Retour à Brooklyn

When I saw the British cult film Trainspotting in the mid-90s, I was literally overwhelmed by its overview and deep exploration of the world of junkies and their survival in this world. And above all, I had a sense of authenticity throughout the film, given that the author of the book, Irvine Welsh, had firsthand knowledge of the scene, being intimately familiar with the life of the junkie community and the drug culture, and having tried drugs more than once. When I watched Requiem for a Dream, my initial impression was complete annoyance at the fact that the screenwriter was openly making a fool out of me, because only someone who may occasionally snort a line of cocaine at a glamorous celebrity party, not someone who knows the phenomenon of the drug world and junkies from personal experience, could come up with such nonsense and detachment from the subject matter. I was not familiar with Darren Aronofsky's work and did not know what to expect from him. But from the first moment, I got the feeling that his directorial style was overly exaggerated, with an obvious attempt to shock and emotionally manipulate the viewer. His music video-like style with fast cuts, slow motion, and most notably, the speeding up of the camera and overall excessive stylization reminded me of the film Spun, but that film primarily aimed to entertain and did not pretend to convey any grand message. Aronofsky's characters are only loosely sketched and, above all, they do nonsensical things. Building the main storyline on the absolute lack of heroin in the middle of New York City, which is the most lucrative drug market in the world and daily supplies a huge number of drug trafficking networks, is simply ridiculous. If the story took place in a sleepy town somewhere in the Midwest, I could easily identify with it, where one broken gang can truly drive many addicts to despair. Then there are plenty of logical errors, like the arrest of the junkie duo - since they weren't carrying drugs, they probably got busted for parking violations. :-) The main character gets sepsis from an infected and swollen vein, which is another absurdity because a junkie like him knows perfectly well where to inject the drug, and it's usually not even the arm because it's too visible - I could go on and on. When I read the reviews from film fans, I felt like I was sitting on a bus while others claimed that I was in psychiatric care. Well, maybe they are right... Overall impression: 35%. For me, this is one of the most overrated films on FilmBooster. (2010-03-26)

I don't think I've ever seen a comparably unpleasant film about addictions of all kinds, and truth be told, I don't want to see it again. I have to admit, however, that the ever-repeating merry-go-round of fast cuts, coupled with the intrusively infectious musical accompaniment, had such a frantic gradation as the end approached that it was hard to resist. That's actually one of the reasons I decided to like this film. My great admiration, however, goes to Ellen Burstyn, whose riveting performance outshined all the others. (75%) (2021-08-15)

Aronofsky’s audio-visual approach makes use of absolutely all of his medium’s means of expression in order to totally and mercilessly overwhelm the audience. One of the many fitting aspects of this film consists in how long everything is seemingly fine in the lives of the characters and then the sudden realisation that they’ve been treading water in an ocean of hopelessness. We are all dependent on something and we create delusions to justify and even feed our dependencies without having to see the reality around us. It’s easy to find everyone or at least a reflection of someone close to you in the four lives depicted in Requiem for a Dream. During the closing credits, there is nothing left to do but curl up in a ball and keep dreaming your dream. Though first contact with this film is unrivalled in terms of the intensity of its impact, seeing it again after roughly two decades is no easier or more merciful, because then you know what awaits the characters. (2023-02-09)

After a second screening I have to say that Requiem for a Dream has become one of the most influential and powerful film experiences of my life. Few other films can evoke such a feeling of depression and at the same time impress with their first-class formality, which doesn't so much cross the line of perfection as push it by leaps and bounds. If something seemed slightly unfinished or overdone the first time, the second time I was completely swept away by the geyser of fresh ideas and bold shots, everything seemed to be exactly in place and the intensity of the story was all the more overwhelming because it was achieved without any big twists or ideas. It’s almost unbelievable how Aronofsky can wring the viewer out with just a few clever cuts, and how Clint Mansell can create a stifling and unpleasant atmosphere right from the start with a single musical motif that couldn't have been better and makes you wonder how something so beautiful and chilling could have been composed in the first place. And the final trump card is the absolutely amazing cast, Leto, Connely and Wayans give the performances of a lifetime, but all of them are topped by the phenomenal Ellen Burstyn, whose creation is breathtaking and academics deserve a good beating over the head with a dictionary to understand what the word acting means. Maybe I'm writing a bit hastily now, with the central melody and the breathtaking, flawlessly edited final scene still running through my head, but from my point of view this is one of the most worthwhile films of all time. If you've ever thought for even a brief moment about taking hard drugs, watch Requiem for a Dream and the craving will pass quickly. 100% (2013-06-10)

Darren Aronofsky’s directorial inventiveness is incredible. Can anyone else ever reflect human feelings so brilliantly using only camerawork, editing and music? The acting is also excellent – Ellen Burstyn’s performance ranks among the best that I have every seen. But still that’s not enough for me. Requiem for a Dream is a devastating mosaic of somewhat gratuitous misery. It is not the deep, existential and timeless philosophical reflection that it could have been. Which, given its extraordinary formalistic qualities, is a shame. (2003-04-03)