Very good film that seems to me to have been made into something it is not...

Rating: 8/10 (11 April 2002)

There is no denying that on the evidence of both this and "Pi", Darren Aronofsky is a hugely talented young director. What he is NOT, at least by judging him on this film alone, is the saviour of cinema. Cinema is doing okay anyway right now, and the arrival of "Requiem for a Dream", however daring its attempt to show the viewer a bleak worldview of people who are devoid of real hope, is not going to change that for better or worse.
Its theme of isolation and a despair so great that there is nothing you can (or wouldn't) do to relieve yourself of it, is nothing really new; neither is its causal relationship with drugs. Admittedly, one of the things the film IS to be praised for doing is showing that this kind of dependency isn't EXCLUSIVELY formed with narcotics. There are scenes of substance abuse in the movie, but arguably more powerful are the scenes where the 'drug' in question instead seems to be something that superficially is thought less harmful, i.e. TV, or social acceptance, or... you get the idea.
These themes and the way they are dealt with and explored are what makes "Requiem for a Dream" interesting to watch. However, so many people are effusive when they use adjectives such as 'devastating' to communicate the impact that the film had on them, that I have to wonder if I am becoming so desensitised that things no longer shock me. I'm sure this can't be the case, but I've really felt much more unsettled after films than the experience I had with this one. Sure, "Requiem... " had an effect on me, but I feel confident that I could watch it again several times without feeling unable to cope anymore. There are plenty of films that I consider more disturbing than this, and funnily enough, most of them are British! Heck, even the ending of "Chinatown" got to me more than anything in "Requiem", and no one advises caution to anyone preparing to watch that, do they?
The film indeed does have some interesting things to say, but its a shame that after reading several comments on here, people who consider themselves hardened movie watchers might approach this film with their arms folded and an attitude of: "Shock me" Far better instead to seek it out for its dazzling cinematic treatment of a quite familiar theme. Make no mistake, this film is definitely CINEMATIC, and Aronofsky pulls out every stylistic trick in the book to emphasise the movie's most important points.
He is helped by the efforts of a uniformly excellent cast. Burstyn in particular is heartbreaking. For all the attention grabbing techniques used, it is the human suffering that will stay with you after you eject the tape. In fact, I think that may be WHY it wasn't nearly as disconcerting as I was perhaps expecting, because once or twice Aronofsky's tricks come dangerously close to over-egging the pudding, when he might have been better letting the performances speak for themselves.
"Requiem..." was one of the better - and certainly one of the most INNOVATIVE - films I saw last year, but I still feel that perhaps some people desperate for a 'cinema revelation', have adorned the wrong movie as having provided it.