📽️ Requiem for a Dream purchase, purchase Requiem for a Dream movie online , purchase Requiem for a Dream download , buy Requiem for a Dream movie, purchase Requiem for a Dream online, purchase Requiem for a Dream, Requiem for a Dream purchase movie 2000, where can i purchase Requiem for a Dream DVD 📀, Requiem for a Dream money can buy, Requiem for a Dream movie 2000 purchase 🎬.
Purchase Requiem for a Dream (2000) Movie Online and Download - Darren Aronofsky 🎥
IMDB rating:
Darren Aronofsky
Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb
Jared Leto as Harry Goldfarb
Jennifer Connelly as Marion Silver
Marlon Wayans as Tyrone C. Love
Christopher McDonald as Tappy Tibbons
Janet Sarno as Mrs. Pearlman
Suzanne Shepherd as Mrs. Scarlini
Joanne Gordon as Mrs. Ovadia
Charlotte Aronofsky as Mrs. Miles
Mark Margolis as Mr. Rabinowitz
Michael Kaycheck as Donut Cop (as Mike Kaycheck)
Jack O'Connell as Corn Dog Stand Boss
Storyline: Drugs. They consume mind, body and soul. Once you're hooked, you're hooked. Four lives. Four addicts. Four failures. Despite their aspirations of greatness, they succumb to their addictions. Watching the addicts spiral out of control, we bear witness to the dirtiest, ugliest portions of the underworld addicts reside in. It is shocking and eye-opening but demands to be seen by both addicts and non-addicts alike.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x1080 px 9841 Mb h264 12767 Kbps mkv Purchase
DVD-rip 560x304 px 697 Mb mpeg4 1003 Kbps avi Purchase
Don't believe the tripe!
While the trailer for this movie was seductive, most notably for its MTV-style quick shots from the film & music, actually watching it was an experience in torture. This film is one big cliche. Perhaps US raver kids (born after 1980) who have never seen a good film might find this to be "different" & "unusual", but for anyone that's seen non-US or pre-1980 films, this film is one big bore. It's presentation of drug use is no more complex or realistic than the "This is your brain on drugs" PSAs that graced US television sets more than a decade ago. If you're into stream-of-consciousness & lots of style in your drug film check out "Naked Lunch", If you're into the drama & humor of it all then check out "Trainspotting", or if you need a dose of pessimism & reality then check out "Drugstore Cowboy". Hell, even "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" is better than this mess. The acting is awful, especially Ellen Burstyn. I was never convinced that her over-the-top performance was anything but acting....if you really want to see a food performance from her check out "The Last Picture Show". What irks me most about the film is that its MTV-style quick cuts & soundtrack really mask the fact that there is really nothing to it. I could have spent the 90 or so minutes I wasted watching it doing something more productive...like my laundry. By far the most boring drug movie I have ever seen. Advisory: take some caffeine or amphetamines first if you want to stay awake to the ending.
Innovative, Wow.
The story of four people who get too much into drugs, it poses several questions, not all of them about drugs. One of them is, how stylized can movies become before they are so thoroughly stylized that they lose their narrative roots? It's rather like music in some respects. At one end of the dimension, which I won't try to name, there is a simple tune like, oh, "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star," which is easy to remember, fun to whistle, cute, and rudimentary (although Mozart did some very odd things with it). At the other, three minutes and some seconds of silence. In movies, at the simple end, we can have, say, a one-hour film consisting of nothing but the same shot of the Empire State Building. At the other end of the dimension we might get something resembling what one sees in a kaleidoscope while stoned. (Or maybe we come back to the Empire State Building; maybe it's not a dimension at all, but a circle.)

This one certainly hasn't lost touch with the events it describes but it's pretty highly stylized too, as far as the direction, photography, editing, and sound are concerned. Sometimes this stylization works to support the narrative and sometimes it doesn. Sometimes it actually works against it. Example: all of the drugged-up scenes are in fast motion, including those involving, not just speed, but marijuana and heroin. The hyped-up action we get while Ellen Burstyn is on diet pills is evocative, peppy, full of accelerated business. But heroin doesn't work that way. And marijuana practically ablates one's sense of the passage of time so that, for instance, it sometimes seems to take half an hour to urinate -- so they tell me. If you stop using speed abruptly you can get some wizard hallucinations. But no one hallucinates on heroin, although this film suggests they do. The result is that the stylization is sometimes over the top, not slowing down enough to give us a chance to take a breath. It's nerve jangling and leaves the viewer a neural shambles. The performances are fine, by everyone concerned. In particular, Jennifer Connoley has by far her juiciest role and, somewhat surprisingly, is up to it. Burstyn is excellent too, her accent pretty well Brooklynized. But some of that shredding of sensibilities is unearned and unnecessary. The editing is increasingly jumpy and shocking, though it never leaves us in doubt of where we are or who we are with. The score is a blend of mostly scratchy, unpleasant electronics and ordinary sounds with the gain on high -- each pill accompanied by a "plop" on the sound track, each flick on a lighter by a "pfft," and so on. (Sometimes it sounds like a Popeye cartoon.) The photography too is highly distinctive. Fisheye lenses abound here. Cameras are fixed by harness onto an actor's body so that the actor's face and shoulders are immobile while the background seems to swivel around him and he walks and turns corners. The effect is so disturbing that it keeps your eyes glued to the screen.

I found Aranovsky's earlier film, Pi, plan irritating and depressing because of the high-contrast photography and other directorially imposed effects. This one is depressing too, but less irritating because, despite the high style, a story is being carried, and the story is about characters we care something about. They may be self absorbed, like the subject of "Pi," but they're hardly self confident. Their weaknesses are pathetic but entirely recognizable. Ellen Burstyn wants to lose weight so she can look good in that red dress, just as she did at her son's graduation. She pursues the cultural ideal of slenderness and youthfulness. Her son and his pardners in euphoria pursue the cultural ideal of pleasuring one's self. The drugs could be a neat stand in for the values that prevail in our community currently. Why else, except out of a desire to look good, would people buy a three-hundred-dollar simulacrum of a rowboat and use it so regularly? Why else, except out of a desire to feel pleased with one's self, would anyone buy a forty-thousand-dollar ten-gallon-per-mile Suburban Assault Vehicle with a revolving machine gun turret atop it? Hey! Look at me, everybody, I'm young, beautiful, and happy! Of course I can't figure out why I'm alive, but I don't ask myself that question.

This is an extremely innovative film, but the director has made clear his admiration of earlier movies, including "The Panic in Needle Park" (the same general idea), "The Godfather" (ominous oranges), "The Little Shop of Horrors" ("Feed me, Sara!"), and maybe "Koyaanisqatsi" (the acceleration of the cuts, tempo, and onscreen movements from moderato at the beginning to molto agitato towards the end).

It left me saddened and panting for breath. I'm not sure I'd like to sit through it too often, but I certainly wouldn't have wanted to miss it.
confusing "high" art with substance
I tend to enjoy movies that depict reality, no matter the extremes. However, this movie was way off base. At the start, I was entertained by the cinematography. Enjoyment soon gave way to utter disbelief and disgust. If the message was "just say no", this was the epitome of overkill. Never have I seen a movie containing such degrading graphic images of women. Even the fancy drug-using scenes became predictable. I would recommend this flick to no one.
Work of art my a**.
I can't believe people can call this a masterpiece, it's mediocre at best. It feels less like an actual movie and more like something they would show in schools, minus the nudity. This film could have been better if it actually had a consistent plot, or even the basic elements to a story. It's an anti-drug movie that focuses on one dimensional characters, wow good job.

The characters were very uninspired, except Ellen Burstyn, she was the only one that was remotely sympathetic. I didn't care for any of the other characters. To sum them up, they do bad things and suffer for it. To bad you couldn't get an emotional response out of me, that would have helped. If you want to shock people with drugs, show them a picture of Meth mouth, that would work. But instead we get a film that doesn't even feel like I'am watching a movie.

This film is severely over-rated, it lacks any form of development or imagination. Could have been good if they came up with a better plot and more intriguing characters.
we are all dumber after watching this movie
this movie is so bad i cant put it into words. how can some people say "if you don't like this movie its bc you cant watch it with a open mind" sorry i value my time and i don't care about the life of a drug addict and there horrible tough life that they chose for them self. If you like the feel sorry for yourself movies then you might like it. the only thing this movie has to offer is good music. other then that its about heroin addicts and what they will do for drugs. WHO CARES!!!!! This Movie actually got very comical after awhile. If you didn't know drugs are bad now you do, and don't have to watch this movie and lose 90 min of your life!!!
Reefer Madness for the MTV generation...
This is a film. This a film addicted to gimmicks. SPLAT! Any questions?

The pretentiously titled REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is a film that is dark, depressing, achingly dreary and laughably awful at every turn. It is like watching a drunk or an addict wallowing in self pity, only to have him interrupt his moaning and groaning with fits of uncontrollable laughter. You don't know whether to pity him, laugh at him or just smile and slowly back away. Nowhere else will you find a film so self-consciously solemn and meticulously constructed, yet so hysterically out of control.

The film is about the evils of addiction, so it is ironic that the director is hopelessly addicted to clichés and gimmicks. One thing for certain is that director Darren Aronofsky seems desperate to impress somebody. He's the kid with the thesaurus who can't turn in a book report unless he makes certain that every word is at least 10 letters long. Only now he's a film school kid who just figured out how to use all those cool gadgets on the camera. As such, REQUIEM is wall-to-wall cinematic tricks: split screens, split-second editing, fisheye images, fast forward, time lapse and oh-so many really nifty-crazy-weird camera angles. It all goes for that Oh-wow! factor. But when every scene is a calculated stunt, then no individual stunt has any effect. It's like an opera screeched in only one note or a room where everything is the same shade of blood red. The overall effect is shockingly effective only because it is all so unrelentingly unpleasant.

The idea, I suppose, is to clue us in on how hyper the world must seem in a drug induced haze, but that is rendered meaningless since the film goes hyper even during innocuous moments. Indeed, what passes for everyday reality is presented as being so melodramatically arty or intensely overwrought that at times Aronofsky has to resort to the overtly ridiculous to even get back our attention. By the time Ellen Burstyn, as a diet pill-addicted old lady, finds herself being terrorized by her refrigerator, the film takes on the air of a particularly grotesque skit from Monty Python.

Even worse than Aronofsky's taste for psychedelic overkill (apparently inspired in equal parts by bad MTV videos, trendy TV commercials and grade-C drug movies of the 60s), is the director's self-righteous arrogance in assuming he has something original to say. Drugs are bad! Gosh, who knew? But even the simple nobility of that sentiment is buried under the sludge of his technique. The fates of the four main characters is so extreme, and so extremely presented, that the film unintentionally trivializes the very lecture it so pompously presents. Their fates -- insanity, mutilation, prison and sexual degradation -- are presented, not with an air of remorse and pity, but as a manic cinematic freak show. This is REEFER MADNESS on LSD; scare tactic propaganda served up as if it were from a crazed evangelist.

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the poor actors are forced to overact just to keep up with the hectic pace of the film's stylistics. Lost between their obviously phony Nu Yook accents and bug-eyed emoting, there is little room for genuine characterizations. Indeed, the fact that any semblance of a performances even survives is remarkable considering Aronofsky's veg-a-matic editing style. There are poignant moments, however fleeting, when the actors reveal depth and complexity in their characters, but those instances of subtlety are brushed aside as Aronofsky rushes to get back to the grandiose surrealism.

Can there be anything more personal than an addiction? Yet, Aronofsky has made a film that is frenetic, yet cold and mechanical. This is a film by a filmmaker who has no faith in either his message or his audience. Everything is hammered home, amplified and repeated because the director doesn't think we will get it if he simply states the obvious. Had Aronofsky just made a simple little horror movie, maybe his gross-out/creep-out/freak-out stylistics might have been amusing. But he has tackled a serious social issue and reduced drug abuse to the level of being a Freddie Krueger bogeyman. I don't doubt the sincerity of his anti-drug rant, I just find it hopelessly condescending. It is film-making as shock treatment, designed to beat the viewer down to the point of vulnerability, exhausted and ready for brainwashing.
This is truly the most tedious, boring, trite, contrived and uninspired film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. It was so boring that I wanted to walk out of the cinema after the first hour. My companion almost fell asleep. I felt nothing for the characters, who were not really established as rounded, believable people. Some of the visual tricks were repeated constantly and lost all novelty or interest after the first hour. At that point the direction of the plot also became utterly predictable and it just felt so horrendously repetitious. I felt like getting up and shouting at the screen "Die, junkie! Die! Die! I want to get out of here! ", but I didn't want to disturb the other patrons.

***SLIGHT SPOILER *** I was also very offended at the way ECT Treatment was shown in the film. The participant was fully awake. Now I don't know about the U.S, but people are generally knocked out when they receive this treatment in the U.K., and have been for at least 20 years (I know someone who has had the treatment). This is treatment of last resort for people who don't respond to any other kind of treatment. It is not perfect and can have unfortunate side effects, but has saved a lot of people from the slough of despond or even suicide. This was the last straw in destroying any limited respect I might have had for the director. He is just a purveyor of sensationalist claptrap masquerading as deep social comment. *****SPOILER ENDS****.

I don't care that it had a worthy theme - addictions are bad and can destroy your life. The theme has been trawled over so many times that we don't need another attempt, especially one as bad as this. Though it might shock and offend the very sensitive, it didn't shock me. I didn't seem real for even a moment. If anything the visual tricks were wasted, because they just had a distancing effect. All in all, I can honestly say this is the worst film I have ever seen.
Requiem for your self-respect
Remember the anti-drug commercial where a girl points to an egg, says, "this is your brain," and then screams, "this is your brain on drugs!" as she smashes the egg with a skillet and proceeds to demolish the entire kitchen, screaming, "and this is what drugs do to your family, this is what they do to your future..." and so on?

If you can imagine that commercial going on for two hours, done with great visual style and editing, with acting that ranges from excellent (Ellen Burstyn) to terrible, you can skip this movie. While Requiem for a Dream sells itself as an important movie about important subject matter, it does nothing to explain why REAL PEOPLE do drugs. Its characters are not people. They suffer without reflection on their own states, while the filmmaker attempts to bombard you with visual symbols explaining what they want and feel. While one could interpret the device used to explain why the Burstyn character continues her downward spiral, the game show, as a meaningful symbol for individuals' desires for acceptance and recognition, I don't think it is one. It is a gimmick that condescends to the character by making her desire for acceptance pathetic and silly. The movie tells you what to think about her inner motivations by staging them in a highly subjective way.

This way of revealing character is consistent throughout the movie. Characters are without interior lives, or at least their interior lives are not revealed. At the same time, the movie uses symbols (the game show, the television, etc...) to suggest the reasons for their desires. While real people do drugs for complex reasons which are hard to unravel, these characters are living in a movie-world symbolism which suggests familiar, "important" reasons for their behavior that tie into the most materialistic, shallow aspects of our society. And of course the shallow, cheap aspects of our culture are harmful to us all, and we recognize them in the movie. So despite their lack of depth, is not hard for us to relate to these characters, and maybe even feel sorry for them, since they exist only as empty vessels into which we may pour our own self-pity.
This film is about as cheap a play on emotions as you can get. A lot of people found this film offensive because it was graphic and brutal, I found it offensive because it treated me like an idiot.

It's like, OK, I want to make a film that people will walk out and say "Wow, that really affected me, what an intense and touching film!" So, I'll get four characters, and I'll just screw 'em up real bad. That's all it's gonna be, I'm just gonna try and think of the worst way I can possibly screw each of them up, and then I'll screw 'em up - and people will come out bawling, thinking that, "well, I'm bawling, so it MUST have been a good film!"

Without being too harsh, the film did have a few (but only a few) good things about it, mainly visual things. However, the predominant feature of Requiem for a Dream is it forcefully trying to squeeze emotion out of you. I'm sorry, but there's more to a good film than just something which crudely forces you to feel shaken and sick in the stomach. A good kick below the belt will achieve a similar effect, and any idiot can do that. Sure, make a film that will make us feel shaken and hurt, but do it creatively! Don't just go for the easiest, bluntest, most transparent and hollow option! 'Cause the only emotion I felt when the credits came up in Requiem for a Dream was a slight anger for paying to see it and then laughter when I saw tears in the eyes of the person next to me. Because since the 'emotion-squeezing' didn't work on me, I was pretty bored throughout the film as there was little else to it.

4/10. See PI instead.
Nonsensical nonsense that has no point.
I was told by several people that this was an excellent movie. I watched the entire film (just to give it a fair chance) and it was a depressing view of drug culture. It gave non-junkies nothing to grasp on to. Often excellent movies do not have a easily definable message, but they seem to offer insight into the human condition. This movie had none. This movie is only "cool" because someone somewhere said it was.
See Also
📹 Purchase Requiem for a Dream movie online, Requiem for a Dream HD 720p download, Requiem for a Dream the movie, Requiem for a Dream download, characters in Requiem for a Dream, Requiem for a Dream budget, Requiem for a Dream movie download, Requiem for a Dream Bluray purchase online, Requiem for a Dream HD full movie online, Requiem for a Dream HD online, Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans, Christopher McDonald, Louise Lasser, Marcia Jean Kurtz, Janet Sarno, Suzanne Shepherd, Joanne Gordon, Charlotte Aronofsky, Mark Margolis, Michael Kaycheck, Jack O'Connell, Chas Mastin Requiem for a Dream, Requiem for a Dream 1080p, Requiem for a Dream 720p, Requiem for a Dream direct link download, Requiem for a Dream purchase download, Requiem for a Dream full movie, Requiem for a Dream full movie download, Requiem for a Dream full movie free download, Requiem for a Dream purchase movie 2000, Requiem for a Dream full movie online, Requiem for a Dream 2000, Requiem for a Dream Drama online, Requiem for a Dream purchase DVD 📀, Requiem for a Dream USA, purchase Requiem for a Dream, Requiem for a Dream download 720p, Requiem for a Dream dual audio, Requiem for a Dream HD Darren Aronofsky, Requiem for a Dream good movie to purchase, purchase movies and download, Requiem for a Dream movie 2000 purchase, Requiem for a Dream movie available for purchase, purchase Requiem for a Dream movie, Requiem for a Dream real life, Requiem for a Dream Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans, Christopher McDonald, Louise Lasser, Marcia Jean Kurtz, Janet Sarno, Suzanne Shepherd, Joanne Gordon, Charlotte Aronofsky, Mark Margolis, Michael Kaycheck, Jack O'Connell, Chas Mastin 📼, Requiem for a Dream actors names, Requiem for a Dream HD digital copies of movie, Requiem for a Dream movies unlimited 🎞️.