1. twest55

   10

   Fine piece of work. From every aspect. You can tell the cast and crew worked so hard to compose a phenomenal film, like nothing you have seen before.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     2 of 2 users said yes
2. RoryP.

   5

   I think this film is overrated. Although it is an awful lot better then his last film, the Fountain. The film reliance on style causes problems, especially in the first act, where we are introduced to split screen and various other stylistic devices for no other reason then to give the film a professional sheen. There use in these areas were shallow and pointless, they did not progess any element of the story. I think if Aronofsky had laid off at the beginning and let the stylistic devices build up as the addictions took hold, it could have been a much better film. There is little character development. It appears to be a film situated in an ‘immediate now’ of sorts, fueled by a narrative drive that is preoccupied with the visual descent of the characters into drug addiction (and hence the stylistic flourishes to portray its effects) rather then the characters themselves. Certain sections do manage to blend both style and character in a way that provides the appearance of depth, such as the effective, often claustrophobic conveyance of setting and the conviction of the cast in portraying their characters. Sara Goldfarb’s/Ellen Burstyn’s addiction to diet pills is visualized in a way that manages to exhibit her loneliness, her anxieties, and hence some of the reasons she began taking pills in the first place. However, we do not learn anything about the younger characters. Despite an excellent cast’s best efforts to inject some rounded humanity, this flatness of characterization is emphasized further by a plot structure that, despite the jazzed up visuals, is utterly predictable in narrative execution. You are well aware from the beginning that things are going to spiral down the murky drainpipe of dated anti-drug finger wagging (its format is taken from the 1968 novel of the same name.) This old fashioned design the story is caged within, damages the integrity of a film that is clearly striving for some kind of modern respectability through its imaginative camerawork, whiplash editing and a score mixing pretty cinematic orchestration with urgent trendiness. It would be unfair to assume that to create a relevant film within this format would be impossible. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a film about addiction without dramatizing the inevitable cycle of self destruction that goes along with it. But unlike films such as Trainspotting, Requiem fails to capitalize on its involving sheen by providing the viewer something beyond the horrifically hypnotic images of escapism gone awry. The majesty of Aronofsky’s visual technique drowns out any major possibility of character development and fails to create a sense of human depth for the viewer to bite into. Without the substance supplied by a detailed focus on character, all we are left with is a somewhat hollow, albeit impressive, exercise in visual invention.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     5 of 6 users said yes
3. Louie-Dog

   3

   Requiem for a Dream is the story of 4 stereotypical stock characters who suffer from substance abuse. All of which become the victims of a gruesomely slippery slope of drug addiction. However, this film fails at creating unique and original characters with even the slightest amount of depth. And the half-assed love story between Harry and Marion gives no insight into why they fell in love other then them both being attractive. Many people praise its innovative cinematography and "realistic" view of the results of drug abuse. But along with its purposefully disturbing scare tactics, it's about as compelling and a D.A.R.E poster. And unfortunately the cinematography isn't enough to salvage this colossal piece of trash.… Expand

   • Helpful?

     0 of 0 users said yes

See all 114 User Reviews