This is topic Requiem Foe A Dream in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000087
Posted by timothy johnson (Member # 83) on 11-24-2000, 05:21 PM:
Requiem Foe A Dream is the best film of the year so far, this is a deep and disturbing film about addiction and lonliness, Ellen Burstyn's performance is OSCAR calliber. If you like serious cutting edge filmmaking in the style of A Clock Work Orange and Trainspotting, then this film is for you. I saw it twice in West Hollywood and came back home and saw it again, and could still see it once more in the theater. Darren Aronofsky (director of Pie)is a filmmaker to be watched...
Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 11-29-2000, 03:03 AM:
Tonight I watched it. There were about thirty people in the audience. I would bet that right now at five in the am I am the first person who actually can complete one sentence of thought. I would recommend every one to see it and yet at the same time no one to see it. It is the most vile and upseting movie I have ever seen- yet I feel lucky to actually have a theater around town that has the gaull to actually show an nc-17 movie. Especially for the simple fact that it's rating has nothing to do with overly graphic (to a point) scenes. Every one should see this movie. yet at the same time I hope to god no one else does. And that is all I have to say.
Posted by Phil Connolly (Member # 465) on 02-23-2001, 04:54 AM:
A Movie which defies comment, nothing I can say about it matters. Go and see it!! It's disturbing, but I'm happy that filmakers sometimes produce work of this callibe.
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 02-23-2001, 07:57 AM:
I can't agree more with you Sean. I really liked the film, even more as time passes, but it is very hard to watch. It is quite disturbing and upsetting, but quite fantastic. I've seen few films that have produced such polarixed reactions. People either seem to hate it ir really like it. Perhaps those of us that really like it are just a bit disturbed. 
Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-25-2001, 12:12 AM:
dont mean to picky, tim, but its called requiem FOR a dream, and "pie" is actually spelled pi since there is no key for the symbol.im sure those were just typos, but i just wanted to clear that up.
also, sean, where did you see the film where they labeled it nc-17?
it was actually released unrated to avoid that.
was it a major chain?
i know that kids (another disturbing film that should be seen) was unrated, but when one of our amc theatres in houston played it, they labeled it nc-17 also.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-27-2001, 06:37 AM:
I finally saw this last night. Wow. Definitely the best film that I've seen that was released last year. I liked Pi, but this just blows it away. I'm not sure what else to say here, other than "go see this!" I can't say that it's an "enjoyable" film to watch (it isn't), but, like "The War Zone," it is exceptionally powerful and a must-see.
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 06-10-2001, 12:11 AM:
OMG! What a film! I saw this on DVD the other night and I'm simply blown away by the overall cinematography and story line. Such things that are happening around us ALL right now, that are overlooked, like the fact that the doctor never even bothered to examine Burstyn. He simply gave her an Rx and that was that. How many times does this happen in reality? I've had it happend to me even!
The film shows, in a very different way, the effects of addiction(s) on individuals. Very powerful stuff in this film. I'd consider this a must see in my book! I'm glad I have a real film buff working for me now, otherwise I probably would have never seen this film!
This film, and others with the same calibre of acting/directing are what *I* consider OSCAR worthy, not the run of the mill films churned out by Hollywood these days!
Your milage may vary,
------------------
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 06-10-2001, 05:38 AM:
For those that are interested,Darren Aronofsky has been named the director to tackle the next Batman film by Warner Brothers. Should be interesting...
------------------
Chris Duvall
General Manager
Regal Cinemas Colonnade14
Las Vegas, NV
Posted by Matt Elzie (Member # 877) on 06-10-2001, 05:47 AM:
Darren Aronofsky is a truly talented director, which is somewhat of a rarity in Hollywood. Watching Requiem For a Dream is like getting kicked in the teeth, but somehow Aronofsky manages to make that a good thing. This takes true skill. He also gets a great performance out of Marlon Wayans, which is a miracle as well. Requiem For a Dream defies the "drug movie" genre, and creates an entirely different animal. Watch for many newcomers to begin ripping off his style. The fact that Aronofsky rejected the MPAA shows true intelligence and artistic integrity. In my opinion the MPAA is an outdated and (in it's current state) useless system for rating films.
I've heard that Aronofsky has been tapped to direct (and possibly write) the upcoming Batman: Year One. Some people are already calling him a sellout, but I disagree. I think that he could breathe new life and energy into the bloated and pathetic studio franchise that the Batman movies have come to represent. I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by JC Cowles (Member # 914) on 07-01-2001, 03:51 AM:
I love this movie. I wish I had run down to the local arthouse when it was playing there and seen it, but I saw it for the first time on DVD. Typically with limited release films such as this I expect a compelling storyline with little visual and acoustic flare. RFOD had it all. I first started taking note of Ellen Burstyn's career when I saw her in Spitfire Grill. You can't take your eyes off her, even in her worst moments.
The cinematography and editing in this movie were excellent. Visually stunning. It reminded me a bit of Doug Liman's "Go". The editing gave the movie good pace in a story that could otherwise be long drawn-out and campy.
Aurally, I found it to be very engrossing. Of course, a lot of movies that end up in arthouses don't get to mix at Skywalker Ranch. Dolby Digital 5.1 indeed! The surround channels really play an active role in this movie.
The story was depressing. But it didn't make me sad...it simply intrigued me into finding out how the characters would deal with their situations. I applaud Aronofsky and the crew for making a spectacular movie and finding the perfect balance of things like storyline, actors, special effects, sound and cinematography. Most of Hollywood's dribble seems to be weighted far too much to the special effects and actors. And once in a while I just wish they'd spend half the special effects budget on a decent script.
Posted by Tod J. Weitzel (Member # 760) on 07-07-2001, 04:20 PM:
What I don't think anyone has mentioned so far is how fantastic Clint Mansell's score is. I went out and bought the CD last night, but thus far can't bear to watch the film again; the first time I saw it it made me ill, but in a good way...-Lx?
Posted by JC Cowles (Member # 914) on 07-08-2001, 12:42 AM:
Part of being Aurally Engrossing, as I mentioned, is the score. I love the Kronos Quartet. The few places I've looked for the RFAD soundtrack I haven't found it. But it is on my list of ones to purchase.
Posted by Joshua Voorhies (Member # 824) on 07-22-2001, 04:42 AM:
I found the soundtrack at Best Buy (of all places). It's identical to the the music in the movie, which is a good thing in my opinion.