REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (2000) - Movie Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Yes, I did utter the words "dead corpse" in this video. Apologies for my redundancy.
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
I was a heroin addict for 11 years, but have been clean for 9 years now. This film definitely captures the emotions really well and at the time this movie came out it was very different to any other movie covering the topic of addiction.
I’m very happy for you that you have been clean for so long now. The film is definitely haunting because it is so realistic.
This is a film I think everyone should see, it both warns against the dangers of drugs but also shows an immense amount of empathy towards addicts
"I'm gonna be on television"🥺
You go deep in the subjects of movies without spoiling and that what makes your reviews unique.
The intensity of the scenes where the characters are going through withdrawals are uncomfortably accurate. When you're at the bottom of that dark hole, you'll literally do anything to get a fix. The statistics alone can make you feel hopeless. They state that something like only 5% of intravenous drug users ever fully recover. There are some effective treatments like suboxone, however even with years of sobriety, relapse is always just one slip up away. You can be determined to get clean, but the journey back to recovery can be very depressing and lonely. It's much easier to isolate yourself, than constantly having to explain to everyone why you can't go out to the bar or house party. I just pray that people who see this movie realize the risk they're taking when using any illegal substance. Please, don't gamble with your life 🙏
Yup, im recovering from a game addiction, and its fucking hard
Yes, I agree with you fully, hits too close to home.
@@Dutchman-2002 i have iv addiction and live in the same country als jij
Suboxone is for opioids, there isn't really an effective treatment for withdrawal symptoms from cocaine, which is I think why the drug was chosen. Especially in the final scene, which contrasted the rich user to the poor.
Doesn’t make it a good film. Sorry I can’t relate and don’t understand the “deeper meaning” of this film because I’m not a junkie.
I only saw this movie once over 10 years ago, and yet I remember almost every scene in perfect visceral detail. Your review makes me question what I'd think if I were to see it again, but I honestly don't think I want to.
I watched it 5 years ago and I consider my life in two parts... Before I saw that movie, and after I saw it lol.... Just watched it again last weekend and I was pleasantly surprised I actually felt better after I watched it. It wasn't so shocking and I saw a lot in Sara's story I hadn't seen the first time. I debated watching it again for like a week lol.
@@bashmeesh Re watching made me appreciate the little hints at self destruction, Harrys vision just before the brick of coke arrives, foreshadowing the loss that is about to incur. The same occurs when leaving nye and they pass 600 miles, a point of no return. The editing which in its own right is straight art always compels me to rewatch it despite the depression that shorty follows.
I considered Sarah being the main character, because not only she has a dream of her son to mary and be happy but also had to deal with his drug addict shit, like him taking her TV all the time to get money for drugs. I think the reason why her story was the saddest was because she didn't realise what she was doing and this is closer to an average human than a story of a heroin addict.
Exactly her ineptitude w the diet pills was so sad. It was almost like it wasn't her fault. Also I think her husband Seymore was a source of abuse and that's why her and Harry are messed up...
I agree 1000%! It's Sara Goldfarb's character that makes me love this movie so much. I think had she not been in it, I'd have given the movie like a 6 outta 10 instead of like a 9
I actually like this film quite a bit. I feel that the shallowness of Aronofsky's films is actually what makes them effective films, especially for non-cinephiles. I mean, I've watch this with many people through the years and the people that it makes a greater impact on are those that just watch it as entertainment. On the other hand, I've shown the same people surrealist movies like Holy Motors or Mulholland Drive, and they get bored out of their minds.
To me the ultimate demise of each character is still thought-provoking and intense, even after watching it through the years. It might be surface level symbolism and surrealism, but that's really all it has to be. The movie is effective at what it wants to do and it is what it wants to be. It doesn't have to be a meticulous character study or an artistic surreal experience to make its point to the audience.
Not to mention, it really is the epitome of using filmmaking to its greatest potential
I had the pleasure of seeing this opening weekend back in 2000, this movie is INCREDIBLE and ever since has been one of the best pieces of Art ever committed to celluloid
Agreed. Film critics see movies as a target to be destroyed. The average moviegoer can see far more clearly and have a deeper emotional experience with the power of the artistry.
It's absolutely essential here that the four protagonists are exchangeable and mostly faceless, apart from short glimpses into their past. Selby Jr.'s portrayal of those growing up in the urban underclass/working class throughout his novels presents people whose individual traits and dreams are denied by an environment they can't escape from (in Requiem, this is for instance proven by the devastating consequences of leaving New York for Florida).
I disagree. The film made me feel a lot for the characters. It’s really well made, well shot really skilfully edited and with the music really adds in to a total package that sucks you in emotionally. I’d argue in this case you don’t need any more character depth. I’m a huge film fan but for some reason I was totally unaware of this film until last week where I seen it for the first time. In my opinion it’s one of the best I’ve ever seen. Never has a film made me feel and think so much. It’s a masterpiece.
Idk I was a drug addict for a long time and I found this movie to be extremely um real. The editing is used to put you in their shoes. It's not meant to be too metaphorical. Cuz it is giving a very very hard message that alot of people would hate or not sympathize with or glorified. Sorry I understand your view though. It's all subjective.
I hundred percent agree. I also experimented with other types of prescription drugs only for the effect, to bad they were for my epilepsy. The drugs or any other drugs will distort your brain and make you experience mind boggling things. The film/ camera work was perfect. Also when shots of the drug use in the film then he focused right on the eyes and heard character's sigh of relief of escaping/reaching that perfect dream they eat to get to.
Yea it's just I used to be onmeth and alcohol for a while. And I can't attest to the chaotic editing cuz that is how it feels it just gets more and more chaotic. It's watching a downward spiral of addiction and over ambition. It's also about how the American dream is a false lie. The writer of the book even says that is what it's truly about cuz they all want to achieve what the "American dream" is pictured to be personally to them. Sarah wants to be on tv. Harry and Tyrone want to become rich and have no worries anymore. Maryanne wants to be a fashion designer. It's about how these things are not the point of life. You can be those things but you can't obsess over those things while doing absolutely nothing (and doing the opposite) to try to actually achieve them. And that their missing the point in life. Like they don't have actual real relationships with anyone. Harry is shitty to his mom he feels bad about it but he still used her to get money and stuff while she had to dive into the t.v. to escape hee guilt cuz she blamed herself because of how he is. Then she became obsessed then she was introduced a pharmaceutical that she didn't consider a real drug like most people do. She was taking basically adderall and Xanax and mixing them then both stopped working so she uped the dose. And lost her sanity cuz she was older. You can't do that at that age. Your mind can't handle it. Their is no American dream when you are low or middle class. Only like 1 percent of that class tier get rich and it's usually by luck. It's like they were all fighting against each other to achieve the same thing. They all wanted to be noticed and heard. But they couldn't see that they didn't need that from being on tv or becoming famous or becoming rich. They just became blinded by addiction.
@@AaronHatcher sadly harry Tyrone and Marianne main dream is not to succeed or to be rich it's having enough money to afford drugs.. that was the point why the started to sale.. just to pay pure heroin .. that even sadder
It actually is metaphorical as well along with the perspective POV take you said. Darren A. Is an Art-film director. Just like overrated Kubrick. This is like saying Full Metal Jacket wasn’t and isn’t an Anti-war film. When it is. What do you expect from an art film director? And on top of that, what do you expect from an art director? -A freakin pro-war film? Lol
"They're only outlines of characters....". The movie is allegorical - the characters could be any junkie - that's the point.
Had Aronofsky added 30 or 40 mins just to develop 4 backstorys & and show more character development, then the movie critic would simply eviscerate him for "spoon feeding the audience" and not leaving any "sense of mystery" about the characters. You can't win with these people. Critics see art as a target to be destroyed....In "Requiem" we know everything we need to about these characters to understand what they are going through and feel for what happens to them.
As a heroin addict I can say this movie is spot on. The books amazing as well. Kinda hard to read with the old New York slang but still dope
As heroin i can say you are indeed an addict
Only thing that wasn't accurate were the pupils growing after shooting heroin. They shrink and become soul piercing.
@bradyrad Never happened to me. Now the dope is so weak nobody pukes.
@bradyrad Oh yeah. I didn't know people still rode out sickness the hard way. With suboxone and MMT and whatnot there's no real reason to go cold turkey (well unless you really can't get enough scratch together to see a doctor or go to a clinic).
@bradyrad Oh shit yeah. I kicked in jail once. In a way it was easier.
This movie was epic.
Surprized at your overall critizim of this movie which is such a real presentation of the world of hard core drugs and addiction,
RFAD is definitely one of the best films I've ever seen, hard hitting, heartbreaking, sobering, and one that conveys the mindset and experience of the addict perfectly. The acting performances were also excellent and though Aronofsky may have his critics, his directing style worked really well with the subject matter. And though it is a bleak uncompromising piece of film making that has at its heart a single message, and it is not easy to re watch, it still stands today as one of his greatest achievements.
any movie that gets Jennifer Connelly to do ass to ass deserves at least a 9/10
Eass to eass
Thanks for the review! Yet I wanna disagree on some things you said: I think that exploring the characters further would have made the film worse rather than better, since the story does not need it to achieve what it wants to. Futhermore I really dislike it when people say "I don't think I gained much from watching this movie, that's why it is bad." Movies don't always have to have some enlightening message (or something like that) for the audience, maybe they are just worth watching because of the memorable experience they put you through. Besides, you might have been left cold by the raw and cruel nature of the film, but it shows perfectly what the darkest abysses of the world look like, and how people often seem to be way too eager to drown themselves in them - keeping in mind that what is depicted here is not that far from reality as we'd like to think, it's no wonder that this keeps getting listed as one of the most depressing movies ever, I'd even go as far as to say it is indeed the most depressing movie ever, it really gets to you. So simply this experience, that will forever be etched in my mind, made it absolutely worth watching. Of course we all knew that taking drugs was bad before, but it was not until I watched this movie that I was truly aware of the sheer power of destruction they really have, which is shown so plastically here and especially hard to watch since these are actually all decent people that potentially could have gone places.
I'm glad I was even able to get some sleep last night.
Finally, if you really think anything about Black Swan is funny, there might be something wrong with your sense of humor, or maybe I missed something?
As for "Black Swan". When I saw it, at a little arthouse theater opening week, there was quite a bit of stifled laughter and outright laughter when Portman transforms into the swan at the end.
I've only seen Requiem once when I was in high school. I don't feel like I need to revisit it, I feel like I have nothing to gain from it now, I loved it then but I feel like I got it all. Which I guess makes it a pretty shallow film like you said. If the music wasn't so overplayed and the key scenes not so drilled into my head I'd feel more inclined to rewatch.
deepfocuslens I am 3 years late while binging your reviews. The way you review movies without spoiling it shows how easy it comes to you. You're a natural, also one of my favorite YT channels. Being clean 6 years from heroin this movie is spot on with that and the others addiction. Ellen Bursyten is one of my all-time favorite actors. She was brilliant. Then with Jennifer Connelly being my first and only movie crush. She was so powerful in it, also being around it did and excellent job too me. That ending scene with her is heartbreaking. I'm with you on Darren, to date I enjoy Pi and Requiem for a Dream. Great breakdown. I also have to agree "Mother" cracked me up. Always excellent reviews.
I completely disagree that Darren Aronofsky lacks depth. I don't even know if I've watched the same movie because I think that every character in this movie are played so well and realistically. And they're all intresting characters with different stories. For example I don't really like Jared Leto but in this movie he's just perfect, brave and emotional. Also I really don't understand how could Darren think that this movie would be more shocking that it is. That part were Harry is dreaming about Marion is good scene imo because it really can mean literally anything. It kind of feels that you're just not thinking deeply enough about this movie which is a shame.
I knew you would have a deep take on this. Thank you. The creepy moog/organ theme from this film still enters my head at times of despair, but the emotional valence is ridiculously melodramatic and superficial overall. Downward spirals of this sort are real, but they are far more nuanced and not so monotonically unidirectional. I find Drugstore Cowboy a much more fleshed-out drug movie that is actually tolerable and honest, and thereby actually very funny (probably my favorite Matt Dillon role also).
Watching this movie is almost like a bad trip on psychedelics. Painful to go through; yet in a sense, necessary. Soul crushing. The characters, their situations, their addictions, the nightmarish circumstances that become their reality; it's almost impossible not to internalize these things. I heard someone say, "I've seen this movie multiple times over the past 20 years and I take something new from it every time." My reaction to this comment was why would anyone watch this movie "multiple times"? With that said, I would recommend people watch this movie at least once. One watch, it usually does the trick.
Requiem for a dream is a masterpiece and on e of the best films of all times
This is a great film. When people say it's hard to watch, I have no idea what they are talking about. What I loved about this is the reality that *we are all addictived* to something. We all need stimuli & have social/emotional desires.
For people like me, who were addicted to all kinds of opioids, it is hard to watch because it's like looking at a recorded video of your own life. No different than pulling out the photo album and looking at your past.
@@brandonduet7771 - Understood.
"The Red Dress" scene always gets me choked up. She was definitely robbed of an oscar with this film.
I thought the message in this film is that we are corrupted by greed in pursuing our own dreams we can get wrapped up in bad shit that drags us down some thing are addiction others are people who pull at us like a weight despite our love for them and they us we may just be to similar for each other to make changes needed to thrive in the world I kinda feel like that and I know I will always love this film!!
You are so right. I thought the exact same thing. It just felt like a very long performative way of saying "don't use drugs". The gimmicks away, it was at best boring.
You didn't read Selby's novel? Surprising to me...would explain not getting the approach to the characters though. The Fountain...be curious as to your thoughts...my favourite Aronofsky project
I was curious if you have a Letterboxd account and if you'd like to share it so we can follow you
Black Swan review? While I love Aronofsky as a director and loved Mother! and Requiem a lot more than you did, I really admire your insight into film and Aronofsky as an artist. Black Swan is probably my third favorite film of all time and even if you don't love the film I would still love to hear your thoughts about it and the problems you may or may not have as well as things you were impressed by. Aronofsky is not for everyone but his films are really fun to talk about and dive into. Love your channel btw
to describe this film as simply an anti-drug message, like “this is what drugs do, don’t do them” i feel like completely discredits what the movie sets out to do. we are following these people as they lose their personal relationships to drugs, it’s the specifics that matter more than the broad message of “don’t do drugs”. seeing the things they do for the substances in the beginning compared to the ending is the real heart of the film, watching these peoples morals go from standing up to lying down
Ditto on Darren. I find Aronofsky way too self conscious a filmmaker - he just hits you over the head with his metaphors (as in "Mother!"). Lots of technical virtuosity that borders on showing-off. I agree that Ellen Burstyn is a fine actress, but I actually thought Aronfsky managed to make her look silly at times. I love surrealism and I'm fascinated with Jungian archetypes, where the psychological and the spiritual meet, so I should be predisposed to liking D.A.'s films, but I just can't - for me he gets in the way of his own talent, because he seems too concerned with impressing or shocking the audience. You mentioned David Lynch as a director who beautifully handles surrealism - I would say that is because his images and ideas flow to him naturally, they are not self-conscious. If Picasso created his paintings out of a desire to impress his audience, rather than his natural need to explore and discover, he would have had nowhere the universal impact that he did.
well said
Haha mother was a complete mess!
I would say beautiful said *BUT* a big but, sadly in this world, a lot of people like shocking or impressing audiences. I am one of those victims, this movie heavily relies on shock value. I was on the edge of my bed just waiting for the next excruciating scene, over and over again. It’s not a bad thing but I get what you ranting about.
It's not the most realistic drug movie ever made. One thing that actually bugs me about the movie is the idea that their DOC which in this case was heroin is in such a finite supply that like only two people have it at any time in the city. One of which is taken out by the Mafia halfway through the movie (realistic in the sense the Mafia is heavily involved in the heroin trade and have violent stakes in the game to such an extent they are taking out competition left and right. Yes, left and right, as in not just one or two people have it) and the other happens to have stockpiled it all and is only willing to trade it for sex. Those are both true as far as phenomena in the drug world goes, but New York City is NEVER out of dope. The worst that would happen is that YOU may not know someone who currently has it, but a few connections and probably a few ripoffs later you can still find something. Heroin addicts in particular are like clans of vampires or something. They tend to run together in groups and in a weird, twisted way do look out for each other in the sense that "If I have, I'll help you get and if you have, you help me get" but the fact is that the city doesn't just run out of drugs. Ever. They say there is enough heroin stockpiled across the world that if all the poppy plants in the world were somehow made extinct or eradicated one way or another, they have enough to feed the world's addicted population for another 20 years.
That being said, I understand why they told the movie the way they did. It was meant to be a tragic ending. As long as you have money, though, in the real world, there will never be a drought so bad as it was depicted in the film. It's still artificially expensive and hard to find, and I wouldn't wish addiction to it on my worst enemy.
In terms of the comments on character- this isn't a film about characters- they are not the subjects of his film, the naked experience of a dream lost is the subject of the film. The film is set in the decaying Coney Island neighborhood of Brooklyn. This was once the peak of American desire. Coney Island represented the blissful entertainment the modern world had to offer to the masses. Early in the 20th century Coney Island represented the fabulous promise of affordable leisure, brought to us by material progress. The masses flocked to this novel, thrilling playground, but by the turn of the century the dream of modernity's leisure and delight had crumbled. Coney Island became one of the poorest and most run down neighborhoods in NYC, riddled with addiction, violence, poverty and crumbling infrastructure. Today, in 2021 very few amusements have withstood the vicissitudes of real estate developers, an increasingly severe climate and the advent of media based entertainment. Coney Island is just as much a "character" as the people in this story and I think that tells us something about this film. It's not a character drama, it's poetic impressionism on the silver screen.
I feel like he captured Hubert Selby's novel pretty well. In most of Selby's novel, the characters are basically just pawns marching towards their impending doom. And you follow them for that sliver of time to experience it with them. Usually there is some insight into what makes them tick, but it's unreliable because it's from their own deluded perspective. Definitely not a fan of all Aranofsky's films, but this one nailed it for me.
The problem with film criticism is that eventually the critic will have seen so many more movies than the general moviegoer, or even most cinephiles, that they eventually become jaded and can longer recognize brilliance when they see it. It eventually just becomes a job, and eventually most people in any sort of occupation will experience some level of job burn out. Film criticism is where the objective is to tear down art, and someone who is burned out from seeing too many movies is not able to see them clearly anymore. It's interesting to compare a review like this to some of the YT "first time watching" reaction videos. Most of the first timers have a deep emotional response to this film to the point of being visually shaken and even driven to tears. The "critics" reviews, by comparison, are just jaded knit picking, and the emotional experience of others is belittled - i.e. Aronofsky "is not as deep as he thinks he is")....So, just how deep are the reviews of jaded critics looking to tear down an artist?
I love the way you express your opinion even though I strongly disagree.
RFAD is a masterpiece and probably the only honest work from Aronofsky (except maybe The Wrestler). There's no surrealism in this movie. It's an exploration of the drug induced, addicted mind of the protagonists, especially Sarah. Every "surreal" scene is roughly brought back to reality with a hard cut, indicating that everything was in the characters mind. There are hundreds of small hidden details in this movie, only visible on multiple viewings (a difficult task tbh).
The problem with Aronofsky started when he started exploring surrealism and symbolism as a narrative. His more ambitious projects, like Noah and Mother are so heavily based on his own perception, they miss the point of actually delivering the message.
I strongly believe that RFAD is, to this day, his finest piece of work and an extremely difficult milestone to pass.
Love your reviews btw and your unique pov.
I love this movie it was so fun yet dark the ending is just next level I would rewatch this a million times!!
Ellen Burstyn should have another Oscar.
I think the movie is very good. It definitely has substance and explores the subjective hell of its main characters. I appreciate that the movie acknowledges the mental illness aspect of addiction as a driving force to cope with depression, life, etc. In other words: their addiction only scratches the surface of their illness. The direction was great, performances. My biggest complaint is the overplayed music. Again, I find that the movie has a great deal of substance. It might seem like it doesn’t because of the lack of substance (no pun intended) in the day-to-day lives of the story’s characters. But it’s a scathing portrait of mental illness more so I find than on drugs per se.
How about the score? That symphonic song lays timeless in this cinematic expression..no mention?.Btw, time will always affect your reviews; had you reviewed this same movie in its time,drug era,political climate and director style, you obviously might have had a different impression from it, who knows? You just might've loved it..I always have.
I don't like the score. Much like the film itself, it's all viscera, no true composition, no complexity. Yes, at times the context of the time in which the work comes out can affect it. However, a good film should be effective regardless of when you watch it. This one is not for me.
Escapism and chaos is the major theme in this excellent movie.. Achieved via the use/abuse of drugs, food and distraction (escaping reality via television and hallucinations)..Yet another fine reason to avoid the abuse/use of drugs!! Moderation folks!!
Im just wondering how many of you here HAVE and HAVE NOT done drugs and watched this movie
Love your channel dude. It’s great to see someone talk about film and actually know what there saying. What movie do you think sends a better message of the horrible abuse of drug other then this?
Thanks. I am not usually a fan of "anti-drug" films. The idea behind that feels like propaganda. As an ex-user myself, those depictions often feel one-note. It's not about the drugs. It's about the person using said drugs and the choices they make to hurt themselves and why.
+deepfocuslens what's your take on Trainspotting?
Eh. Similar opinions there. Style over substance. Not a Danny Boyle fan either.
I don’t know if any functioning human has ever watched this movie twice
I have watched it many times, along with his other films. I adore the films intensity and its up there as one of my fav movies! (The Lighthouse is my top film)
As someone whose been to the summit of fucked up movie mountain, this one ain't even halfway up it.
@@benemlaw6428 same here man, a serbian film comes to mind yet i never want to see it ever again 😅
I’m a big fan of your opinions and views on films. Thank you for all you do and keep working hard for what you love! Have you considered perhaps building a mini-set, perhaps with tasteful totems of you favorite themes (which I guess you already started doing with the bookshelf items)? I can tell you have a good eye for aesthetics so putting in that effort to build a set - giving your already terrific content that sheen of higher production value might really help up your numbers and views. Personally, I think your content is already enough, but unfortunately higher production value (or at least the appearance of it) tends to correlate to more followers. If this is just a hobby for you and an outlet to share your thoughts, then totally ignore this comment, lol... but but appealing more to a wider audience including people who seek style over substance will put you higher in rankings and increase the chances of people who only care about the substance being connected with you. Thanks again for all you do!
I think that the problem here is that becaise of the subject matter, People want this movie to be more deeper and meaninful that it really is. This movie is basically a horror movie, in wich adiction is the bad guy. Its a very straight foward horro movie, with straight foward horror movie characters (wich tend not to be normally well rounded) that we found in movies like saw, but if theirs somwthing we can all agree if is this: if this Movie was made by any other director, this movie would've ended up being a really plain and non exciting movie. Ive seen this movie like 20 times and everytime it acomolishes what is set up to do, wich is disturb and scare you with the horrors of adiction in a very adictive way, because once you start the movie, you cant not just turned it off.
@[CiG] like most horror movies are based on visuals and making a response out of the audience. A good horror movie desnt have to be deep, it just have to disturb, scare or afect you in a primal way and i think this one does it.
@[CiG] well i always said that films should be viewed like a single piece of work; maybe he's films may lack depth in your opinion, but we are not reviewing his entire work, we are talking about one film and we should look at it like that, not compare it to the rest of his films, and i think that this film in the hands of a less capable and interesting director would've been a very mediocre one, because let's be honest, the script is not very good.
@[CiG] yes and is in that area where i strongly disagree with her and many reviewers, they need to learn how to view each film as a single peace of work, because otherwhise they are doing a diservice to the movie and being unfair; is like comparing your children to each other, if you do that you will never see the merits of each one and you are always be disapointed, being either by high expectation or predisposition and biase.
@[CiG] so acording to you i will have to watch all of the director s previews movies to be able to give a good review of the film im about to watch? That is so pretentious and snob, what if ive never watched any other movies from that director? Thag means im not gonna aptetiate it the same way? A movie as a movie and nothing that sorrounds it from the outside shoulf influence your perecption of it;; not the life of the actors, not the marketing, not the hype, not the name of the director, etc.. Learn to see each film as it is witout outside noice and you might enjoy it more. The only time you should be comparing films from the same filmaker is if you are talking about his entire or partial body of work.
PS: I APOLLOGIZE FOR THE MISSPELLING OF SOME WORDS, ENGLISH IS NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE AND THE AUTO CORRECTOR IS NOT WORKING.
@[CiG] well i saw the film, then i saw more of his films and rewatching requiem for the second time i liked it even more, not because i saw more of his films, but because i found new meanings in the movie itself. My opinion on any film doesnt change based on what people Think of it or what other films the director made, my opinion changes based on my personal connection to the film. I guess that at the end People like you lets circumstances outside the film afect your opinion on it, for me my opinion changes with changes within my personal experiences in life wich make the connection to a paeticular film either stronger or weeker; my opinion comes with my personal connection to the movie, your opinion is molded based on external issues, in this case, the other movies made from the director.
Brilliant, devastating, visceral cinematography … Thanks again, Mags 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
Amp psychosis is a total thing though, it’s pretty accurate imo I know people who think they are cartoon characters on those
Your experience with being very captivated by the film when you were younger (and less so upon later viewings) is pretty much exactly how my opinion of this film evolved too. Saw it at maybe 14 and at the time thought it was a masterpiece, mostly because of the unorthodox visceral feeling that Aronofsky admittedly nailed pretty well with a lot of his editing and filming choices. And Clint Mansell's score went a long way to achieving that aesthetic/mood as well. But just like you I was less and less impressed with this film with later viewings, especially when re-watching it in college. I guess watching it again after being familiar with more of his other work made me see it with a different lens, and notice more of the areas where the film was lacking. Nevertheless, I've gotta give Aronofsky some credit for making me feel like it's a masterpiece upon first viewings. My feelings toward his work greatly resemble my feelings toward the work of directors like Terrence Malick. Fantastic aesthetics and movies that can provide incredibly moving _experiences_ if you watch the movie as a sort of passive viewer, letting the director's ability to create a fiercely impressionistic experience shine through. But approaching movies like that with an active and critical eye usually tends to shatter the illusion in one area or another, sadly.
this is my new favourite review channel
38 years old and this came out when I was 20. This is seriously a one watch film. I don’t think I’ll ever watch it again.
I'll rewatch it I think it's amazing and very rewatchable
I, like many people, only watched this once and was really impressed by it. Especially the editing. But I feel like a second viewing would bring it down for me, since the initial shock value is gone. A lot of the movie felt very melodramatic and borderline ridiculous.
TJ Hastie me too, I probably won't watch it again for that reason
Watching the movie a second time kinda defeats the purpose I feel.
You KNOW what they're gonna do.
You KNOW the consequences of their actions.
Because you know these things, the connection you feel for them is severed in the second viewing. They become less like people, and just characters in a play you've seen before.
Skeleton like creature that emerges from the grave to speak to the children about the consumption of drugs.
This is a damn good review.
As much as I agree about the character issues, the movie is quite close to the book.
The characters don't have much definition in the book either. Similar to The Road.
Should have mentioned the music. The score + being a teen hooked on drugs/alcohol made for a bigger experience than if I never had any experience in addiction and then watched it
I know this is old, I used to be with a girl, and we got addicted to heroin. This movie definitely isn't perfect, but the scenes where they're dope sick and the girl is yelling at him in bed, man that hit too close to home. This movie doesnt portray the heroin high well at all (they act like they're stoned), but it definitely is one I have a very hard time watching.
“Today, I demand that a film express either the joy of making cinema or the agony of making cinema. I am not at all interested in anything in between; I am not interested in all those films that do not pulse.”
I think Truffaut's famous quote has relevance with Aronofsky.
Your point of view on this is interesting and very valid. However, I wonder if it's worth exploring what you mean by "depth" in art in regards to filmmakers like Aronofsky.
Aronofsky films are about the making of the thing in the way Truffaut suggests - what generates heat. There are themes but he's basically articulating and expressing the essence of addiction and fear and control very much in the way that Hubert Selby Jr. did in his book. Linear meaning does not really apply.
Aronofsky doesn't have much to say about this stuff but I'm not sure he sees value in saying anything about these issues at all. There's an abdication of formal meaning(for lack of a better description) in his work that reminds me of Céline in literature a little bit. It may be that his films simply are made in a context where traditional notions of depth are almost inmaterial to expressions of human suffering. It's an intuitive, experiential approach to art but from a place of negation. There's possibly a kind of personal "meaning" to him and to the audience that responds but it's about experiencing a truth, not bringing up possible truths to explain or demonstrate to the viewer, if that makes sense.
The lack of character development was on purpose, I'm almost sure of it. The young in Requiem are already gone at the beginning - it's just that they go further. Heroin erases and they are partially invisible when the film begins.Sarah's descent is also seen through different kind of substances. Selby said that his story is from the point of view of the drugs, not the people. Very interesting approach.
You may be picking up on a real punk sort of contempt and a degree of narcissism that Aronofsky doesn't muzzle - he isn't being shocking exactly, he's taking a piss in a certain way. Particularly in films like Mother. I think he came out of a cultural milieu of underground 80's and 90's youth culture where that was very valid in art - part of the cultural zeitgeist, particularly in the 90's. In a way, a reaction to boomer culture of 60's idealism (and the stark cop-out of boomer adulthood). You can really hear it in the music but it was quite pronounced. There's been lots written on pre-millennial tension and lack of meaning. It wasn't apathy, it was withdrawal in disgust - as Richard Linklater said. Pi and Requiem seem very much of that energy to me.
That value system (or lack of value system) seemed to evaporate after the turn of the century with youth - maybe for the best. There's a real struggle now for health and valuing understanding, in art and many other places. You seem to see things in that way which is great. I think the way to see his films is through a different lens, however, a different value system. I don't think it's the same thing as being superficial.
The film is VERY close to the novel so you can't fault Darren for the characters' lack of depth
Hi deepfocuslens, thanks for sharing. I don't feel the same way about RFAD, but I appreciate and enjoyed hearing your perspective.
why did he keep shooting up in the exact same spot?
Cause he's a dumb ass. Some just have bad veins and there's only one available that's easy to get into.
everyone says they only seen it once i have watched it many times its a beautifully tragic work of art
I usually like his films, mostly because of the visceral experience and the pure insanity and lack of subtlety. and yes, most of his movies are hilarious
This film is like listening to the whole “Flith” album by Swans from ‘83 with over ear noise canceling headphones on hearing it super loud on 10 and getting hit in the face with a hammer.
This film is a sledge hammer to the face. I liked it. And always will. The climax scene/ climax-montage I call it, will always be iconic.
Why does the film have to have more meaning? As a cinematic experience "requiem" is a good film. Period. Could have been better? Always... perfection is non existent
Aronofsky is essentially an arthouse director for basic bitches. His films have the pretense of being daring and avant garde, all while being as obvious and thematically on-the-nose as possible. He's the safest, most banal "provocateur" director out there.
It's a cautionary tale. It shows the effects of addiction
I really liked the wrestler and π was okay as well but I never got behind the hype of this movie I clicked the video to tell you how rad your outfit looked great breakdown tho as always :)
I thought that the cinematic techniques were too arty. I don't think that is a shallow director. He successfully personalised his characters
You said everything that was to be said, Maggie.
You share my though about Aranofsky. Now I wanna know what your thoughts are about the Fountain. :D
Interesting take on this film
If anyone hasn’t they should 100% read the book it is phenomenal
I just dont see how noticing the lack of depth in characters for antichrist is missing the point but in this it is a fair criticism, maybe you could say that he does not capture what hes going for in terms of emotion and mental states as well as a noe/von trier would but the way you describe it just seems rly incongruent to me compared with those other films with stand in characters idk.
i think her criticism of the "lack of depth" is the dumbest, most unfair point ever. the film is all about the mental state of the characters and how their desperation to alleviate their emtional issues brought them to that point in their lives. it sounds like she just doesnt know what to criticize about the film and chose something at random . shes way off base with this
@@co9971 Well she I think she gets that but is saying she just wants more to latch onto in terms of characters and thatd be fine BUT she literally makes the complete opposite point in all of her Noé reviews saying how brilliant he is for keeping characters as blank slates
I was just wondering, how many times do you usually go to the movie theater a month? All of your reviews are awesome but I wish you’d do more newer ones
Almost never.
deepfocuslens ah Dang I see movies so much it’s not even funny. Within 4 days I saw Phantom Thread, The Shape of Water, The Post, and I Tonya in theaters
I don't think he understands the effects of heroin, either. The shots and the editing during the drug use scenes are iconic now, so they're shot well and creatively, but for instance early on in the film you see Ty and Harry after using (after they pawn his Mom's TV for the first time) and they're acting almost like they're high on weed and alcohol or something. The crazy dance the guy does and them just succumbing to fits of laughter. The only way we know they just used heroin in the context is Ty says "man this is some bomb ass skag" or something like that. I'd also argue that he got speed slightly wrong. I can't see in the span of a year someone having a severe adderall or other prescribed stimulant driving them so insane, even with abuse, that they'd require shock treatment for it. The only reason I am slightly more forgiving about her descent into Hell with drugs (the only thing the main four characters have in common) is that it was more than just drugs with her. She was clearly mentally ill on top of it.
She's always on point... But have to admit I am surprised that she doesn't think aronofsky is talented... or she does give him some credit... but pretty much sayin "I do not care for aronofsky's films" ... that is just surprising to me...
The really interesting thing is that she's seen this three times.
No cap
I don't think you actually watched the movie. Seems like you came into it with a bias against the director. 👎
what did you think of the fountain?
The score really elevates this film, and Jennifer Connolly of course.
Hey can you do grave of the fireflies
Having read the Hubert Selby novel, I didn't come to movie fresh when I saw it, and I felt that it served as a terrific illustration of the book, but maybe it doesn't stand so well on its own terms. I can't judge that however, as you can't unread a book. Have you also seen the film version of Last Exit to Brooklyn? Could be interesting for you to compare and contrast, since Selby's vision is equally bleak in that.
I watched Requiem more than ten times the least, I love this movie made me appreciate life and the little I have
Did you watch Twin Peaks by any chance? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it if you did
You've obviously never read Hubert Selby Jr.'s novel. Neither the novel nor the film were meant to be melodramatic character studies. The film and its "outlined archetypes" vs. typical dramatic characters is totally in touch with the writing style of Selby Jr.'s classic novel. Also, there is no humor (other than maybe the absurd) in this subject matter (novel or film). I don't understand why you feel Aronofsky was trying to be "shocking". If anything there is a desperate vein of realism which simply runs through many of the scenes and Aronofsky could have easily made this film vastly more exploitive and visually unpleasant. The novel, arguably, towers above the film when it comes to disturbing content in large part due to Selby Jr.'s skill as a writer and autobiographical experience with the subject ,matter.
I agree with you completely that the editing and cinematography are brilliant. Unfortunately for us all, what we are left with is one of only a handful of true works of cinema produced in the two decades of mindless, remake-cluttered, CGI-strangled, boring social justice melodrama and Marvel superhero garbage placed upon American screens of the 21st Century (so far).
In much the same way as Malcolm Lowery's epic novel Under The Volcano, it was felt by many that Requiem For A Dream was a novel which could simply never be successfully adapted to the screen. Not only was it a wonderful adaptation, very faithful to the aesthetic of Selby Jr.'s 1978 novel, but it offered up (at the time of its release) one of the few interesting directorial visions seen since the collapse of American mainstream cinema in the 90's.
And true to Selby Jr.'s novel it was not meant as a character study nor a study of drug addiction, but rather an exploration of the sadly all too typical reactions (drug abuse, obesity, media consumption, wish thinking leading to neurosis, etc.) caused by the realization that the "American Dream" (and possibly the concept of free will in an existential sense) is a vapid, empty endeavor and that control over our existence may be in the end as illusory as the effects of the drugs we ingest to cope.
Just as with a director such as Pier Pasolini one must not (when evaluating individual films) get too hung up on the greater body of a director's work nor perceived stylistic trends, for in doing so one risks losing perspective on the film in question in favor of often cock-eyed psychoanalysis which often (as in the case of Pasolini) may require the passing of many decades and much revision and reflection (upon an artist's career retrospective) to accurately conduct.
While Aronofsky's many films may never equal Hubert Selby Jr.'s handful of novels, in the case of the film adaptation of Requiem For A Dream, I dare say no other director (nor group of actors) could have dealt with such heavy and multi-dimensional subject manner in a more elegant fashion.
NOTE: Not an Aronofsky fan and my Top 3 Favorite Films at this Moment are Alex Cox's 1984 mega-masterpiece Repo Man, followed closely by Masaki Kobayashi's soul-shattering epic The Human Condition ('59-'61) and Abel Ferrara's '92 classic Bad Lieutenant (the NC-17 version of course).
I agree with you fully in this video. This movie has some really good things going for it, but all in all it’s not that great of a film, as are most Aronofsky films imo. Jared Leto is awful in this film, as he almost always is, and you’re right, Aronofsky’s films usually lack almost any real depth.
Can you do a review on “The Pianist” (2002)?
I actually agree with much of your critique, but I don't agree with your conclusions.. In fact I think that what you view as negatives I view as POSITIVES for the movie. Addiction can be deep and profound, but for a host of people - including people I know - its incredibly simple. You simply want to get fucked up because it feels good in the moment, and it gives you the illusion of invulnerability. You are basically trading the abyss in the long term for the high of the short term. You lose the nuance of your character because the addiction burns it out of you.
So when I think of 'requiem for a dream', I think of the cinematic equivalent of touching a hot stove. Do it once, you'll never do it again.
And frankly, it makes very good anti-drug propaganda. It basically is the reefer madness of the turn of the century - without the associated kitsch and high mockery value. I personally know several people for whom requiem was one of the first steps they took in turning themselves around.
Requiem for a dream is not "anti-drug propaganda" in the slightest and you need to watch it again asap if you truly think it is
I didn’t even give this a chance, definitely will now!
I love this movie but I have only scene it once but you are a very smart woman who made some really good points throughout this video.
Once a hater all your opinions go out the window. You are on the cup is half empty phase and not professional. You hated him in the past, now, and wouldn’t lift an eyebrow if you continued to hate.
Hate this movie. It's the equivalent of sitting in front of a Don't do drugs-poster for two hours. Zero depth just self-destructive people doing dumb things. What's the point?
The lack of identity for most of the characters may have something to do with the cumulative effect. I don't think Aronofsky had any desire for strong characterization, as could be rationalized (in a haphazard way) that strongly-defined characters could be construed as strong people, and their succumbing to addiction would not be believable. (Is that giving Aronofsky too much credit?? Meh.)
I can hardly wait for the day you review "The Night of the Hunter", that rarest of beasts being a 50s piece of surrealism aimed at kids (not even joking, it's structured like a Grimm Fairy Tale) with that Aronofsky-ish mix of dream imagery, human fallacy and near-hopelessness. Also, your interpretation of Reverend Powell (Robert Mitchum) is bound to be academic gold.
I've wanted to review that film for years. But it's a tough one to put into words.
It's been a long time since I last saw this movie but I'm pretty sure it would break my heart again if I watched it now. And yeah Ellen Burstyn is just amazing in this movie.
My top movies I cannot watch again, Requiem for a Dream, Wit, The Road.
Wow nearly 8k subscriptions! Congratulations. Seriously, Avengers infinity War, please review when it comes out in May.
Plz watch 1984s The killing fields, The film is not related to this 1.. But it is a haunting and unforgettable film..
Oh girl... sometimes
You can be extremely picky and harsh... hehehe but most of the time you are on point... but damn... 😂