Visually painful, intellectually void

Rating: 2/10 (29 July 2006)

What I miss in this film is the attempt to address difficult social questions about drugs. Instead we are treated as Pavlov's dogs: drugs=bad, drugs=filth, drugs=pain, drugs=ugly, etc. All this may be true, but does that really suffice to make a film?
No, I answer. For example, why not try to address the question WHY do these people in one way or another do what they do, why do they inflict these things upon themselves? What drives them? And why not try to put drug addiction in a bigger picture? Who gains from this abuse, why does a society accept that many of its citizens are paralyzed at their television sets, doped by drugs, completely consumed by their need or engaged in small gang wars (small in comparison to what governments do)? I do not say that one single film should address all these questions, but a drug film above the ordinary must see beyond the individual. This one fails in that respect, thus making it uncontroversial (the nudity and sex scenes are filthy and terribly voyeuristic, but I do not consider them to be controversial except to a very prude audience), which probably is the reason why it has been so well received... no one in power is criticized, it is the addict which is the loser, end of story.
The film has some inventive visual effects and some good acting, but form can not make up for lack of challenging content. So I end up with 2/10.