Skin-Deep screenplay, good directing and acting though.

Rating: 6/10 (17 December 2001)

After reading a few positive reviews and noticing "Requiem for a Dream" on several Top Ten lists, I went into the film with high hopes. Even after a good digestion of the film, I was generally disappointed with the screenplay and skin-deep messages from the film. Sure, the directing and acting were top notch, but when it comes down to whether or not the whole movie was quality, one cannot avoid the plot.
How many times do we need to watch another supposed landmark film about drug addiction? It's been done over and over again each time pushing the limit on grotesque scenes to make the audience cringe. Rarely are horror films regarded as break-through for their blood and guts scare tactics, so why should a drama be? Moreover, Requiem left nothing to the imagination during the film or after the closing credits. Listen critics, there was nothing there, it's not deep, it's not satirical, it's just a good director, some quality actors, and an unoriginal wannabe screenplay writer adding some decent cinematography to cover-up the awful writing.
I can't attack this film too much though because the Aronofsky was able to use his creative genius to warp this film into something worth watching just for his directing. Without Aronofsky, this film would have been another....oh wait, critics love all movie with mind-twisting drugs involved. Sure, there is a time and place for tripped out scenes or even films revolved around the subject itself. Apocalypse Now and Traffic are two of my favorite films. However, it's not original, it's not visually stimulating, and it's certainly not a breakthrough in film.
For the directing and acting,
6 out of 10