This weekend. Maybe even Friday night. At the latest Saturday. Several people suggested I see this, so thanks to you all, I'm finally motivated.

When it first came out, I was shocked at its fairly large reception. Tchnically, it sounds like a movie about perscription drug addiction. But apparently, its so much richer than that?

Its an amazing movie,kids who think drugs are cool should see this film,it will scare them shitless.
Are you seeing the rated or unrated version?

I didn't expect much at all from this film, but it's pretty disturbing and wild.

Make sure you get the unrated. Its the only edition I've seen, so I can't say how much will be removed from the Rated cut. It might also be labeled NC17.

As for the film, I watched it again the other night on IFC. I wasn't nearly as disturbed as I was the first time I saw it, but the score, visuals, and performances *still* managed to do more than impress me. If anything, I think you'll always remember this experience.

ive never seen this one!, i might rent it....

It wasn't THAT great

Its one of my favorites.

I would be sort of surprised if you love it, though. (our opinions rarely match, I believe. )

Agreed.

It isn't that she won't in love with it - its hard to love a bastard.... she'll probably find it too much of an overstatement. It is to "drug" movies (is that a category? lol) as Charlie's Angels is to action fluff. The score is one of the best ever, the actresses here are top notch, and the cinematography is pretty fabulous. For that alone, I'm sure she'll at least appreciate it as being unique.

Then again, she could fall madly in love with it.

Nifty website.

http://www.requiemforadream.com/

I was only able to catch the ending on IFC, and I was even more disturbed. The ending sequence felt more like a blur the first time I watched it, but this time I saw everything more clearly.

Its quite horrific.

[spoil]The part where Burstyn is being subjected to shock treatments, her son loses his arm, and of course Jennifer Connelly at the party and absolutely shocking and devastating. The track playing is called "Fear" I believe.....

Some of the best parts from the end include when Burstyn is running on the snow-covered walk in her red dress and when she is visited by her friends. Wow. [/spoil]

I just listened to "Lux Aeterna", which is the part of the score everyone knows from this movie.

To this day, this remains one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. Anyone who has ever tried drugs, continues to do drugs, or has even thought about drugs, should be forced to watch it.

I found it quite disturbing and extremely well directed. The acting and the score still impress me.

This, however, doesn't seem like a film Dolce would love. Could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like the dolce type. I'm glad you're checking it out though dolce.

PEACE, Mike.

Goodness. It's Pi II with a deeper moral mssage!

I'm not sure thats a good thing?

I liked Pi but was unimpressed with Requiem for a Dream...

I'm the opposite.

Well, it's neither good nor bad. Arnofsky just has a very particular style, and he established it in Pi. He really didn't do anything technically new in Requiem. I didn't mind it though. I just felt like I'd seen it before. To be specific, in Pi. He also has a way, which he did in both, of letting all his tricks out of the bag too early. It makes his movies slightly monotone, and by the first hour, I was checking the remaining running time, often.

He doesn't quite know how to "build" the intensity of the envirnment to compliment his story line. Its pretty hard to make a movie about people descending into drug hell that starts out more engaging than it ends. But that's kind of what happens. Perhaps because the end is predictable and over the top, rather than, say each of the four characters having different trajectories. You know where its heading, for everyone, the entire time. Thats ok sometimes, however, because it allows one to leisurely take in the style and evironment. That's why I was still very engaged in Pi, but not as much here.

This is better "storytelling" than Pi, and had I seen them in reverse order I might have been more into Requiem. But as it stood the drug montage scene with the diluting eye pupils began getitng stale the 20th time I saw it. He should have introduced it, tops, three times in the first half of the movie, and left that vehicle for the crescendo at the end. Instead, he's exhausted it by the end, and has to jump back and forth between each members ultimate pain (the amputation, sexual performance, electric shock, and jail) instead.

All of this is still me being very critical. I didn't dislike the movie, and I'm glad it illuminated on every compulsive habit from coffee and sugar to heroin. But it feels like the kind of movie that is more interesting to just watch a segment and think about, than to sit through it from minute 1 to minute 100.

I enjoyed Burstyn's storyline the most. I know everyone said they were upset by her final scene, but that didn't resonate with me nearly as much as whn she first admits how lonely she is when her son asks whats the big deal about appearing on television. That was the most poignant part of the film for me. It was perfect and had much more emotional resonance than, say anything Connelly did at any time. I have to admit, I have not really enjoyed Jennifer in any move I have seen her in over the past few years. It was also nice to see Wayans doing non-slap-stick acting. He's actually not bad.

it'll be on my soon to rent list.....soon. ^_^

I think Requiem's monotonous tone is one of its biggest strengths. The score beating to the same low beats (which seem to get just a bit faster and faster until the the climax, where everything literally falls apart on screen), the recurring use of the dilated pupil, the repetition during the drug selling scene, etc is tiring, frustrating, and grating. Thats what makes Requiem so unique and quite masterful- its an exaggerated overstatement, and a successful one that is quite engaging. I was disgusted, shocked, frightened, and even annoyed at the same time; its that monotony that makes the movie so enthralling and moving.



This I sort of agree with; Aronofsky does have trouble building any sort of intensity. Then again, it *fits* this movie. The characters seem so much more interesting at the start of the picture, and descend into this irrational, inhumane world of drug hell where they loose any identity. They became stale slaves to addication and lose any of that individuality.



Again, I think thats how he wants you to feel by the end. Exhausted, disturbed, and discouraged.




Burstyn's bit was definitely the most interesting. I feel her storyline could have been expanded a bit more to flesh her out. Instead, we're left only with the bit about her dreaming about the perfect family. She could have been a bit more interesting. The scene with Leto's character, right after she begins using the weight loss medicine, is essential to the success of the ending, where she is essentially a vegetable. The two go hand in hand and are pretty much the highlight (with the sequence with the amputation, prostitution, prison, and shock therapy being pretty forceful)

You mention the score. It was very good. I used to not notice scores at all, and now I find myself more sensetive to the match. Can tell when a score is not working with the image. You're right, it worked quite well here.

I would say the monotone was its strength if I'd felt that was Aronofsky's ambition. But the way in which he builds (or should I say, drops) each character simultaneously, he's clearly intending for an emotional climax at the end. It didn't come from me. I think the style and that desire of his to have a climactic finale (where everyone has hit rock-bottom) are at odds with eachother. It would have been perfectly matched, if, say, they kind of all just kept trudging along at a half-assed life pace; sometimes compromising an ideal here and there for drugs, sometimes not being conscious of their addictions, other times being fully conscious of it, but just kind of continueing on. That would have been much more traumatic for me, actually. Especially as far as Burstyn is concerned. If she just kind of "kept going" without being fully aware of her addiction. If she just went years and years needing them to help her sleep, help her eat, etc. That would have matched his monotone style perfectly.



I agree, I just think he should have focussed on how lost they were, instead of trying to make this uber-emotional ending. I was much more upset by all the small scenes in the movie than I was the "big ending." Like I said, when Burstyn says she's alone, even in the beginning when Leto is trying to take the tv, and she won't report him to the police. I liked Connelly when she was kind of just confused about starting a clothing line, but couldn't get her motivation or act together enough to go through with it. I think as far as Wayans was, when he was excited about his new sliding mirrors, but just remembers his mom saying she really didn't care if he ever had money and extravagence as long as he was a loving and caring peron, etc.



Perhaps, but there's a difference with being discouraged by the film rather than by its contents.

Honestly, I like Aronofsky, at least hes trying to do something different. And I'd prefer someone who aims a little higher and falls short because he loses hiimself in the process and material, than someone who is already predisposed to one generic style and can just whip out generic mass-appeal work. I wasn't turned off by it.

I know everyone says I have a vendetta against "drug" movies, but what I actually mind is a movie, say, about a star where too much attention is paid to the drug use rather than all the other aspects of what made a man a celebrity. Aronofsky set out from the start to explore drup use, and there's no need to deviate from it then. So I thought it was interesting. All these criticsm are more for how I thought it could have been better, or how surprised I was that he managed to co-op his edgy new style from Pi and bring it into the mainstream by tieing it to the drug-use discourse.




Nah. More screentime for her and he wouldn't have known where to take the character. She said everything she needed to say. She was a lonely woman who coul easily get swept up into habits because she had nothiing else to tie herself down with. I think that's very true. I often think about hat it would be like to be truly alone. What she said about the fact that she made her bed and did the dishes every morning even though she didn' need to. Its very easy at that point to get swept up in just about anything. That why its well known elderly are targets of sweepstakes fraud, etc.