Actually an incredibly grim urban fable

Rating: 10/10 (26 May 2006)

I have read a lot of reviews for Requiem For A Dream which complain and grouse about its being "unrealistic" and "only showing the worst case scenario." These people are failing to realize: that is exactly what Aronofsky set out to do.
This is not supposed to be a realistic everyday film (though some of the horrific events therein certainly do happen). The surreal, stylized filming, the bright colors, the fancy camera work, the almost musical-like atmosphere surrounding the whole thing should tip everyone off that this isn't a documentary. Nor is it simply an exploitation fest, hungry for shock-value and nothing more. What this is is a dark, grim fable. It DELIBERATELY seeks out the worst-case scenario, showing everyone just how far drugs can go. The message is, okay maybe this doesn't happen to everyone who does drugs. But KNOWING this can happen, knowing that it is a possibility, why risk it?
Also, everyone who commented that the storyline about the bad doctor giving the old lady speed couldn't happen, you're all fooling yourselves. Many members of my family work in law, many specializing in medical malpractice, and you would not believe when you get into cities like that how many quacks are out there just looking to make a buck. They make their living on the fact that doctors are supposed to examine you thoroughly before dishing out the drugs. Their business IS all the unstable people like poor Sarah Goldfarb who wouldn't pass the mainstream examinations by "good" doctors. They're exactly like the underground plastic surgeons or the administrators of illegal back alley abortions. They're out there, and there are a lot of them. Basically, they are upscale drug-dealers, probably why Aronofsky included one in his film. A subtle contrast. Harry is grungier dealer, but in theory he is exactly like the doctor who destroys his own mother. Different walks of life, same evil. There's an essay topic for an independent film student...