Worth watching....maybe twice

Rating: Null/10 (19 October 2003)

This is a thought provoking film. As far as I know its the first film for which it is necessary to view the website after viewing the film in order to more fully understand the climax. This idea is sure to catch on.
To judge by the number of sites devoted to discussing what the film "really means", its cult status seems guaranteed. I am sure it is best viewed the first time knowing as little as possible about what to expect. You may well want to view it a second time, and you are certain to run across people who want to ask you if you noticed certain small details - a sure sign of a film which will be appear in lists of "favourite films" for years to come.
Like most good films it is easy to recognise eclectic influences.
The family interaction around the dinner table is more Roseanne than Cosby. Donnie's attack on the school and its mascot are straight out of The Simpsons. The discussion on the sex life of The Smurfs is Tarintoesque. Characters such as Cherita Chen (especially at the talent show) and Jim Cunningham could fit into a David Lynch film - they are neither simple caricatures, nor are they given a chance to explain themselves.
However, I personally think that the film's originality is overstated by its passionate advocates.
(SPOILER ALERT)
It is closer to the Back to the Future Trilogy than you would expect given the intense debate for hidden meanings. But closer still is the Gwyneth Paltrow vehicle, Sliding Doors which is actually a more challenging attempt to explore the "what if" nature of the fact that every little thing we do will (or at least can) deeply influence the lives of other people we know, as well as our own.
More intriguingly, the film's creator seemingly wishes to draw parallels to The Last Temptation of Christ in which Jesus is given the opportunity to see the future if he chooses not to die, and rejects that future. The possible alternative reality theme can trace its lineage back through Its A Wonderful Life, all the way to A Christmas Carol. Can it really be true that some of the reviewers who find this film unique (not to mention those who say they cannot understand it) are not aware of that history?
To me the film is very reminiscent of a Star Trek: Next Generation episode called Yesterday's Enterprise, which encapsulates all Donnie Darko's themes and more. Just like in Donnie, the whole episode is set in a universe which is "not meant to be". Just as in Donnie, the characters (a whole ship's crew, and not just one character) have to make a choice to go back and sacrifice their own lives to make sure a "better" timeline survives. There is no religious connotation (unlike the creators of Donnie apparently intend). They just do it on utilitarian grounds; their sacrifice is for the greater good of the greater number. What the Star Trek episode has which Donnie lacks is a clear sense that there is no easy "right" or "wrong" choice. A character (Tasha Yar) is alive in the alternate universe even though she had previously been killed off in the Prime Universe. By going back in time and behaving differently, the old Enterprise crew are denying her the right to live (as well as improving life for the remainder of the regular cast).
Nonetheless, Donnie Darko is a funny and well-crafted movie, and I think anyone who sees it will be glad that they did.