YOU MAY NOT WANT TO READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM YET

Rating: 4/10 (7 March 2002)

This film is about as cheap a play on emotions as you can get. A lot of people found this film offensive because it was graphic and brutal, I found it offensive because it treated me like an idiot.
It's like, OK, I want to make a film that people will walk out and say "Wow, that really affected me, what an intense and touching film!" So, I'll get four characters, and I'll just screw 'em up real bad. That's all it's gonna be, I'm just gonna try and think of the worst way I can possibly screw each of them up, and then I'll screw 'em up - and people will come out bawling, thinking that, "well, I'm bawling, so it MUST have been a good film!"

Without being too harsh, the film did have a few (but only a few) good things about it, mainly visual things. However, the predominant feature of Requiem for a Dream is it forcefully trying to squeeze emotion out of you. I'm sorry, but there's more to a good film than just something which crudely forces you to feel shaken and sick in the stomach. A good kick below the belt will achieve a similar effect, and any idiot can do that. Sure, make a film that will make us feel shaken and hurt, but do it creatively! Don't just go for the easiest, bluntest, most transparent and hollow option! 'Cause the only emotion I felt when the credits came up in Requiem for a Dream was a slight anger for paying to see it and then laughter when I saw tears in the eyes of the person next to me. Because since the 'emotion-squeezing' didn't work on me, I was pretty bored throughout the film as there was little else to it.
4/10. See PI instead.