Smacks of 12 Monkeys...

Rating: 7/10 (10 December 2004)

...but mostly in the /feel/ of the movie, the atmosphere and the time travel aspects. And of course, because there's a crazy guy involved, but he's no Brad Pitt.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Looks like many other have already covered the story aspects of this film, so I'll not reiterate, but assume you, the reader, have read the descriptions and go on from there. First of all, it felt like a French film in the sense of a great big "HUH." at the end of the movie. It is somewhat open for interpretation, though not nearly as much so as the typical "I want to say something big but don't know how" French flick. Still, there is a very definite sense that the writer wanted to say something, wanted to make and/or argue a point and maybe in the screenplay he did... and when it was translated to film, it lost its eloquence. Now folks, weirdness does not a good movie make, just as big flowery words and descriptions do not a good poem make. What is makes is fluff... padding. And it's not needed. Donnie Darko is certainly interesting, I will give it that, but there's more than a few brow furrowers here.
My biggest gripe, oddly enough, is with Drew Barrymore, one of the many executive producers. Whether she actually WAS a producer or was given that title as a means of coaxing her into the movie (sometimes it's a form of 'payment'), I don't know, but what DID her character have to do with anything?? We watch her get fired. Do we care? NO, because we don't know why she's even there. Well, her most poignant 2 words, "Cellar Door" is, I think, her only meaningful lines besides the fact that she is the evil, free-thinking teacher who introduced the book that was the cause behind the school flooding. That could have been handled differently and given to a more important character. She is totally unnecessary. Patrick Swayze's character... again, I suppose added in there only for some incredibly minor plot points that could have been handled differently, too. He was a very weak link, much like Barrymore, and there just was no reason for them at all. If you watch this movie, pay close attention to their parts in the film. Maybe I'm missing something, but they were some seriously big pieces of fluff. The fat little girl who says only "Shut up!!" twice in the movie and nothing more, though I did like her little talent show dance routine... why was she there? I thought maybe that, while she was sitting outside after the dance, she would look out and be the one to alert SOMEone that Jim's (Swayze's) house was on fire or something... anything that made her being there actually have a modicum of sense. No... nothing unless it was deleted. I didn't bother with the special features. The more I think about it, the more I realize that almost ALL the characters were unnecessary, redundant, and fluff only and maybe that was the writer's statement... but then, we get into the French attitude there and there's a reason I don't watch French films.
The whole Frank thing was fascinating. He of the injured eye, the one line of cryptic "I'm so sorry" in the theater. (They were watching Evil Dead and making danged sure they never showed Campbell, but I have to give them kudos for the movie choice.) Around that time, I was getting flashbacks of "American Werewolf in London" where the main character sees the undead souls of this victims and talks to them. It was kind of like that but not. And Frank tells Donnie to do things like burn down houses for no apparent reason. Oh thank goodness mister "Fearlove" was actually a child porn baddie, but not like anyone knew, so it made no sense to burn down his house in any kind of righteous anger or anything. And there was no righteous anger, Frank just said do it, so Donnie did, for no particular reason. We find out much later than Frank and his bunny suit is actually the killer of Gretchen and gets shot in the eye, but you know, it's not really fair of the writer, because the guy who plays Frank is not important to the storyline except as the bunny. There is no foreshadowing, there is no hint, it's like a poorly written mystery novel where we, the viewer, don't get enough to figure it out, we're not privy to what the detectives know, and /that's/ the big mystery. Of course, it doesn't have to be linear. Obviously, this movie was going against linear things, but whenever time travel is involved, I have to cringe: it always makes such a mess of things.
So there's the jet engine that ends up being the engine of his mother and sister's plane 28 days in the future. It crashes through Donnie's room, he's out cuz the bunny told him to be, so he lives, and the movie happens. In the end, it all happens all over again except that Donnie is in his room and dies, thus creating a new reality where the bad things that happened to people like Gretchen don't happen. Except it's his mom's jet engine and she may or may not have gone on that trip 28 days in the future now that Donnie's dead and none of the stuff ever happened. Weird, yes, but it's not a mind bender in the smart sense since anything to do with time inescapably gets warped, ruined and twisted in a way that wouldn't happen if time travel were possible. It's the grin and bear it syndrome. So be it.
Summary: It's a good movie and worth a watching. Some people swear by this flick and more power to them. But I say strip away the fluff and fancy words and see what's underneath, look at the base. Does it stand on its own? Donnie Darko is a bit wobbly, but it manages to spin a fascinating tale and should be rented, not bought, and viewed at least once if you're in the mood for something French but that makes more sense.
On the technical side, good camera work, rich filming, decent directing and an eerie atmosphere. The acting is pretty solid. The main character was creepy and scary, yet we could sympathize with him and his love interest. It is a well-made movie.