Rating: 
Summary: The best American Film of 2000.
Review: Its a crime that this film didn't win best screenplay, best director, best picture, best actor, and best actress at this years Oscars.
Rating:
Summary: A very heavy, important film
Review: Words can hardly describe the experience of watching this powerful film. It's about different forms of addiction, and it pulls no punches in its depiction of the inevitable downward spiral of its four main characters. Not only should you see it for the message, but for its cinematic inventivness. Visually, I've never seen anything like it. The cinematography, sound, editing, music and visual FX are top-notch and will blow your mind. The acting honors here go to Ellen Burstyn, who gives an incredible performance as the poor, naiive Sarah Goldfarb. Watching her deterioration (both mentally and physically) is heart-wrenching. Burstyn gets great support from the rest of the cast as well, particularly Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly. Also, those familiar with Marlon Wayans' comedy roles will be very surprised with his subtle, convincing portrayal of enterprising heroin addict Tyrone. Director Darren Aronofsky has created one of the best films of the new century; I can't wait to see what he does next. The last 20 minutes of this wonderful, haunting film will leave you breathless. A must-see.
Rating:
Summary: Julia should not have won the Oscar!
Review: This is the one of the most unique and harrowing films that I have seen in some time. Definately not for everyone, but I was riveted and the last 10 minutes is a roller coaster ride you won't soon forget. It covers the various drug addictions of 4 people (I won't go into too much plot detail because it is covered here in other reviews) and is filmed with a creative vision rarely seen in films today. Employing various digital techniques and outstanding sound, the film works as an assault on our senses with the story unraveling before us in a staccato rhythm of quick cut scenes. Ellen Burstyn, as a widow addicted to diet pills, gives the performance of a lifetime and this truly shows that the Oscars are just a popularity poll. How she could have lost to Julia Roberts' Erin Brocovich is a shame because Ms. Burstyn is in a league of her own here. An extraordinary performance and film, one that linger with you for quite some time.
Rating: 
Summary: Very, very disappointed.
Review: I bought the DVD the day it came out - the unrated version, of course - I hate censors having their way with creativity. What I saw didn't disturb me in the least - I was far more disturbed by "Taxi Driver" - it had the raw edge and unpredictability of an ultra-volatile character. Another film I'd very highly recommend for fans of Taxi Driver is "HENRY: Portrait of a Serial Killer". Don't waste your time and money on Part-II, just get Part-I by John McNaughton and Richard Fire, and starring Michael Rooker and Tom Knowles.Getting back to Requiem..., I think it was meek and insipid. The only thing that impressed me about the film was the hip-hop collage of sounds and images; inspired sounds of injections, cells expanding, eyes dilating, and a totally unexpected scene of gang war. Jennifer Connelly shines, and Burnstyn is great; their performances being in total sync with their characters. However, Jared Leto was too clean-shaven and nice-looking to have been a solid drug addict that he was portrayed. The much talked about "Requiem" scene was not graphic or brutal at all! It was a pathetic scene, one written just to create controversy, and need not have been in the movie at all. It was done very distastefully, and was empty beyond the initial five seconds of shock-value. In fact the movie is not emotionally draining; it's exhausting mentally only because of the suffering of Ellen's character. While I'd recommend the movie to people that like shock tactics, I'd definitely ask the genuine movie lover to stay a hundred miles away from this piece of inspired mediocrity. One more thing; most critics seemed to suggest that this film was about the "systematic destruction of hope" - far from it! Even though the things that happen to the main characters in the end, may seem to suggest the "systematic destruction of hope", they don't. After spending $$$... to see the exposure of the way drug abuse affects people (in a brutal, bizarre manner), I realized that this film only preaches taking the high moral ground, and does not bring down anything to earth. I made a mistake buying the DVD; I certainly hope the reader doesn't.
Rating: 
Summary: THE GREATEST WORK OF ART IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD
Review: Superlative, superlative, superlative after cliched superlative! This is, without a doubt, the single, solitary greatest, most divine, concretely meaningful event in the whole of the narrative of time! The entire 15-20 billion year history of the world has been leading to THIS MOMENT, THIS FILM! Mankind has been worthless and any and all works of art, nay, ANY ACTIONS BY ANY SPECIES ANYWHERE, EVER, have been utterly useless and futile compared to this film! This is it, the messiah of Judaism, the second coming of Christianity, the S.M.I^2.L.E. of Timothy Leary, ALL ROLLED INTO ONE! This film is, simply, ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE! No single person, group of people, action, event, idea, community, nation, belief system, galaxy, supercluster, or inflationary big bang deserves our collective human admiration and worship as much as Darren Aronofsky! KANE is worthless! POTEMKIN is child's play! RAGING BULL is trivial! 2001 is trite and predictable! The Sistine Chapel is boring! The lighthouse at Alexandria was structurally unsound and its quality was nought! Matisse was a hack! Representative democracy is a meaningless exercise! NOTHING, ANYWHERE, EVER, ANYTIME, ANYPLACE, CAN EVER POSSIBLY BE MEANINGFUL EVER AGAIN, NOW THAT REQUIEM FOR A DREAM IS EXTANT! IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE PINNACLE OF CIVILIZATION. PERIOD. ARONOFSKY, PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON, AND TODD SOLONDZ ARE THE GREATEST ARTISTS AND, FRANKLY, HUMANS THAT HAVE EVER LIVED, BUT ARONOFSKY DWARVES THEM ALL! Your existence is comical and worthless UNLESS YOU BUY THIS DVD AND SUBMIT TO ITS LITERAL UBIQUITOUS AUTHORITY.
Rating:
Summary: Requiem for a Lifestyle
Review: As can be seen from the heated commentary copied here regarding the DVD version, this movie is guaranteed to evoke a passionate response from even the most jaded of moviegoers. This in essence is the movie that TRAFFIC should have been. Stylishly filmed, well written and superbly acted the film successfully takes the viewer into the addled lifestyle of substance abusers, chronicles the pitfalls and burnouts unsparingly and avoids cliche sentimentality. The characters are compelling and well written (and acted)and are most notable for their unsparing ambivilance for the welfare of themselves and others. As someone who works among addicts and abusers I immediately recognized the self-centred, self-deluding attitude in these characters that is the sine qua non of the junkies existence. Cinematically the movie is also breathtaking with its accelerated pace, thematic montages and its unsparing accuracy. Certainly not a movie for kids to watch without their parents; properly viewed this movie could be a very strong learning tool for those who find thereselves lured by drugs (of any kind). Furthermore the movie is a stunning condemnation of modern society's preoccupation with "having it all now"..a promise that drugs (and the drug pushers)seem to offer to the unwary. Everyone in this movie is looking for the quick fix - money, fame, power, and all seek it through drugs, with devastating results. There is no doubt that this is an entertaining, compelling and sobering film and I heartily recommend it. There is just one point that troubles me. Like its more milque-toast compatriot TRAFFIC this movie uses the example of a white woman having sex with a black man to mark the ultimate decline of the character. Now its clear that the act itself is centred around drugs, but the use of the ...black drug dealer as the emodiment of her demise is a little trite. It would have made it a stronger and more balanced film if the drug dealer had been white. The message would then be clear that it is the act and not who she does it with that marks her demise. Watch it yourself and see what I mean, but by all means watch it.
Rating:
Summary: Welcome to real cinema
Review: The first thing to say is that "Requiem for a dream" is not a movie for everyone. In fact, it is a movie that would only please a minority. People might find it gross, brutal, and too disturbing; that's ok, although I consider it a work of art. Because this is art, to make something new, original, using new ideas, new methods. And that's what Darren Aronofski has done, reaching the status of one of the most controversial and intesresting directors in the cinema industry. And his biggest achievement is that he's made a movie of emotions, something we miss in most of the cinema made today. We feel this movie, we feel its characters and their addictions, and that's exactly what I'm looking for in films. I don't want movies that makes me feel the same way before and after watching it. I don't want superficial stuff that serves as a superficial entertainment for the millions of people who goes to the movies to see the same formula every time. How can that be fun? How can it be an entertainment? This movie is for the "other audience", for the ones who like to be involved with what their watching, with the ones who like watching something new and original, for the ones who are looking for breathtaking emotions. Other thing to say about "Requiem for a dream" is that it's not just an entertainment: it's almost an experiment. An analysis of the conflict between humans and reality, and how our desperation for getting out of the real life and reach our dreams can become the worst nightmare. Aronofski does an excellent, absolutely brilliant job, converting his film in a drug itself. Although it can be highly disturbing, we are somehow addicted to what we are seeing; the director has created the perfect atmosphere for what he's telling; his use of the camera and technology increases the intensity of the images to unexpected levels, putting us right in the middle of the paranoia, a fictitious atmosphere in which there's no space, no time, and no way out. To end, the acting. All of them are just amazing; Marlon Wayans is faithful to his character, giving a convincing performance as Jared Leto's best friend. Jennifer Connelly just blew my mind. She puts all the talent she has (which is a lot) to create a difficult character. Leto is excellent in a complicated performance that goes far beyond any other role he's ever played. And Ellen Burstyn does something in this movie I've probably never seen in any other actor or actress before. She puts body, heart and soul to make a performance that achieves the highest levels of perfection. Her bravery to hold this risky role as she did has to be recognized at every moment. There's no need to say she deserved the Oscar, although it doesn't bother me that much, the Academy Awards will always be a fake. To conclude, this movie is an astonishing, marvelous masterpiece that should be seen by the people who looks for "something else" in movies. Welcome the the pure essence of cinema!
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting, but sometimes more artsy than entertaining
Review: Overall I say this is a good flick. It has a very original feel to it and it will keep your interest throughout the whole movie, with a few neat surprises but sometimes I feel this movie is just a tad overrated when I read other people's opinions. It goes without question that its a 4 star movie, maybe 4.5 but 5 is pushing it. I saw the edited version but I didn't know it was edited (I rented it) until I turned it on, and now I wished I had seen the unedited version. As I mentioned in the subject it does get a little artsy at times, especially when it comes to not actually showing anyone take drugs (except for the guy's mother). Instead they use a quick 5sec piece of random drug related images in double speed to respresent when they take drugs so the fact that they are borderline junkies is assumed but not actually fortified visually.
Rating:
Summary: Aronofsky is beginning to make a name for himself
Review: Darren Aronofsky burst onto the film scene with his obscure film Pi. I enjoyed Pi a lot, but it was really his training ground for this film, Requiem for a Dream. This is a very well made anti-drug movie. The message felt very similar to the personal side of Traffic. I think Aronofsky got shafted since this film got released the same time Traffic did, and thus got mainly overlooked because it dealt with the same topics. Requiem looks at addiction in a much more stylized manner, using a lot of the same techniques Aronofsky used in Pi. Things like the Rozzi-cam, a rig attached to the front of the actor to give you a real subjective feel, and the hip hop montages, cutting certain actions in a similar manner of montage, made their way from Pi and fit very well into this fairly quick paced film. .... I rented the edited version which has nothing on it and corrupts Aronofsky's original vision of what the film should be.
Rating:
Summary: Why Requiem For A Dream is so damn disturbing.......
Review: ......in my own humble opinion. Requiem For A Dream on the surface is not disturbing. It's intense and certainly shocking, but it doesn't get disturbing until you peel back the layers. Darren Aronofsky, along with David Fincher, is a director who is very aware of the material he creates his films from. The novel that this movie is based on is not about drug addicts. Let me repeat that, it is NOT about drug addicts. It is not Trainspotting. Requiem For A Dream tells you what it's about in its title. Dreams. Dreams that every single one of us have. Some of us achieve them. Some of us let them fall by the wayside and settle for something else. Then there are those of us, that are so obsessed, so ADDICTED, to our dreams, that we are in danger of destroying all the good things around us that we've created in our lives while in pursuit of this one solitary single goal. In Requiem, Harry, Tyrone, and Marion want to have the good life. They want money and success. They want to get there as soon as possible. They take short cuts to get there because the goal is taking way too long. So, what's the difference between you and them? That they shoot heroin? Are any of us addicted to cigarettes? To caffeine? To sex? To shopping, even? Anything can be a crippling addiction, anything can stand in the way of pursuing your dream without even you realizing it. You, yourself, could be standing in the way of your dream, and you might not even realize it. Sara Goldfarb wants to be thin so she can be on television. There are so many people who hate the way they look and will do anything to get the body or the face they want. Many do not have the patience or endurance for exercise. For many, exercise may not work, so they look for other methods. Sara Goldfarb is your neighbor, she's your mom, your sister, the woman who served you your coffee at your local coffee shop today. People are too quick to write this movie off, even those that love it, as a "drug" movie. It's not. It's a cautionary tale about letting your dreams destroy your life. In particular, the "American dream" that's advertised day and night to us. Selby understands this. Aronofsky understands this. Many don't. Not even Amazon.com understands it (read their review of this film. Especially their "Is there anything in this film that any sane person doesn't already know?" line.) It's only after you see the movie, and especially when you read the book, and when you peel away the shock effect layers of the work in your brain days, weeks, months after you see or read it, and realize that what happens to every character in "Requiem For A Dream" could very easily happen to you. All it can take is one wrong decision, like Sara's use of diet pills, or a belief that you can "beat the system" without recognizing your own weaknesses, like Harry, Tyrone, and Marion, to have you spiraling downward. It's that easy. It can happen to any one of us. That's why it's disturbing.
|
