Review of Requiem for a Dream (2000) by Del T — 26 May 2012

Aside from Ellen Burstyn's brave performance, I found nothing original or striking about Aronofsky's drug epic.

For months, I've read about how this movie will grab you by the throat, punch you in the gut, and pummel you with its depiction of drug hell. I was all set for the ultimate visceral, heavy metal, hardcore, ultra NC-17 experience.

Boy, what a letdown. What is actually there isn't very groundbreaking. Nothing in Darren's movie hasn't been already shown vividly in movies like "LESS THAN ZERO" and the much, much, better film, "TRAINSPOTTING.".

Aronofsky does have some clever camera moves, and his rapid fire closeup images of getting high, accompanied by weird sound fx, are OK.....for about 5 minutes. But then Darren's bag of cinematic tricks wears out its welcome, and things get repetitive..... very repetitive -.

Yeah, I know, they're addicts and that's all they do, but the thing is, the piled-on images ultimately have an opposite effect. Instead of immersing me deeper into the hell of addiction.....it actually distanced me - left me thinking how much this movie plays like an MTV video. So "nightmarish" scenes of attacking refrigerators, infected arms, electro shock therapy, and TV diet gurus have no impact or payoff.

Finally, why was this movie rated NC-17??? Alot of R-rated movies are far more graphic.