Sophomoric is the right word

Rating: 6/10 (22 December 2000)

I loved Aronofksy's visual style in Pi, and was really excited, at least in the beginning parts of Requiem for a Dream, about getting to see that style executed in vivid color. But the plot of this movie almost seems to be a joke on the most time-worn arthouse cliche, which is that arty films are inevitably depressing. Requiem for a Dream is so depressing its boring. Paraphrasing the local paper reviewer, not only is there no hope for the characters, there is not even a possibility of hope. We know from the very first scene in the movie that it can only get worse for these people, and it does, forthwith. And then it keeps on going for another thirty minutes. And then for another thirty minutes. On the way out of the theater, my friend wondered aloud why he hadn't walked out halfway through the picture, and had instead chosen to "sit there and let Aronofosky stab me in the eye with a hot poker for another hour." The reason, we eventually decided, was that the voyeuristic experience of this film is essentially pornographic. It may be lacking the visual gore of, say, Hellraiser III, but it is just as Sadistic. You get to watch these four people writhe in agony for about two hours. First you're nauseated, then you're numbed, and then you're relieved that it's only a movie and slightly exhilirated because it could never happen to you. If that sounds like your idea of a aesthetic experience, then Requiem for a Dream may work for you. It didn't for me. I kept remembering something George Lucas is reported to have said: "Emotionally involving the audience is easy. All you have to do is put an adorable little kitten up on the screen and have some guy wring its neck."