Donnie Darko is such a terrible movie. It's utterly lacking in craft and expertise. People like it because - despite claims - it's easy to comprehend and simplistic in moral, but it's plain bad.
I liked the movie, however it didn't need comprehension. If I was reviewing at the time this move came out, this is what I'd likely say: I thought the plot was simplistic and prayed on a naive thoughtless audience, it didn't explore any truly remarkable metaphysical ideas that hasn't been thought by teenagers watching too much TV with poorly defined goals.
Honestly, I don't think I'll ever need to see the movie again in my life because it didn't take a single iota of thought to connect the plot elements.
A movie is good based on certain various aspects. There's the directorial technique. There's the cinematography. There's plot, there's acting. Donnie Darko had almost nothing.
The plot is extremely basic. The only reason people call it deep and confusing is because the director was absolutely shitty. It was his first time ever with a camera, and so the guy had no sense of timing and placement. The cuts are awful: I'm not a huge film buff but they made me cringe. The writing is thoroughly terrible. Donnie is a Mary Sue: hot, people like him (or, the right people do), he's very smart. Look at how he cuts down that strawman presenter at the start of the movie! Never mind that the arguments he makes are extraordinarily basic, or that this is a supposed professional he's arguing against. When I was 14, I had these same fantasies as myself as somebody who could say basic stuff and get away with its seeming clever. The problem is, by the time I was 15 I'd realized the valuable lesson that people tend to be smarter than you assume at first, and that they can respond to dumb stuff like that.
Other people my age didn't get that lesson, and as a result became unpopular, developed lots of weird obsessions, and left school with fantasies of themselves as supersmart supermen. Richard Kelly, the director of this movie, absolutely seems like one of these people.
In an interview I saw of Kelly, he says that the movie's not at all deep or complex. In his mind it's a straightforward movie. That shows the utter incompetence of the guy. He wasn't out to make something complex, and he made the movie so poorly that people decided it had to be complex and brooding.
Look, for instance, at the movie's much-lauded connection with the Reagan era. Once you've been told it's there, yeah, it's obvious. Beyond that? It's not a consistent theme. There are two or three moments where it's over-the-top blatant in your face, and beyond that it's completely abandoned and ignored.
The fact that you can't understand the movie without reading an external web site is a flaw. If you make the movie well, the entire thing is internal and consistent.
Acting-wise: yech. Nobody does a good job. It must have been because of the directing intent, because Jake Gyllenhall is a good actor when he's with a good director. In this he had about one tone of voice overall.
A good friend of mine who's a film buff once said of Donnie Darko and Moulin Rouge: they're the two tests of what kind of a movie person you are. If you like them, you're saying that you're willing to ignore a lot of flaws in a movie's conception for the sake of its glitzier sides. I agree with that statement, particularly about Donnie Darko.
