Actually, it's not that dark...

Rating: 8/10 (1 August 2003)

This film is simply too highly rated because people are trying to take it apart and make 1000 meanings out of a story filled with meaningless McGuffins and Red Herrings. If you want to understand the film as a film made by a man, have a look at this explanation for some insight into DD...
*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*
I went to USC Film School so I can comment with some credibility on production students like Kelly. Take a quick look at this and you can see how USC production film student psychology explains much of DD that is a mystery to the rest of the world. First, read Richard Kelly's brief little bio and personal quotes on his IMDB page. Then, think about this: USC production students, especially those that spend $60,000 on a grad film that is a monstrosity of sci-fi and camp and mad scientists and teleporters are people who are trying to make 100 different films inside the scope of one big short film, DD is exactly this kind of thing: a glorified big short film. It is always a goal of every production student to one-up your colleagues and friends and to make a better "film to end all films" - whether it be on the student or USC graduate level. If you take this philosophy of filmmaking and place it on a film like DD it starts to make a lot of sense.
For instance, Donnie Darko is not about time travel, it is not about God, it is not about philosophy, it is not about love, it is not about Frank, Gretchen, Cunningham, Grandma Death, small towns, suburbs, Chinese girls, Sparkle Motion, violence, bunnies, channels, gym teachers, portals, choices, mental illness, Drew Barrymore, or anything else for that matter. And last but not least it is certainly not about Donnie Darko. It IS about Richard Kelly imposing 1000 different ideas, which, each in their own right, are intriguing and might make an interesting short or perhaps a feature. But when you put them all together into an under 2 hour film like DD you end up with a real mess, a very entertaining roller coaster mystery mess that keeps you guessing, but still a big mess. I saw Darko in the theater when it came out and it was fantastic and I was really freaked out, I also enjoyed Star Wars Episode 1 IN THE THEATER. Then I saw Donnie Darko again on HBO two years later and the writing on the wall was clear: it wasn't about anything I had previously tried to rack my brain thinking it was about. It is just a collection of McGuffins that serve no purpose other than loosely tying ideas, characters, and scenes together using more Red Herrings than a Hitchcock film, the whole film itself is a Red Herring, it is a film that was made because a film based on that material and those ideas could be made and entertain an audience, and Drew Barrymore would get a part.
People like to say this is an example of a "non Hollywood crap movie" but in the end it IS just another Hollywood movie, it is simply a compilation of a bunch of sci-fi B.S. that makes no sense on purpose, some religious wondering, and some overly emotional human responses to life, all thrown together in a blender and put together in an "Indy" style.

My advice, if you see a movie in the theater and you think it is the greatest film even made, see it again on the small box at home, if it is AS GOOD OR BETTER, then it's a great film, but if it falls apart big time (Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace anyone?) then you'll know you're really seen the film for what it truly is.