Donnie Darko
Movie Review
"Donnie Darko"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C-
Rating: R
Released: Friday, October 26, 2001
Directed by:
Cast:
I'm predicting "Donnie Darko" will be the year's most overrated film. It smells like the kind of movie that wants you to think it's really deep, causing people to claim they loved it even though they actually found it incomprehensible.
I defy you to tell me what this movie is about and point out portions of it to support your theory. It's occasionally about the opposite emotions of love and fear and what falls in between them, but it's also sometimes about fate and predestination. For that matter, sometimes it's a character study, and other times it's a science-fiction time-travel fantasy. But it is none of these things long enough or with enough commitment to develop any of them. As a result, it's a mish-mash of disparate, non-cohesive ideas, the sort of film that thinks it's brilliant just because no one understands it.
Maddeningly, it also has a lot going for it. Jake Gyllenhaal (who you loved if you saw "October Sky") plays the title character, an upper-class suburban high-schooler beset with visions of a human-size demon rabbit (the anti-Harvey, I guess) who tells him to do things like flood the school and set fire to people's houses. Gyllenhaal gives a wonderful, brooding performance, lending realism to a character surrounded by surrealism.
There are some delicious characters, too, including Patrick Swayze as a lugubrious self-help guru (think Tom Cruise in "Magnolia," only more grating) and Mary McDonnell as Donnie's concerned mother. Katharine Ross as Donnie's therapist and Holmes Osbourne as his dad turn in expert performances, too. (Ignore Drew Barrymore, who is stilted and weird as Donnie's English teacher, and who I'm guessing got the part because she executive produced the thing.)
It has a glorious soundtrack, too, as it's set in 1988 and uses several great popular songs from that year. (Any movie that opens with INXS's kickin' "Never Tear Us Apart" has something going for it, as far as I'm concerned.) There's also quite a bit of witty, entertaining dialogue.
But back to the story. Frank the devil rabbit regularly makes Donnie get up in the middle of the night and wander around town. One such evening, he tells Donnie that the world will end in a few weeks. Shortly after he tells him this, a jet engine mysteriously falls from the sky and crashes through Donnie's bedroom. Had Frank not led Donnie out of it, he would certainly have been killed. Now Donnie knows to trust the prophetic Frank, or something.
This includes suddenly becoming more assertive than he's ever been, telling off his witchy gym teacher, as well as the aforementioned self-help idiot. He gets a girlfriend, too, a new student named Gretchen (Jena Malone).
Frank keeps asking Donnie if he believes in time travel, so Donnie asks his science teacher (Noah Wyle) about it. He lends him a book that happens to have been written, years ago, by the local 100-year-old crazy woman, who spends her days walking from the middle of the street to her mailbox and back again. Donnie begins to see forward into time, sort of: He can see a gel-like trail leading from people's chests toward wherever they're about to go, thus giving him the skill of knowing someone's about to walk across the room before they actually do. (Why this is a skill, I don't know. I also don't know why Donnie can only do it every now and then.)
Will the world end the day after Halloween, as predicted by Frank? If so, what can Donnie do about it? How do time travel and the senile mailbox-tender relate to it all? Why the occasional harping on hypocrisy as it pertains to Swayze's character and others? What does Frank the rabbit represent? Whatever the symbol is, is it totally undermined by the revelation of Frank's real-life basis?
These questions, and many others, are raised but not answered. In fact, they're barely even addressed. The ending is most perplexing. One can almost see Donnie as a hero or a savior, except that the way things turn out is monstrously confusing, making us second-guess the entire film.
"Donnie Darko" is not boring, I'll give it that. High-caliber performances and unusual goings-on keep it interesting. But it's the sort of "interesting" that also makes us enjoy dreaming when we sleep: Anything can happen, and it's fun to continue watching just to see where it goes. You can read a lot into it if you want, but chances are you're looking for depth where there is none.
(Note: When the film premiered at Sundance, it had the INXS song in it, as mentioned in this review. From what I'm told by approximately 50 billion "Donnie Darko" fans who write to tell me how wrong I am about the movie, however, the song was replaced with something else for its subsequent theatrical release. Be assured, the removal of the INXS song does not impact my review; if anything, it make me like the film even less.)
Grade: C-
Rated R, frequent harsh profanity, some vivid sexual imagery, some violence
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 15 comments
December 5, 2006 at 1:41 pm
The movie can seem to be trying to add depth, when in reality it's just forwarding what needs to happen. I've only seen the director's cut, so I don't know about the original. But in the director's cut, the reason everything is happening seems to be very clear, to me at least. The only reason everything is happening the way it is, is because a tangent universe has been created, which will destroy the world causing the manipulated dead (Frank) to appear to the living receiver (Donnie) to do certain things to manipulate the living (everyone Donnie knows) in order to create a portal to go back in time to stop the tangent universe from being created. And on the way we are asked questions and blah blah blah. But that is really the reason anything that happens in the film happens. Such as, Donnie floods the school, leading to bitchy lady complaining about the english assignment, leading to english teacher getting fired, leading to her leaving her mark with her favorite quote (cellar door) allowing Donnie to know where he needs to go; or, Donnie burns pervert's house down, leading pervert to be arrested for hidden child porn, leading to bitchy lady not being able to go to starsearch with the kids, leading to Donnie's mother to have to go, leading to Donnie and his sister throwing a party, leading to Frank getting drunk, leading to Frank running over Gretchen, leading to Donnie killing Frank, leading to Frank becoming the Manipulated Dead and the portals being opened up. It's very farfetched when put down like that, but it's done in such a way that it seems very natural and real.
December 5, 2006 at 7:56 pm
I've only ever seen the director's cut, too, but it was all clear as mud to me. The plot seemed deliberately obfuscated and labyrinthine. And then the closing song was Gary Jules' "Mad World," which has kind of made me like the movie in retrospect, even though I didn't like it while I was watching it.
March 18, 2007 at 6:23 pm
i watched the movie and jake gyllenhaal was so good and everybody seemed to wored really hard
June 12, 2007 at 3:05 pm
well, i'm not sure if i can sum it up in a way other than the one's above me could, but if you've only watched the regular donnie darko, see the director's cut. i really had to watch it twice to fully understand, but the regular movie leaves holes. the director's cut makes it clear. like why donnie see's the path's of other people. the living reciever is often blessed with powers. it shows flashes of roberta sparrow's book and also dialouge that makes it very clear. give donnie another chance.
November 10, 2007 at 11:50 am
I've seen both versions but I prefer the original version in a way because it leaves gaps for you to think about for yourself... I actually love this film even though I'm not sure if it makes sense it depends what way you think about it. I think its a great first film for Richard Kelly =]
November 23, 2007 at 2:29 am
C- is way too harsh - even if you don't understand the plot (and it certainly did have its holes; why the hell did Donnie need to do what he did in the end instead of, say, not setting off the chain of events that led to tragedy?), it's still very well-shot, and has some seriously hilarious scenes. Swayze was excellent. Certainly very pretenious, but it's good enough to make up for it. Still don't quite understand why Drew Barrymore had to be in the movie - her character didn't really do much. I guess I could point out a few more silly things about the movie, but I will say that I've never been glued to the screen more than during this movie - the first time I saw it, I had to leave somewhere near the end, and was pretty upset about it; there's so many weird things going on, and I had to know how it would end! Okay, so the end was confusing and stupid and explained little, but it's such a great movie up to that point. I agree with the above posters - it seems like there's a lot more to the plot than just what you see. Could have been 20-30 minutes LONGER, actually. I'd say A- or B+ territory.
December 29, 2007 at 8:06 am
Sorry I haven't whipped out my dictionary in explanation like everyone else, but I thought the fact that the film gave the illusion it was deep was the purpose of the whole thing. And maybe I drink too much as I was doing when I saw the original, but I thought Donnie was actually killed in the crash and so the film showed that the death of Donnie at the start, which was changed by Frank, for the parallel imaginative journey aspect, allowed us to see that people who die under tragic circumstances may turn out to be annoying crazy people who may go on to be the focus of a crappy movie ---- kind of like this crappy movie. If you didn't notice, I don't like this movie. I think it is crappy.
Sorry to taint an intelligent discussion with this simple comment, but it is to me the best and quickest way to get my point across.
January 22, 2008 at 6:05 am
"It smells like the kind of movie that wants you to think it's really deep, causing people to claim they loved it even though they actually found it incomprehensible."
~ Amen to that. The movie deserves a D-
December 16, 2008 at 3:31 am
If you don't like this movie you are no very intelligent. Sorry that its not Die Hard 16 but this movie takes a little thinking. If you're not prepared to do that then you should go back to figuring out how the Grinch stole Christmas.
December 19, 2008 at 6:30 pm
"An excellent yet overrated cult movie made by Richard Kelly.
Donnie Darko is a troubled adolescent who's life is saved when a giant bunny rabbit orders him to follow him one night. A plane engine so happens to crash on Donnie's room, but he is gone with frank (which is why his life is saved)
Realizing that his life should have ended then, Donnie finds secrets of physics and experiments things related to time travel and a book, that simply cannot be a coincidence. He is also going through a major teenage confusion, doubting humanity and especially adults.
Just look at how the parents' reaction is different to the childrens', when Donnie is bashing Jim Cunningham on stage. They are shocked, while the teens actually relate to the REALISM of Donnie's words.
Things cannot always be devided in only two paths.
Life isn't that simple.
Donnie Darko, the movie, is a presentation of many philosophies that only very few people ever think of.
"Destruction is a form of creation"
Etc, etc.
Fantastic, yet kind of overrated movie by most.
I see ALOT of people who "respect" and "worship" this movie yet cannot understand crap about it.
Some like it just because it's oh so underground/cult, and never actually try to think about the message flowing in the movie.
Sad. "
-urban dictionary
February 20, 2009 at 2:23 am
"These questions, and many others, are raised but not answered."
Hardly.
They're answered, and answered almost brilliantly. To truly understand the movie, though, it would have helped to visit the website afterwards. But even if you didn't, the answers you claim are never brought up are there if you're looking for them, instead of expecting them to arrive in some sort of generic pre-packaged form (spoilers below):
"Will the world end the day after Halloween, as predicted by Frank?"
That's the question, isn't it? All signs seemed to point to the answer being "yes", but the great thing about Donnie Darko is that it keeps the audience asking this very question, right up to the very end: "Is Donnie a schizophrenic, or is the world really going to end?"
"If so, what can Donnie do about it?"
Again, it's a question that was meant to be asked by the viewing audience, and Donnie himself asks this very same question. He doesn't quite understand what's going on, but he feels he must "obey" Frank in order to understand his "master plan" (he tells this to his shrink). Donnie somehow realizes that the things he does that Frank orders him to do somehow involves the world ending, and that they must be done.
"How do time travel and the senile mailbox-tender relate to it all?"
The ending of the movie pretty much answers both of those questions. Time travel was necessary on Donnie's part in order to keep the world from ending, and "Grandma Death" knew that someone, somewhere, would end up contacting her through a letter in order to let her know that they are now going through the same things she herself went through many years before. Noah Wyle's character lets us know that Grandma Death had indeed been in Donnie's shoes herself decades earlier: "She was a nun...one day almost overnight she left the church and became a science teacher" (and what's left unsaid is that she also wrote "The Philosophy Of Time Travel" as well). Had Donnie lived after traveling back in time, there's little doubt he would have changed "overnight", although that overnight was actually the result of him living a month's worth of extraordinary experiences.
"Why the occasional harping on hypocrisy as it pertains to Swayze's character and others?"
Because many of the best movies use subtext and tackle multiple topics that all actually share something basic in common. Kelly used the sci-fi angle to illuminate the hypocricy all around Donnie. In other words, Donnie not only saw things nobody else could see--Frank, the watery spears jetting from everyone's chests, the wormhole starting to appear over his house--he also saw all the hypocricy around him that nobody else could see. Donnie saw the reality of the world, both in terms of human nature and in terms of the bigger picture of God and the universe.
"What does Frank the rabbit represent? Whatever the symbol is, is it totally undermined by the revelation of Frank's real-life basis?"
He doesn't really represent anything. As someone else pointed out, he's a "manipulated dead", someone who died within the tangent universe whose mission is to be Donnie's guide and help him do the things that need to be done and understand the things that need to be understood.
"These questions, and many others, are raised but not answered. In fact, they're barely even addressed."
Again, they're address, alright lol. It's just that they're not wrapped up with a pretty bow and presented in a way that requires no thought. Donnie Darko requires thought, discussion, and even a repeat viewing to catch many things that you wouldn't normally look for. It's one of the rare movies that actually rewards repeat viewings.
"The ending is most perplexing. One can almost see Donnie as a hero or a savior, except that the way things turn out is monstrously confusing, making us second-guess the entire film."
Any film that gives us an ending that makes us second-guess everything we just saw deserves high praise, not condemnation.
Seriously, Donnie Darko is one hell of a movie.
July 18, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Sure, this movie had it's share of "What the hell?" moments, but so did great movies like "Fight Club," "Punch Drunk Love," "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and other so-called "weird movies" that came out over the past 10 years. I enjoyed it because it was entertaining, had a great cast, and a great 80's new-wave soundtrack, even though a lot of it didn't make sense to me. It was definitely never boring.
November 19, 2009 at 8:23 am
I know this comment comes a little late, but in case anyone ever reads this again: come on, guys. If you have to go watch the director's cut and go read a website in order to find out what the movie is about because the information isn't in the original movie (and it isn't), then you are perfectly justified in calling out the movie on its pretentiousness and incomprehensibility, as Eric did.
Also, Eric, in regards to Wilberson's comment above, I do hope you figured out how the Grinch stole Christmas (Spoiler: He dressed up as Santa, but then he gave it all back!)
December 7, 2009 at 1:51 am
I completely agree with Eric's review. This film came out while I was in college, and unfortunately I was recently forced to sit through it again. A friend of mine asked me over for a movie night... to my dismay, this was the movie (she found it in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart). I wish she had left it where she found it. I've always thought that this movie was so overrated and pretentious (as Mr. Man mentions in the post above). Within roughly the first five minutes of the film, I knew what was going to happen. "He really died when that engine fell through his room," was the initial thought that ran through my head. As the film continued, so did the predictability.
Almost every bit of dialogue seemed as if it was being glib just for the sake of being glib. On a positive note, I like a lot of the actors that are in this, but sadly, it just seems to me like the director couldn't decide on what direction he wanted to go in with the script. There are lots of good ideas, but they seem to be only fragments of good ideas that never actually lead anywhere. Hopefully I won't be forced to sit through this meandering drivel that passes itself off as "witty" and "clever" again. It was shot well, and the director has good taste in music... that's about all I can say for it (but to each their own).
February 28, 2010 at 8:10 pm
I sat through this with some friends who loved it and I decided that I didn't care to do it again. Having people who'd watched it five dozen times around was helpful, though, since they explained all the plot points I missed. (I missed a lot.)