Much sizzle, little steak. Wait, not much sizzle, either.

Rating: 6/10 (4 May 2006)

I'm a Johnny-come-lately to the Darko phenomenon, so I suppose I was somewhat set up for disappointment by the hype this movie has received on the internet and elsewhere. Catchphrases and visual references abound in people's sig-files, so at long last, in the interests of cultural literacy, I had to check it out.
My verdict: not bad. But not nearly good enough.
The movie's plot has been hashed out in many venues, and I won't spoil anything here (though I will note that I haven't encountered a better set-up for an O-Henry plot twist in a long while). So let's focus on the more numinous qualities which have to sell this movie: The acting is competent throughout, sometimes very fine, as in the title performance by a young Jake Gyllenhaal, and particularly in an unusually understated turn by too-often too-shrill Drew Barrymore, who manages to convey more bitter superiority in a few glances than most people could with a shriek. The cast is weighted down by a number of over-padded parts, however...Swayze serves a purpose here, but why is so much screen-time devoted to Beth Grant? She overacts miserably, and takes what should be a modern "Turn of the Screw" into the over-the-top territory of "Heathers." It jars.
And what's up with the visuals? For a fantasy/sci-fi/psychological film like this one, however, I expected a good deal more...well, competence. The editing is often spastic when it shouldn't be (an early dinner-table conversation in the Darko household snaps back and forth from speaker to speaker like a badly-done MtV video) and too damn slow when it should rivet (several of the key 'demon rabbit' scenes are, frankly (hah!) boring). Maybe that's a problem with the director's cut alone.
And then there's the sadly unfinished feeling to the plot. The whole goal of this movie is to bring things around in a big circle, to provide perfect closure. That narrative structure is completely inconsistent with the looping, inconclusive dialog. And where's the meaning? Roll your own? Look, I recognize that the screenwriter/director is grappling with weighty issues, and one of his points is that there are no easy answers. Thanks, anyone past middle-school knows that. So there should be something more substantive to chew on here and...well, there just isn't. Many overly-broad philosophical conversations between characters drift off into uncomfortable silence, and I'm left with the sense that I'm wasting time.
Maybe that's the real point of the movie: time is precious. So don't waste. By, like, you know, watching movies.
Grade: C+