Review of Requiem for a Dream (2000) by Jake F — 19 Sep 2012

The first time I watched this, I gave it a good rating because I thought it had a good performance from Ellen Burstyn and I was impressed by the overall flashiness of the movie. When I watched it about a year later, I started thinking what the point of the movie was.

There isn't one, other than "Drugs are bad!!". Nothing in this movie even begins on to touch on the complexities of the subject of addiction. Also there is nothing justify the last 30 minutes of depravity the viewer is put through.

I hated how stupid the characters (I'm going to inject in the same site over and over!) were, and how unrealistic many of the situations were (the last 30 minutes are so over the top and ridiculous you won't believe it.

). Apparently if your an addict and go to the ER with a gangrened arm, they will send you to prison without treatment. If you do drugs, you'll also end up being force fed and then later go through electroshock therapy.

The dialogue is mostly lame (especially between Marion and Harry). It doesn't sound realistic, it's over the top and melodramatic (perfect example is the split screen scene when they are laying next to each other).

I just can't help but think the whole movie is shallow. After the 2nd viewing, I felt the only merits were the score, and Burstyn's acting. There are better drug movies that are much more intelligent, like Trainspotting (heroin), or Leaving Las Vegas (alcohol).

Sorry for the rant, I felt I couldn't give this a low score without justifying why, because many people hold it in high regard. Overall, this movie is not very enlightening at all.