Rating: 
Summary: SICK - STUPID - PORN !
Review: Can THIS FILM GET A RATING OF MINUS 5 STARS? cause it deserves it! I watched this film as it was soooo highly rated! What a joke! This movie was a way for men to keep a little porn around the house and callin' it an "artistic masterpiece". If I wanted to watch porn---I'd rent one!...I dont care if its producers wanted it RAW, we arent so stupid we have to be literally shown EVERYTHING. WE GOT THE POINT without it. And if you like happy endings...... skip this flick.....This is more like an educational say no to drugs film than a masterpiece meant to entertain---and isnt that why we watch movies? To be entertained and be removed from the headaches of daily life? This is NOT IT!
Rating: 
Summary: no story -- yet much that is great
Review: basically it's just a "scared straight" downhill spiral nightmare about the evils of drug addiction, pumped up with great performances and hyperkinetic editing. based on a hubert selby jr novel, but that's not a recommendation [none of his books are any good except "last exit to brooklyn"]. but the acting is mostly GREAT and it certainly makes a strong impression... the sort of film you'll end up mentioning to your friends.
Rating: 
Summary: A Masterpiece, enough said.
Review: To the person who wrote about the edited version, the Director's Cut is the NC-17 version. It may say rated R but this is the version [Director's Cut] with ALL of the available explicit scenes that person was talking about. This movie is definitely for someone wanting a movie worth "thinking over" after watched. This is not a light movie but is an excellent depiction of an addict in various forms. If you wish to look directly into addiction's eyes, this will give you a VERY close glance. Watch the Director's Cut, you will NOT be disappointed!
Rating:
Summary: astounding....enough said....
Review: Few movies leave one actually thinking afterwards, this is what makes this movie stand out, aside from the fact that it refuses to censor the dreary underground world of a junkie. To add to this film's morbid appeal, is a cast that breathes life into the desperate characters-and makes them real to the audience. To tie it all together are fantastic film techniques, and a haunting musical score. What else is there to say? This film is not for the squeamish, but for those with open minds and a taste for innovative films. Kudos to you Aronofsky.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Anti-Drug Film Ever Made!
Review: And hands down the best film of 2001. Many GREAT films, and "Requiem....." is without a doubt one, are tragedies and viewing them a second time is for some of us not an option. I do agree with the one editorial that this is grim stuff and not easy to sit through. But well worth it all the same. Aronofsky, after the success of "Pi", a film I found much more impressive than enjoyable, actually has a cast to work with this time. The acting in "Pi" was sub-par, one of the things I didn't like about the film. However, "Requiem....." has Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, & Shawn Wayans giving what will surely be the very best performances of their respective careers. Burstyn I've never seen better and her losing the Oscar to Julia Roberts underscores once again how much of a popularity contest those awards are. Bustyn plays Sara Goldfarb, an aging widow starved for companionship and feeling cut-off from her only child, Jared Leto. Her loneliness finds her addicted to television. She fills out an application to be a guest on an infomercial-ish type show and then waits for the call. A call she will never get. In the meantime, in order to look her best on the tube she begins dieting. One scary aspect of the film is how easy it is for her to obtain what is basically speed from her apathetic physician. Before you know it, poor Sara Goldfarb is a total speed freak. At the same time, her son & his girlfriend along with the sons best friend, descend into harrowing addictions to heroin. In this superb film all of the characters are three-dimensional....they live & breathe. The film also makes the obvious but no less impactful statement that drug addiction cuts across all boundaries of the economic stratum. You will not soon forget some of the images of the characters going through withdrawal. Aronofsky is relentless during this part of the film and I think the editorial that describes the film as "a relentless sensory assault" cannot be any more perfect a description. There are two harrowing scenes with Jennifer Connelly's character showing where her addiction has taken her. I think it's important to mention that there is some comic relief in the form of Goldfarbs neighborhood friends.(it was especially nice to see Louise Lasser again) And Thank God for the humor or else I don't know if I could take it. If Aronofsky's "Pi" had some of the off-hand humor of "Requiem...." it may have been more successful. So if your tastes lean more toward challenging, thought-provoking outside-the-mainstream fare, and you aren't especially squeamish "Requiem....." is a viewing experience you won't soon forget. Like I said, this is powerful stuff and I wouldn't suggest viewing it alone. I did and found it hard to shake the disturbing images and depressing outcome for all of the characters. As a matter of fact, as I write this I can still see Burstyn's Goldfarb going through her withdrawals. Creepy. Lastly, if you decide you want to view this film do yourself a favor and be sure to rent the directors cut. The impact of a film this powerful can only be diluted by cutting and censoring.
Rating:
Summary: More shock value than art
Review: This film may serve as an excellent warning as to why people shouldn't abuse drugs, but overall it is a terrible film. The characters are unsympathetic, with the exception of the mother (portrayed by Ellen Burstyn). Even more tragic than her unintentionally becoming a drug addict is that she is used as a comic relief. Her drug-induced hallucinations are cast as "funny" through most of the film. Of course, this might've been an attempt to "shock" the viewers into the seriousness of her situation, but it plays out as outright insensitivity. The successes of the other YOUNG characters, who bring their misfortunes and downfall on themselves, are glamorized. They have beautiful love scenes during the "good" part of their drug use cycles. The elderly lady? She thinks she is on TV and is afraid of her refrigerator. She is the only character who truly is likeable, yet she is the [center] of the joke. More offensive than the mother being used as a figure of ridicule is what happens to her ultimately. Shock therapy? That's not a standard treatment for a psychiatric patients. Doctors ask about what medications patients take and wean them off drugs creating delusions, not trick them into signing consent forms. This is not a remotely accurate portrayal of how medicine operates on a daily basis. Moving into cinematography, the camera tricks become tiresome after constant repetition. Do we really need to see everyone's iris dilate every time they snack crack? Do we need to the first-person perspective if someone is just walking into a store? After awhile, it's boring. Despite these flaws, the film was watchable until the section with winter. (Note that they only portrayed 3 seasons, which kept you waiting for the 4th. Very annoying.) The film previously glamorized the young people to some extent, but then started showing their gradual reversal of fortune. Then, we suddenly are launched into outright sensationalization of the horrible things happening to them. Jared Leto's character develops sepsis in his arm. Why didn't he go to the doctor earlier? It wasn't as if he indicated that he didn't want to go to the hospital because he was afraid of being arrested. He simply didn't go, even when it began to turn black. It makes no sense, unless your a director who wishes to include some disgusting shots of the worsening wound. Also, do we need to see Marion using the [...]with another woman? It was quite obvious already that she'd do anything for money. The end result was that I felt the director wanted to make me nauseous, not that he had a good reason for portraying these characters in such dire circumstances.
Rating: 
Summary: 2 stars for the following:
Review: 1. The truly horrifying, and honest, performance of Ellen Burstyn. She turned out to be the only reason I kept watching the film. (I wonder if the phone call and application form she recieved was a prank. Could that be possible...?)
2. The use of the "snorricam" when Wayans is running from the cops, all bloody-faced. Now THAT was scary.
3. Those intoxicating movie effects: fish-eye lenses, machine gun editing, microphotography, etc. Besides those three things, there isn't much here that hasn't been said in a more tasteful way. Unfortunatly, it becomes more exploitive rather than exhilarating. A disgusting ending that leaves more garbage in your head than you need. Oh, and by the way, if just by chance Aronofsky reads this:
You really miscasted the talent you had in "Pi" for this movie.
Could you have had Sean Gullette play in a more dumb role?
Oh yeah, and that so-called "commentary track" is uneven and boring. No consistancy at all, and frankly doesn't answer alot of questions to the story.
Rating:
Summary: A Seriously Disturbing Work of Cinematographic Art.
Review: This is a seriously disturbing work of cinematographic art. Art--and disturbing--on many levels: the techniques of the filming are radical and produce extremely disturbing images. The soundtrack is intensely disturbing. Most of all, the situations of the characters portrayed are extremely horrible, featuring a hell's logic descent into the utter destruction of bodies, personalities, psychies, and lives. This is realism and naturalism on a cosmically morbid and grotesquely surrealistic scale. This film left me shocked for days--which really shows the power of art.
Rating:
Summary: I cannot recommend this movie more
Review: I don't just dole out 5-star reviews to anything that I think is simply "cool" or "awesome". When I say 5 stars, I mean it's an absolute work of out, incredible, and I cannot recommend it more to you, the viewer who has not yet seen this.
Regardless of your taste in films, regardless of whether this film would make you sick, it should still be required viewing.
Its the story of 4 drug addicting and their sickening plummit into anguish and darkness. And this movie will take you with the. Based on the brilliant novel by Hubert Selby JR, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM will stay with you forever, the memory of the agony it instills imprinted on your brain forever.
Never overwraught, splendidly acted, this is a near-perfect adaption of the novel, employing the latest and most effective tricks of the movie-medium to fill in for aspacts of the novel that cannot be expressed on the screen, to great effect. Beautifully disgusting, poignant, and above all, its still and ENTERTAINING film
Rating:
Summary: Not for the faint of heart...
Review: First off, this is an excellent movie. The editing and cinematography is brilliant, and the soundtrack batters away at your emotions right along with the music. The movie's point will hit you hard, whether you want it to or not. That aside, this movie is hell. To call it intense is the greatest understatement. The director creates for the audience four friends. We get to know them, we feel bad for them, we want for them to be happy and succeed. And then before our very eyes, he throws them into a hellish meat-grinder of emotional and physical destruction and violation, and drags the audience down right along with them. You will not forget the last 15 minutes. They will haunt your dreams. Just hearing the soundtrack at a few intense parts makes my stomach cringe with the memory. So be warned, this movie is not for the faint hearted. But despite this, it is a movie that everyone should see it at some point in their lives. And kids, don't do drugs.
| 
