Yet another "let's just recreate the original" cash-grab. 210% terrible.

Well, the music and cinematography create a nice atmosphere, but everything going on within it is terrible. With horrible dialogue from marginal actors that turn in stiff and awkward performances, a completely nonsensical script, and some almost Wood-esque editing, S. Darko couldn't stand on its own even if it didn't have the immediate disadvantage of pretending to be a sequel to a much better film.

Incredibly poor performances working with awful characters and a complete rip off and bastardization of the original story. A complete disgrace to a magnificent cult classic.

Well, at least it unintentionally made me laugh.

do not ever in your lifetime think you have to see this movie...

S. Darko doesn't expand upon its superior predecessor's mythos; it just tiresomely rehashes it in especially broad strokes. Where Donnie was alternately visceral, soulful, horrifying and compelling, S. Darko unfolds with little intrigue and multi-facetedness. The film has its fleeting moments, but its Donnie as if re-packaged for the Vampire Diaries sect.

CASH IN! The cinematography has its moments, the script is bad and the actors are about as bad as the script. Where's the interaction or the chemistry? Where's the half intelligent dialogue or plot? The music usage is mixed, so it has its moments as well. Since it's a sequel maybe it should expand on the Donnie Darko universe but it really doesn't. Just a bunch of events (really... remade from DD) loosely linked together, but what's the reasoning behind it? The more I write the more I hate it.

jesus fuckin' christ, what a bunch of crap.

33.500

Hell no

Pretty good cinematogrpahy. That's about it.

AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE!

Takes the cake for worst "sequel" ever.

don't believe the hype.

lololololol

The plot is not original (it's somewhat similar to Donnie but really pointless). As a sequel it is definitely bad. But as a standalone movie it does work (not necessarily a good movie, but I've seen a lot worse). And in my opinion, the acting is quite decent (Ed Westwick and Jackson Rathbone did quite a nice job, I think)

I think the movie is far away from the "mindfuck" idea and a plot that the first movie had, but I still think it makes you wonder and ask yourself about much stuff, maybe religion in particular (although it turns out a bit washed out). The acting is average and the actors are indeed missing chemistry, but to be honest it's not that bad. It's also even more messy to a viewer not used to such movies than the first movie.

the only good thing in this movie is Ed Westwick. and music a little bit.

This is nothing like the first one. This is crap! This is cheap horror movie named after a really good movie.

Probably the best example of a cash-in sequel there is.

Don't watch this, even if you absolutely love the first;

It wants to echo the original but can't figure out the rhythms.

Some incredibly bad dialogs, bad CGI, plot doesn't make much sense. But the biggest enemy of this film is relation to the cult favorite "Donnie Darko". Fans hate this film without seeing it. And when they'll see it they will hate it even more. It copies the style of "Donnie", uses same ideas and twists. And that's no fun.

Ultimately, Donnie Darko wasn't about time travel and talking rabbits, it was about this kid named Donnie Darko that a lot of us found ourselves caring about. I don't know what the hell S. Darko is about, and I don't care. I'm pretty sure I know what the S stands for, though, and it's abbreviated from "Complete and utter Bull-"

i have seen better dialogues & acting in teleshopping!