted.

Will Ferrell plays Harold Crick, an aloof but highly disciplined IRS auditor. His life follows a strict schedule, for instance he goes to bed at 11:13 pm every night. He lives alone, and he doesn't have any friends, apart from people he talks to at work.

One day he starts to hear a voice narrating his life. The voice isn't talking to him, it's talking about him, telling unknown listeners what he's doing. It's unsettling, so he visits a psychiatrist, who tells him he's suffering from schizophrenia. Harold isn't happy with this diagnosis, so he asks if any other specialists could help him. After putting the psychiatrist under pressure, she finally advises him to visit a literary expert. He seeks help from Jules Hilbert, a literature professor. Based on the formulation of the narration he takes Harold seriously and says he's a character in a book. It's now up to him to find out what type of story he's in, a comedy or a tragedy.

Finally he meets the author Karen Eiffel, who's writing a novel about Harold and is unwittingly controlling his life. In her book Harold has to die, but she can't decide how he should die.

I'll stop the description there. It's a powerful film with deep philosophical ramifications. If we accept the premise that it's possible for someone to control the life of another person with his typewriter, how should the author and the character deal with it? How would I personally deal with it if it happened to me? My tendency would be to sit down with the author to discuss how I want to die, but that's not what happens in the film.

This is an amazing film that I want to see again. Soon.

Success Rate:  - 0.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

As my regular readers know, I don't consider my blog to be primarily a film review site. It's a film diary. The difference is important. I write about every film I watch, without exception, in the order I watch them. I also write about a film every time I watch it. Today is the eighth time I've watched "Donnie Darko" since I started my blog, so I can't think of anything to write that I haven't written already.

So this post won't get many hits. Tough luck. There are plenty of other posts that are popular with my readers. Check out my popular post list on the right of the screen, if you're reading this on a PC. Unfortunately, you won't see it if you're reading on a phone. According to my blog statistics (which only I can see) 44% of my readers use a Macintosh, 36% of my readers use Windows and 2% of my readers use Linux, so it's only a small percentage of my readers who use a phone.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

For me this was a dream come true: the chance to see "Donnie Darko" in the cinema. I missed it when it was the cinema 20 years ago. At the time I lived next to a large cinema on the edge of Birmingham. I walked past the cinema every day on the way to the bus stop. I even remember seeing the poster for "Donnie Darko" hanging outside. The blue shading made it look like a horror film, so I wasn't interested. In 2001 there was already Internet, but it wasn't as prolific then as it is today. What I mean is, it wasn't as easy to find summaries of new films as it is today. So I missed it.

I forgot all about it until three years later. I was chatting about films in an IRC chat room. One of the girls said, "Donnie Darko is the best film ever made". Another girl replied, "Yes, it is". That made me jump in my chair. Two people told me a film was the best film they'd ever seen, and it was a film I'd never seen. I couldn't let that rest. When we stopped chatting I ordered the film online before going to bed. That was 16th April 2004. (Amazon keeps perfect record of my orders). It arrived a few days later, and the rest is history. It immediately became one of my favourite films. In my recent top 100 film list I put it in second place. 

I always regretted never having seen the film on the big screen. Now I finally had a chance. There was a special screening today to celebrate the 20th anniversary of its release. It was shown in connection with a strange short film called "Nimic" starring Matt Dillon. I've never been a fan of short films. Either too little happens or too little is explained. In this case it was the latter.

The theatre was almost full, apart from the empty seats necessary for the Coronavirus social distancing. Before the film began, the host asked how many of us had already seen the film in the cinema. Very few hands went up. Evidently, the film was never shown in German cinemas, apart from film festivals. In 2001 "Donnie Darko" was shown at the Fantasy Film Festival in Stuttgart. Then the host asked how many had never seen "Donnie Darko" before. About a third of the audience put their hands up. That amazed me. I thought that almost everyone would be a fan of the film. However, I envy the first-timers. "Donnie Darko" is a film that deserves to be seen on the big screen. I tried to forget the film and enjoy it as one of them. The film is overwhelming. So much happens, and the intensity steadily increases as the film progresses. When the song "Mad World" began in the final scene, I had tears in my eyes.

"Donnie Darko" isn't an easy film to understand. It's a film that needs to be watched several times. If it's too complicated for you, watch the Director's Cut, in which there are additional scenes that explain things. Then go back and watch the theatrical version again, because it's better. Take my word for it.

Now I want to see the film in the cinema again. Maybe the 25th anniversary, if I live that long. I'll probably watch it on disc again in the next few weeks.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #2

"I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to".

Donnie Darko is a mentally disturbed teenager who lives in the sleepy little town of Middlesex, Virginia. He frequently sleepwalks and wakes up on the golf course or on the side of the road. On 2nd October 1988 a giant rabbit called Frank tells him to wake up and leave the house. While he's away an aircraft engine falls on his house, directly onto his room. Frank warns Donnie that the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds.

Thankful that Frank has saved his life, he proceeds to do whatever Frank tells him to do. He smashes the water pipes and floods his school. He burns down the house of a local motivational speaker.

Donnie considers himself a superhero. He also believes he's doing God's will, although the God he believes in isn't necessarily the Christian God. He's willing to sacrifice himself to save the world.

When he's in the cinema watching "Evil Dead" with his girlfriend Gretchen, only he can see Frank. Is Donnie insane? Donnie doubts his own sanity, but if he doesn't try to save the world, who else will?

The film's plot is mind-bending. It has to be watched several times to be understood. Three years after the theatrical release, a Director's Cut was made with scenes inserted that make the film easier to understand. That's the version I watched today. It's good, but I prefer the theatrical release, which I'll be able to watch in the cinema a week from now.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Adaptation (5 Stars)

Dancer's Top Films #55

Nicolas Cage was nominated for an Oscar as Best Actor in the 2003 Academy Awards. He didn't win. That was a miscarriage of justice. "The Pianist" was a good film, but there's no way that Adrien Brody was a better actor.

Meryl Streep was nominated as Best Supporting Actress, but lost to Catherine Zeta-Jones in "Chicago". That's a close call, but I still think that Meryl was slightly better.

Chris Cooper won the award as Best Supporting Actor. So there's still some justice left in the world. His performance in the film is incredible.

It's almost 20 years since "Adaptation" was in the cinemas. How many of my readers know it? I consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece that's been unjustly forgotten. It's rarely been shown on television, and even in our Netflix days television is the best way to keep films alive. Random films are thrown at viewers who just tune in to watch whatever's on.

I don't often watch television. Almost never. Usually it's only when I'm a guest in someone else's home and they have the television running in the background. Today was the first time I consciously watched television in my own home for more than five years. I watched Prince Phillip's funeral. Before it started there were advertisements for films that would be shown in the evening: "Thor: Ragnarok" and "300". They're both good films, in their own way. I'd say that they're better television films. What I mean by that is that there's a lot of action, so if you walk into the room while your wife or kids are watching you'll be attracted and sit down to watch the rest.

"Adaptation" isn't a good television film. Anyone who walks in and sees it will say "Huh? What's this?" and walk out again. It's a film you have to give yourself to. You have to sit down and devote yourself to the plot. It's a film for thinkers. You have to actively participate in the film and think about everything that happens. I'm sure that television planners realise this, which is why it's not shown.

In my opinion, this is the most intelligent film ever made. I wouldn't say it's the best film, just the most intelligent, as far as the plot is concerned. It's been called a meta-film, but it's really a meta-meta-film. It's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. "Adaptation", the film, shifts constantly between the different levels, so that at the end you don't know what's real and what isn't.

In 1998 the journalist Susan Orlean wrote a book about John Laroche, a man who was arrested for stealing rare orchids. The book was a surprise bestseller, so it was decided to make it into a film. When the screenplay was finally written it was shown to Susan Orlean for approval, and her reaction was "Absolutely not! Are you kidding? This is going to ruin my career!" The film portrayed her as a drug addict who posed for pornography sites. There was no truth to this, but it's well known that films often take liberties with the truth. She eventually changed her mind and allowed the film to be made. That surprises me. Most respectable authors would have refused to be slandered in this way. Maybe she treated it as a joke.

Charlie Kaufman was hired to write the screenplay for the book. He was an unusual choice for such a task. In my opinion, he was the wrong choice. He suffered from writer's block, so eventually he made the unusual decision to write a film about himself suffering from writer's block while writing the screenplay. He's hampered in his writing by his fictitious twin brother Donald, who also wants to be a screenwriter. Charlie considers Donald an idiot, but he has to stand by and see that Donald is considered a genius. It's significant that Charlie only succeeds in finishing his screenplay when Donald is killed.

This is a film that I can wholeheartedly recommend to everyone who likes to watch films that he can think about.

The film is universally available on DVD, but it's only been released on Blu-ray in America. The Blu-ray disc is locked to region A.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

White House Down (4 Stars)

This is a first for me. It's the only time I've ever watched a film on the recommendation of Mark Kermode. As I've said a few times in the past, his opinions on films are diametrically opposed to mine. He's praised "White House Down" more than once, in comparison with both "Olympus has fallen" and "London has fallen". I've eyed the film for years, with positive and negative prejudices. I was prejudiced in the film's favour because it was made by a Stuttgart director, Roland Emmerich. I was prejudiced against the film because it stars Jamie Foxx. I finally picked up the film when I saw it in the bargain bin at Saturn for 2.99 Euros.

When I was watching it, I was immediately impressed by the big special effects. They're what you would expect after seeing Roland Emmerich's catastrophe movies. The film itself has a good plot. The head of the White House secret service has a plan to overthrow the president. It's actually more complicated than that, but I don't want to give away the plot developments that slowly unravel. First there's an explosion at the Capitol, as a diversion. Then armed men overrun the White House.

The film's hero is Channing Tatum as John Cale, a man who's turned down for a job in the White House security team. Jamie Foxx plays President James Sawyer, who is clearly modelled on Barak Obama, the president at the time.

That's where the problems start. There's too much politics. The film's background is that the president has plans for peace in the Middle East. That's something Obama promised, but never achieved. But then the casting is an even bigger problem. I've never considered Jamie Foxx to be a particularly good actor. I've been disappointed with him in every film he made, except for "Django Unchained" and "Amazing Spider-Man 2". Somehow there's nothing exciting about his performances. The same applies to Channing Tatum. He's just dull, even when he's supposed to be playing an action hero. Together, they aren't enough to carry a film.

Nevertheless, the film deserves 4 Stars for its action alone. It's a good film, though not up to the quality of "Olympus has fallen". I don't understand why Mark Kermode prefers it, but then again, I've never understood his film ratings.

Success Rate:  - 0.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

"If God controls time, then all time is pre-decided".

I'm continuing today with my mini-marathon of my three favourite films. "Donnie Darko" is in second place. It's a film I could watch every day and never get bored with it. The only problem is that I'd miss out on so many other wonderful films.

I watched it with my son, who's never seen it before. I wasn't sure if he would like it. Mostly he likes action films, whereas "Donnie Darko" is a twisted science-fiction mystery with a plot that's difficult (though not impossible) to understand. I needn't have worried. I looked sideways at him a few times and saw him sitting in awe. This is a film of such depth that it's impossible not to be overwhelmed.

The next time I watch the film I ought to write more about the minor characters. Every named character who has a speaking role, however brief, plays an important part in Donnie's story. They've all been set like perfectly formed stones in a mosaic. The film would be incomplete without any of them.

I also need to write about the religious aspect of the film. Donnie's messianic nature, sacrificing himself to save the world, is obvious, but there are many other subtle references. Donnie is struggling to find God throughout the film. He doesn't succeed in his search, but he feels compelled to do God's will. He's been selected by God to do something that nobody else can do, and God has endowed him with foresight and enhanced physical strength. God rewards him by giving him moments of physical intimacy with Gretchen Ross. It's Donnie's destiny to die alone, but at least he won't die a virgin.

My next review will be more detailed. I hope.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

"Every living creature on this Earth dies alone".

This is one of the best films ever made. If I were asked to name my favourite films of all time I would put this in second place, after "Lost Highway". The two films are similar as far as the underlying plot is concerned, even though there are big differences on the surface.

In my review in November last year I said I would give the Director's Cut another chance. I've watched the original version repeatedly over the last 12 years, but I only watched the director's cut once after buying it. It seemed weaker to me. Today I've finally returned to it after at least 10 years.

After watching it again today I no longer consider the director's cut inferior to the original version. It's different, but not inferior. I think that I disliked the director's cut when I first saw it because it took all the mystery away. When people saw the original version it wasn't 100% obvious what was happening. People argued about the interpretation, just as they still argue about the meaning of "Lost Highway" today. In the case of "Donnie Darko" help was offered. The DVD extra features included excerpts from Roberta Sparrow's book, "The Philosophy of Time Travel". This text explained a lot. It put a lot of arguments to rest. It could be argued that it's wrong to make a film that can only be understood after reading a book in the DVD extras, but it wasn't a problem to me.

The director's cut explains the film to the viewers within the film itself. At critical points excerpts from the book are shown on the screen. Now it's easier for everyone to understand the film. I must have found it too easy when I first saw the director's cut. That's why I disliked it.

Apart from the addition of text from Roberta Sparrow's book the changes are subtle. There are a few new scenes, but mostly the existing scenes are longer. There are frequently one or two lines of dialogue that are cut from the original theatrical version. It looks like the cuts were only made to shorten the overall running time, not to streamline the film. Adding the extra lines helps, with the sole exception of Dr. Thurman admitting that Donnie's medication is placebos. That doesn't make sense to me. Yes, I know he's not really ill when he says that he sees the giant rabbit, but he was diagnosed as mentally disturbed prior to Frank's appearance.

At some time in the near future I'll try to watch the two versions on the same day to make a better comparison.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

This year the film "Legend" was shown in which one actor, Tom Hardy, played two characters, the Kray twins. It might seem like a novel gimmick to have an actor play both twins, but it's something that has been done repeatedly in the history of cinema. In 1929 William Bakewell played Louis XIV and his unnamed twin brother in "The Iron Mask". In 1946 Douglas Fairbanks played the twins Mario and Lucien Franchi in "The Corsican Brothers". Of course, in the early days of cinema technology was limited. It was difficult to put the same actor in the same picture twice without cutting film frames in half, or maybe using a stand-in in double shoots with his face hidden.

In 2002 Nicolas Cage was cast to play both of the Kaufman twins, Charlie and Donald, in "Adaptation". No other film comes as close to highlighting Nicolas Cage's brilliance as an actor. Charlie Kaufman is insecure, full of self-loathing. Donald Kaufman is self-confident, happily sailing through life, naively oblivious when people speak badly of him behind his back. (On a side note, the Economist once praised German Chancellor Helmut Kohl for dealing with problems by not noticing them until they were gone). The relationship between the twins is even more poignant. Donald, on the left in the picture above, loves and idolises his brother. Charlie's feelings are more complex: he has affection for Donald, but he considers him to be stupid and an embarrassment. Nevertheless, Charlie would like to be more like Donald.

My regular readers will realise that it's no coincidence that I've shown a screenshot where the two characters are reading books. Charlie is reading "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean, the book which he is attempting to adapt into a screenplay. Donald is reading "Story" by Robert McKee, a book of instructions on how to be a successful screenwriter. The authors of both books appear in the film, played by Meryl Streep and Brian Cox respectively.

In real life Charlie Kaufman doesn't have a brother. In the context of the film it's obvious to interpret this as a multiple personality disorder. Donald is writing a screenplay in which a police detective and a serial killer are the same person, which the detective doesn't realise when he's pursuing the killer, or even when the killer holds the detective prisoner. We can interpret the film as Charlie being held prisoner by his other self, unable to escape until he kills him.

Robert McKee

However, there's another way to interpret Donald Kaufman. Donald represents Robert McKee, while Charlie represents the real Charlie Kaufman. They are two screenwriters, but on opposite poles of creativity. Robert McKee has all the answers. "Follow my 10 rules of screenwriting and you'll be rich". Charlie Kaufman struggles to do something original, knowing the rules but deliberately breaking them. Supposedly Charlie dislikes Robert (or at least what Robert stands for) in real life. "Adaptation" is Charlie's way of dealing with him. If Robert says don't use voice-over, he'll use it throughout the movie. If Robert says don't use a deus ex machina, he'll throw in an alligator in the final scene.

"Adaptation" is as much an adaptation of "Story" as it is of "The Orchid Thief". The joint adaptations go in different directions. "The Orchid Thief" is a sprawling non-narrative which has been developed into a coherent plot. The story emerged from the primeval ooze and developed into an upright piece of fiction. "Story" is a well-organised book, but it's reduced into chaos, being smashed to pieces by the end of the film. It's evolution versus entropy.

"Adaptation" is probably the most brilliant screenplay ever written. Its depth and nuances make it an ideal topic for a film studies PhD thesis. Probably someone has already written a thesis about it. If I find a thesis on this film I'll ask the author for permission to publish it in full on my blog, because I know that nothing I write myself could ever say enough about the film.

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

30 films to watch before you die, #24

This film was made in 2001, and it was the first film directed by Richard Kelly. When it was released it went unnoticed, despite making a small profit at the box office. I remember walking past the UGC cinema when it was showing and seeing the poster. It was a blue-ish picture with a giant rabbit. I don't think I recognised it as a rabbit at the time, I thought it was a horned demon. This put me off going to see it. I thought it was a low budget horror film.

Within the next two years the film gained popularity when it was released on video and DVD. I was chatting online with two friends from Norway, and they both told me that "Donnie Darko" was the best film ever made. If someone tells me a film is his favourite film I'm curious, but when two people say the same thing I have to check it out as soon as possible. I bought the film on DVD, and it knocked me off my feet as soon as I watched it. I didn't understand it at first, I needed to watch it a few times, but the imagery and the atmosphere gripped me from the beginning. My list of my favourite films fluctuates from year to year – I last listed my 10 favourite films in 2011 – but "Donnie Darko" has never left the top five.

I've described the plot in previous reviews, but I'll repeat the basics here. On October 2nd 1988 Donnie is woken up by a person wearing a rabbit costume and led to a golf course. This saves Donnie's life, because in his absence an aircraft engine falls on his house. The person, who calls himself Frank, tells Donnie the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds.The rest of the film shows Donnie working to save the world with guidance from Frank. Through a series of seemingly random actions carried out under Frank's instructions unstoppable events are set into motion, until Donnie learns how to create a time machine with the power of his mind. The world can't be saved without sacrifice. Frank has to die, Donnie's girlfriend Gretchen has to die, and finally Donnie himself has to sacrifice his life by going back into his house at the moment the aircraft engine fell on it.

In 2004 a Director's Cut of the film was released, containing 20 minutes of additional footage. By that time I'd watched the original version so often that I knew the events by heart, and the new changes disturbed me. It's been about 10 years since I last watched the Director's Cut. Maybe I should go back and give it another chance.

Riding the wave of the success of "Donnie Darko", Richard Kelly was given money to make new films with bigger budgets, "The Box" and "Southland Tales". "The Box" was moderately successful, but "Southland Tales" flopped abysmally, made with a $17 million budget but earning less than a million dollars at the box office. Since then he hasn't been allowed to direct any more films. He's a one-hit wonder. I can't recommend his other films, and no films have been made quite like this by other directors.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

"You are what you love, not what loves you" (Donald Kaufman).

This is probably the cleverest film ever made. Note that I didn't say the best. Whether or not you like it will depend on whether or not you like intelligent films. A film that just uses action to entertain the audience isn't necessarily a bad film. I enjoy action films. Some films go halfway by containing deep philosophical thoughts or political messages. Good films as well. But then there's "Adaptation". From the beginning to the end it sets out to puzzle the viewer. It's a true story. It's also a work of fiction. But where is the dividing line? When the film reaches its final scene where the film's screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, dictates what he's doing into a voice recorder we still don't know where to draw the line between fiction and reality.

Basically, the film is about Charlie Kaufman writing the screenplay of a film about himself writing a screenplay about himself. That would be enough in itself to make most people's head spin, but the confusion runs deeper. Charlie Kaufman -- the real Charlie Kaufman who wrote "Adaptation" -- would be a psychiatrist's dream patient. In the film he invents a twin brother who is his complete opposite, then kills him and gives him the credit for writing his screenplay. That's not just in the film, or in the film about the film, it's in real life. Donald Kaufman, a man who has never existed, was nominated for an Academy Award in 2003, making him the only person ever to be nominated for an Academy Award who didn't exist. After killing his brother Charlie becomes his brother.

This is a film that deserves a full psycho-analytical analysis. I'm afraid to attempt it myself, because I'm sure that whatever I write I'll look at it a week later and realise that I've left out half of the film's meaning.

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

It's been a few days since I watched this. I delayed my post because I wanted to think of something new to write about it. I couldn't think of anything to add to my detailed review that I wrote in 2012. But then I looked at the picture above with the question that Frank asks Donnie in the cinema while watching the Halloween double bill, "Evil Dead" and "The Last Temptation of Christ". It isn't a random question. Why was Donnie wearing a stupid man suit? Why was he living a normal life like all the others around him, as if he were one of them? He had a destiny to fulfil. Donnie was at the centre of the tangent universe and was the only one who could save the world, or rather save the universe. Donnie had killed Frank, but Frank bore him no ill will. Frank travelled back in time to assist Donnie in his mission.

"Wake up".

That was Frank's first call to Donnie. By the time he was in the cinema things had progressed. Donnie was awake, Gretchen was sleeping.

It's amazing how deep "Donnie Darko" is as a film. There are so many subtleties below the surface that only become apparent after repeated watching.

The Dark Knight (5 Stars)

This film grows on me more every time I watch it. The only weak part is the episode with the two ships in the last half hour. Sure, I know why it was included, and it's significant for the plot, but at that late stage in the film we needed fast action, not slow lingering soul-searching.

Nevertheless, the statement in the film poster that I used for this post is very depressing. I wouldn't like to live in a world without rules. Whether it's the rules set by society or rules that I have created for myself, I need rules. Rules mean stability. Rules mean order. Without rules there is chaos. That's the goal of the Joker in this film. He doesn't want to get rich, he wants to see the city burn.

"Everything burns".

At the end of the film, and I apologise for the spoiler, Batman goes a way towards accepting this.

"Sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes, people deserve more".

That's an extremely negative attitude. If knowledge isn't based on the truth, what good is it? Indeed, if rules aren't based on the truth, what good are they?

It was an embarrassing blunder to cast Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes in the film. She's no Katie Holmes. In some cases switching actors from one film to the next works, such as the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore in the Hannibal Lecter films. Those two actresses look relatively similar, and Julianne Moore did a good job at imitating Jodie Foster's mannerisms. But in the case of Maggie Gyllenhall, she's so unlike Katie Holmes that it's a shock when watching the two films back to back. To be fair to Maggie, I can't think of any actress who could have stepped into Katie's shoes. The mistake lies squarely with Christopher Nolan as the writer and director. When he found out that Katie Holmes wasn't available he should have written Rachel Dawes out of the film altogether.

Donnie Darko (5 Stars)

When this film was first released in 2001 it was a box office flop. It was ignored by critics and moviegoers alike. At the time it was released I lived close to a large cinema and remember seeing it advertised. The photo of the large bunny rabbit in blue shading made me think it was a cheap horror film, so I ignored it. After its release on DVD people started noticing it, and soon it developed a cult following. I first took notice of it when talking to two friends of mine. One of them said that "Donnie Darko" was her favorite film, and the other replied "Yes, it's the best film ever made". That made me run out and buy it the next day, and wow! It's one of the best films I've ever seen.

I'll take a different path in this review. Usually I avoid spoilers, but I want to write an explanation of the film. If you've never seen the film, stop reading now. Go out and buy it. I recommend the original version. The director's cut has better music, but it's padded out by explaining things left vague in the original, making it less enjoyable. The spoilers follow the picture, so scroll down at your own risk.

I've read many interpretations of the film, and there are none I completely agree with. A guide to interpreting it is the excerpts from Roberta Sparrow's "Philosophy of Time Travel" that are included as DVD extras. Reading them isn't essential to understanding the film, but it helps.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME TRAVEL

Chapter One: The Tangent Universe

The Primary Universe is fraught with great peril. War, plague, famine and natural disaster are common.

Death comes to us all. The Fourth Dimension of Time is a stable construct, though it is not impenetrable.

Incidents when the fabric of the fourth dimension becomes corrupted are incredibly rare.

If a Tangent Universe occurs, it will be highly unstable, sustaining itself for no longer than several weeks.

Eventually it will collapse upon itself, forming a black hole within the Primary Universe capable of destroying all existence.

Chapter Two: Water And Metal

Water and Metal are the key elements of Time Travel.

Water is the barrier element for the construction of Time Portals used as gateways between Universes as the Tangent Vortex.

Metal is the transitional element for the construction of Artifact Vessels.

Chapter Four: The Artifact And The Living

When a Tangent Universe occurs, those living nearest to the Vortex, will find themselves at the epicenter of a dangerous new world.

Artifacts provide the first sign that a Tangent Universe has occurred.

If an Artifact occurs, the Living will retrieve it with great interest and curiosity.

Artifacts are formed from metal, such as an Arrowhead from an ancient Mayan civilization, or a Metal Sword from Medieval Europe.

Artifacts returned to the Primary Universe are often linked to religious Iconography, as their appearance on Earth seems to defy logical explanation.

Divine intervention is deemed the only logical conclusion for the appearance of the Artifact.

Chapter Six: The Living Receiver

The Living Receiver is chosen to guide the Artifact into position for its journey back to the Primary Universe.

No one knows how or why a Receiver will be chosen.

The Living Receiver is often blessed with a Fourth Dimensional Powers.

These include increased strength, telekinesis, mind control, and the ability to conjure fire and water.

The Living Receiver is often tormented by terrifying dreams, visions and auditory hallucinations during his time within the Tangent Universe.

These surrounding the Living Receiver, known as the Manipulated, will fear him and try to destroy him.

Chapter Seven: The Manipulated Living

The Manipulated Living are often the close friends and neighbors of the Living Receiver.

They are prone to irrational, bizarre, and often violent behavior.

This is the unfortunate result of their task, which is to assist the Living Receiver in returning the Artifact to the Primary Universe.

The Manipulated Living will do anything to save themselves from Oblivion.

Chapter Ten: The Manipulated Dead

The Manipulated Dead are more powerful than the Living Receiver. If a person dies within the Tangent Dimension, they are able to contact the Living Receiver through the Fourth Dimensional Construct.

The Fourth Dimensional Construct is made of Water.

The Manipulated Dead will manipulate the Living Receiver using the Fourth Dimensional Construct (see Appendix A and B).

The Manipulated Dead will often set an Ensurance Trap for the Living Receiver to ensure that the Artifact is returned safely to the Primary Universe.

If the Ensurance Trap is successful, the Living Receiver is left with no choice but to use his Fourth Dimensional Power to send the Artifact back in time into the Primary Universe before the Black hole collapses upon itself.

Chapter Twelve: Dreams

When the Manipulated awaken from their Journey into the Tangent Universe, they are often haunted by the experience in their dreams.

Many of them will not remember.

Those who do remember the Journey are often overcome with profound remorse for the regretful actions buried within their Dreams, the only physical evidence buried within the Artifact itself, all that remains from the lost world.

Ancient myth tells us of the Mayan Warrior killed by an Arrowhead that had fallen from a cliff, where there was no Army, no enemy to be found.

We are told of the Medieval Knight mysteriously impaled by sword he had not yet built.

We are told that these things occur for a reason.

---

The plot, at its simplest, is this: an alternative parallel universe has occurred spontaneously, and due to its instability it threatens to create a black hole and destroy all of reality. Donnie Darko is chosen as the saviour to prevent this happening.

Is it God who appoints Donnie to this task? That's unclear, although the film does mention God briefly, and the religious symbolism is unmistakable. Donnie saves the universe by sacrificing himself. Like the Mayan warrior and the mediaeval knight mentioned in chapter 12 of "The Philosophy of Time Travel", Donnie died crushed to death by an airplane engine.

Now the full plot, with my interpretation:

On October 2nd 1988 Donnie is woken up by a person wearing a rabbit costume and led to a golf course. The person, who calls himself Frank, tells Donnie the world will end in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds. When Donnie returns home he sees that an aircraft engine has fallen from the sky onto his house. Nobody knows where it came from. This is the metal artifact described in Roberta Sparrow's book.

From this point on Frank guides Donnie's actions. Donnie floods the school basement, he vandalises the school mascot, and he sets the house of a local motivational speaker on fire. These are not random acts. Frank is one of the "Manipulated Dead", and he guides Donnie to seemingly random acts of vandalism that will steer events towards the final solution. Flooding the basement leads to school being cancelled, which in turn leads to Donnie dating Gretchen, so that when Frank kills Gretchen Donnie takes revenge and kills Frank. This is Frank's death within the Tangent Universe, after which Frank gains powers and is able to travel back in time to guide Donnie. Setting the house on fire leads to the speaker's child pornography collection being discovered by firemen, so the sports teacher Kitty Farmer decides not to accompany the school singing team to Los Angeles, leading Donnie's mother to be in the plane when the lightning hits it and the engine falls off.

Donnie saves the universe by catching the airplane engine as it falls and projecting it into the real universe. His death was a necessity.

One thing that I've missed in other reviews is a comparison with "Lost Highway". If you scrape away the surface the two films are so similar that writer/director Robert Kelly must have been influenced by it. The main difference is that the time loop in "Lost Highway" is supernatural, whereas "Donnie Darko" is scientific. Maybe I'll go into this in more detail when I review "Lost Highway".

Click here to view the trailer.

The Dark Knight (4½ Stars)

This is the second film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. The death of Heath Ledger, the actor who played the Joker, before the film's release led to a lot of interest by people who would otherwise not have considered watching the film. However, the film stands on its own merits. It doesn't need off-screen scandals or tragedies to support it.

The film is a significant improvement over the first part in the trilogy, "Batman Begins". The first film failed to capture the atmosphere of the Batman comics. "The Dark Knight" presents us the Batman that comic readers know and love. In the first film I had my doubts about Christian Bale in the title role. Here we see that he's grown into the role. I was disappointed that Bruce Wayne's love interest Rachel Dawes had to be played by a different actress. Maggie Gyllenhall doesn't bring the same warmth to the role as Katie Holmes.

The film suggests, though not explicitly, that Batman is actually the cause of the plague of super villains in Gotham City. This is a topic that has been frequently explored in the comics. The presence of a masked vigilante has provoked the rise of a new breed of villains to oppose him. Could Batman really save the city by retiring? I think not. In the same way, the general availability of guns in the USA is responsible for the height of violent crime, but if private gun ownership were forbidden tomorrow it would only make crime worse.

I have mixed feelings about Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker. He's a scary villain, but is he really the same Joker that we know from the comics? For me Cesar Romero will always be the actor who most accurately portrayed the Joker.

Click here to view the trailer.

Adaptation (5 Stars)

For a film that was nominated for several Oscars in 2002, including a win for Chris Cooper as best supporting actor, it's amazing how few people know this masterpiece of cinema. The following review contains spoilers, so read on with care. Normally I try to avoid spoilers, but I don't know any other way to write this review.

At its core it's a true story. A successful Hollywood screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, is asked to write a screenplay for a best-selling book, "The Orchid Thief". After reading it he realises that he can't see any way to adapt the book to film, so he sinks into depression and insecurity, hindered by the presence of his identical twin brother, Donald, who is everything he isn't. While Charlie is a social misfit and is unable to write, Donald dates girls and quickly churns out a detective thriller. Nicolas Cage plays both brothers to perfection. Charlie is encouraged to spice up the book, adding elements such as sex, drugs and violence to make it more appealing to the audience, but he refuses.

Finally Charlie makes a breakthrough when he decides to write a film about himself writing the film. This is where it gets complicated, especially when the viewer realises he's watching a film about a film about a film. Actually it's a film about a film about a film about a book about true events. As the film progresses the viewer has increasing difficulty to distinguish between fiction and reality. Are we seeing the real events, or things that Charlie invented for the sake of entertainment? In fact, does Donald really exist, or is he a product of Charlie's multiple personality disorder? It's significant that the film in the film doesn't get written until Donald is killed.

Maybe that's the reason "Adaptation" isn't more popular? It's too intelligent for the mass audience. Despite Charlie's eventual capitulation, dumbing down his film by adding sex, drugs and violence, the film still hovers on a high intellectual plain. If you want a film that will make you think, watch this. You won't be disappointed.

Interestingly, Donald Kaufman was nominated for an Oscar for the best adapted screenplay jointly with his brother Charlie. This is the only time in the history of the Academy Awards that someone who didn't exist was nominated for an award.