Not as bad or as good as most seem to think

Rating: 5/10 (13 January 2007)

I feel I must begin with a bit of a disclaimer about the supposed "graphic" nature of the film--it isn't bad at all. There are two sex scenes that are perhaps a bit more graphic than usual and (probably the reason for the NC-17 rating) there is one scene in which pubic hair is visible, but there is little else, so don't let that NC-17 rating scare you. Also, the sex scenes add nothing to the film's thematic or narrative content, so skipping them wouldn't actually hurt anything. Incidentally, that's one way in which the film is not as "bad" as most seem to think.
Certainly the stars of this film are really Darren Aronofsky (director/co-screewnriter) and Jay Rabinowitz (editor). The film is meant to be somehow "deep" through its "unusual" editing and directorial touches; however, it is essentially a recycling of many ideas from others (most notably Stanley Kubrick, Adrian Lyne, and Satoshi Kon) and even its choices that are--and this is the best word I can come up with for them--cutesy and fun become boring by the end of the film. For example, the repetition of the series of quick jump cuts to symbolize a few particular acts becomes bordering on annoying by the time the viewer sees it for about the 20th time during the film and the variation of the speed of the surroundings around a drug-addled individual, a technique already used to its best results in Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange," becomes repeatedly less interesting with each of the 700 or so uses of it here. Most of these techniques suit the film's subject, but some have seemingly no function and many of them have long since outstayed their welcomes by the time the film ends.
However, the real problem with the film is its subject. It is, as anyone planning to see it knows, a film ostensibly about drugs and their pervasive nature in our society. However, the film ends up coming off more as one about proving Jennifer Connelly's abilities as an actor and wrapping some goofy cinematography around what could be a truly heart-wrenching story starring Ellen Burstyn. Besides the lack of any interesting thematic content, the film obviously attempts to make each character's "fall from grace" heartbreaking, but does so horribly, the only exception being Burstyn, who forces it to work with a true powerhouse performance. The real injustice is Connelly's character arc (or lack thereof). It's obvious that the film is supposed to be introducing us to the newly "grown up" Connelly as a talented actress instead of just a pretty teenager, and yet she is given no material through which to show any ability and instead comes across as just the only person in the film who really gets what she wants in the end.
Still, the film is not a complete failure because of two things: Ellen Burstyn and Clint Mansell. Burstyn's performance is truly a sight to behold, as she manages to put the heart into her character that Aronofsky's direction tries so hard to remove, making me wonder how good a film it could have been with a decent director and ONLY her storyline. Meanwhile, Clint Mansell's score is absolutely wonderful--in fact it tells the story of the film much better than the film does. It mixes more traditional film music with more romantic composition styles (such as in the opening scene when the opening of Beethoven's 9th Symphony should easily jump to mind) and even rock influences into a cohesive whole that sounds like a particularly strong James Newton Howard work.
Overall, "Requiem for a Dream" isn't anywhere near as interesting, innovative, or thoughtful as its fans would have us think, but it's still not a bad film. Ellen Burstyn's performance and Clint Mansell's score are wonderful and make up for a lot of the problems with Darren Aronofsky's direction, making it at least worth a watch. But don't expect it to blow you away.