User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 280 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 17 out of 280
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. KyleA.
    Mar 7, 2005
    0
    Smart and entertaining to anyone under the age of sixteen. If you've matured, see Blade Runner or Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys for a good, intelligent sci/fi movie. Bad acting, bad writing - doesn't deserve the cult classic status that it holds.
  2. Feb 27, 2013
    2
    trite, mundane, pretentious, hackneyed, sloppy, arrogant and dull......i never did understand the cult following this film has garnered. if ever the movie said anything to me, it said that writer richard kelly is way too in love with his own material (southland tales and the box being proof of this). there is nothing wrong with wanting to endeavor into your project like a child, nurturingtrite, mundane, pretentious, hackneyed, sloppy, arrogant and dull......i never did understand the cult following this film has garnered. if ever the movie said anything to me, it said that writer richard kelly is way too in love with his own material (southland tales and the box being proof of this). there is nothing wrong with wanting to endeavor into your project like a child, nurturing it and loving it just as such. however, once a director reaches the state of "i don't care if it does make sense", you have then left your audience in the ditch and are now lost. there is an obvious disdain and further disconnect with kelly's audience, as the movie is only experienced in stylized sequences, complete with "plot twists" askew. oh, the plot twist. ever was there a more cheap though effective technique in fiction writing. this brings me to my next point. the story is so convoluted, there have been countless websites developed for the simple function of either identifying or deciphering the movies message, plot, theme and "code" like a child who recently discovered the usesfullness of a Marvel styled decoder ring. only whence identifying these modes (or theorizing them, as there really is all you can do with this film), the former just seems so wishy washy in the end, you'd just as soon begin thinking of this film as a classic because if it doesn't make sense, it must be cool, right? Kelly has no business directing, as there is only a subtle hint of character in every one of these one or two layered protagonists. Richard Kelly really is the Omar Rodriguez of film and i see no other reason to praise him, save for the fact that he knows the Gyllenhaals? i assure you, rich.....your farts smell the same way as mine, and as your movie. **1 out of 5 stars** Collapse
  3. MichaelS.
    Sep 8, 2005
    2
    If you people consider this a "good science fiction movie" then you clearly have never been exposed to good SF before, this movie is crap, I cannot even recommend it for its camp value it is so bad. This is merely the attempt of Richard Kelly to seem profound when he is merely ridiculous and tedious. Please people, go read some good SF like the work of Philip K. Dick or see a good SF If you people consider this a "good science fiction movie" then you clearly have never been exposed to good SF before, this movie is crap, I cannot even recommend it for its camp value it is so bad. This is merely the attempt of Richard Kelly to seem profound when he is merely ridiculous and tedious. Please people, go read some good SF like the work of Philip K. Dick or see a good SF movie like Tarkovsky's 1972 film "Solaris" or Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Expand
  4. ShannonP.
    Aug 5, 2007
    4
    The good parts of this film are (highly) derivative, while the "original" parts fall flat. There are a few funny lines, and many tiresome scenes. It feels like the writer/director realized he was working on a "Heathers" redux, and added the whole time travel theme to make it "original." Whether that theme makes sense hardly matters--its a crushing, self-indulgent bore.
  5. nicolew.
    Aug 20, 2007
    3
    The good parts of this movie, black comedy about suburbia, remind me a LOT of Heathers. The "original" parts of the movie, based on some idea of time travel, are tedious. Cutting this theme back in the original film made it at least seem a little mysterious. The directors cut makes that theme more literal , silly, bloated, and self-indulgent. Anyone who assets they found some deep and The good parts of this movie, black comedy about suburbia, remind me a LOT of Heathers. The "original" parts of the movie, based on some idea of time travel, are tedious. Cutting this theme back in the original film made it at least seem a little mysterious. The directors cut makes that theme more literal , silly, bloated, and self-indulgent. Anyone who assets they found some deep and original meaning here is fooling you and/or themselves. Expand
  6. roberth.
    Apr 3, 2005
    4
    The most amazing thing about donnie darko is how much praise it has received from both critics and viewers alike considering how really average it is. it's hard for me to believe that film viewers are so easily pleased with such artless photography, a thoughless clumsy narrative and a little lame humor. but i'm glad i saw it after hearing it mentioned so many times by friends. The most amazing thing about donnie darko is how much praise it has received from both critics and viewers alike considering how really average it is. it's hard for me to believe that film viewers are so easily pleased with such artless photography, a thoughless clumsy narrative and a little lame humor. but i'm glad i saw it after hearing it mentioned so many times by friends. now i know i walk among the living dead. Expand
  7. WayneH.
    Jun 16, 2008
    2
    Did I miss something?
  8. chrism
    May 14, 2009
    1
    Not a good movie, once more the wooly rabbit suit is pulled over our eyes.
  9. TyS
    Feb 17, 2005
    4
    Kiddie sci-fi at it's worst . Never entertaining yet entertainingly dull.
  10. Tim
    Mar 31, 2005
    4
    Hey, I'll admit, I loved the original which I saw in the theater in 2001. But the Director's Cut is terrible. It reveals how uninteresting the plot really is (something hidden by the less explained original). And the new special effects and sound are terrible.
Metascore
88

Universal acclaim - based on 15 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 15
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 15
  3. Negative: 0 out of 15
  1. With 20 additional minutes of screen time, the director's cut of Richard Kelly's genre-splicing "Donnie Darko" offers new viewers a second chance to discover his mind-bending masterwork.
  2. Immensely moving and strikingly original, Kelly's story of a brilliant, disturbed teen (Jake Gyllenhaal) drowning in the cultural morass of the 1980s now feels bloated.
  3. 100
    Obsessives will be familiar with the "new" material (almost all available on the original DVD), which elaborates on the time-travel metaphysics and tightens the emotional screws. Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaal) shares one additional tender exchange with each family member