Since everyone's been raving to me about this for years upon years now.



"Holy overrated, Batman!" I was bored off of my ass. What a bad-to-mediocre film.

Finally. Someone who feels the same way about this film that 'stash and I do!



I wouldn't say it was bad, but I felt it tried very hard to be "arty" and - especially toward the end - everything felt so contrived. First off, if bad things are going to happen to people and I'm to feel any sympathy for their plights, their character development should be compelling. But what a bunch of fuckwits instead. Looney mom goes through electro-shock therapy and turns into a vegetable, junkie lets an infection get so bad his arm is amuptated, girl gets rammed in the butt by large unspeakable object as part of a sex show because she needs more smack. Give me a break.

I've never seen it, but everybody but you told me this film was a good film. Anyway the OST is beautiful.

yeh the OST is wicked.



hmm, see i enjoyed this film, i thought it was pretty dark, but a mate of mine who watched it with me said exaclty the same as whirly - he just didnt give a shit about the characters, which made it hard to care when the bad stuff happened to them.



stil think the cutting of sound fx to taking drugs was pretty wicked :)

"Holy overrated, Batman!"

haha, quality line 8)

I couldn't agree with you more, Whirly! One word sums up this film and that is 'pretentious'! The only highlight for me, being a perverted young lad, was seeing the gorgeous Ms Connelly writhing around in the buff, but in the context of the story even that was tenuous highlight. Mid-sparkle maybe, but probably not a highlight!



For me this over-long, over-edited, Kubrick-wannabe film was vastly overshadowed by the short film that was shown prior, the title of which eludes me, but anyone who saw it around the same time as me should recall it:



Lovers driving down road, car runs off road and down a valley into a forest, car crashes, one lover dies instantly, other survives only to find their hand caught in the somewhat symbollic grip of their dead lover's rigor morticed hand. Surviving lover struggles to release grip, becomes straved and desperate and, after much deliberation, decides to rip dead lover's hand off at the wrist using a blunt instrument (can't remember, might have been the handbrake lever) inserted between the two bones of dead lover's forearm! Surviving lover makes a break (please excuse the pun) for safety. The end.



Not a bad little short, but considering the film it preceded, it not only foreshadowed the feature, but eclipsed it entirely!

I would say that this film is overwhelmingly depressing but it did have jennifer connorly in it :D

soundtrack and editing made this movie watchable.

I thought it was a great but disturbing film. I "liked it" very much

everyone loves the soundtrack then!! it was done by clint mansell. his music has been entertaining me for the last 15 years

I like the movie. Not mindblowingly good, but an entertaining film that was indeed driven along by Mansell's excellent soundtrack. Aranofsky's a great director, but I think he tried to beat the viewer over the head with the "point" of the movie (addictions).

The book itself is poorly written.



First off, Pi sucked, so it wasn't exactly something difficult to follow up- outdated themes, shoddy direction, and bad acting. Same thing with Requiem. The only worthwhile performance was that of the mother, and prosthetics certainly assisted that.



Aranofsky has a problem of choosing a running visual theme and SERIOUSLY overdoing it. The whole pop-roll-cook-shoot-fizz sequence was extremely commonplace, to the point where it was dull. I was bored after 20 minutes of this film, but decided to press on.



The line delivery is AWFUL. The first place I noticed this was in the ice cream shop with the cop towards the beginning. It didn't improve after that.



After the kid's arm was amputated, I could see the outline of his real arm under the white sheet. Nobody in the editing room noticed this?



Orson Welles was accused of the same thing many hear have accused Aronofsky of- lack of character development. This is true for Requiem. By the end of it, I didn't give a damn if they all went through electroshock, lost an arm, prostituted themselves and ended up in prison. In fact, I think I could've at least laughed at them. I started watching their story at 10 o'clock. By 12 o'clock, I wanted it to be ten so I could could put a different movie in and put my two hours into something worthwhile.



In Orson's case, he was a master of technical progession that made his movie, Citizen Kane, at least in the 40s awe-inspiring to audiences. If the Academy votes were counted in the same manner they are now, without the extra's union, it would have won Best Film. Aranofsky seems not to have truly studied the capabilities of the camera (Orson modelled the movie Stagecoach) nor have had the expertise behind the lense that Aranofsky has. As a result, many of Aranofsky's "clever camera tricks" looked like they were taken from a 1970s elementary educational film, and he hoped that in the context of the script it would seem "trippy". Instead, they were corny. I chuckled quite often.



Tim Burton is another example of what Aranofsky tries to be- not a storyteller, but a master of visual tricks. Burton has the advantage of picking material that in itself contains progressing characters worth our attention and care. Aranofsky needs to do this. Where Burton lacks such character's, he picks material that is fun, simply for the look and appearance to please his audience's eyes. Hence Charlie & The Chocolate Factory or Nightmare Before Christmas. He doesn't just rely on camera tricks- he puts into use stage design and scoring. Aranofsky should experiment with fun material. He attempts somthing serious instead, and fails horribly.



Requiem is one of the few films of which I will say, "It wasn't worth seeing even once."



The score is fantastic, I agree. A bit of it was used for a The Two Towers trailer before the score was finished on the Lord of the Ring's episode. It was rerecorded with an orchestra and titled Requiem of the Towers.



The end.

whirlygirl Escribi�:

Finally. Someone who feels the same way about this film that 'stash and I do!



I wouldn't say it was bad, but I felt it tried very hard to be "arty" and - especially toward the end - everything felt so contrived. First off, if bad things are going to happen to people and I'm to feel any sympathy for their plights, their character development should be compelling. But what a bunch of fuckwits instead. Looney mom goes through electro-shock therapy and turns into a vegetable, junkie lets an infection get so bad his arm is amuptated, girl gets rammed in the butt by large unspeakable object as part of a sex show because she needs more smack. Give me a break.

Yeah, you can tell the director has never had a real job, or he'd realize that the Ass-to-ass thing is WAAAAAAAAAAY better than working in an office.

And any real junkie wouldn't just keep shooting into the same hole, lol. I was laughing outloud when he was lying on the hospital bed and the saw hit. Good god, I've never touched heroin in my life and I know this.

trippinvato Escribi�:

And any real junkie wouldn't just keep shooting into the same hole, lol. I was laughing outloud when he was lying on the hospital bed and the saw hit. Good god, I've never touched heroin in my life and I know this.

totally man... and if he were arrested, and not given medical treatment, and lost his arm, junky or not he'd be able to sue the shit outta the state.

ive never seen the film but my bro has it on DVD.. he said i was too young to watch it.. that was like a year or somethin ago.. but ill watch it..

My bro said it was good like..

This movie made me laugh even harder than Schindler's List did! X-D