🎦 Requiem for a Dream full movie HD download (Darren Aronofsky) - Drama. 🎬
Requiem for a Dream
Year:
2000
Country:
USA
Genre:
Drama
IMDB rating:
8.4
Director:
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 Download
DVD-rip 560x304 px 697 Mb mpeg4 1003 Kbps avi Download
Reviews
So overrated. Not authentic. Shallow.
A wallowing in a false underbelly. Ellen Burstyn's one-note shrieking, Jared Leto's awful accent - it's fake and annoying. This movie rode a wave of bs hype. I love it when people claim it's authentic. There's nothing authentic about it. It's all surface. And people fell for it. It's a fake, an emperor with no clothes. Stuttering muttering and yelling, nothing happens but actors chewing scenery and a once-talented director indulging masturbatory fantasies. There's no there there. If drug abuse was merely an irritant, this film would have some small merit. But it's a problem with more depth than the filmmaker acknowledged. The director went off the rails for this overrated waste of time.
2005-03-31
YAWN!! Don't be fooled again ...
This movie is so derivative it is disgusting! I am very surprised at the number of people who think this movie is shocking and original when it is clearly stale leftovers with some fancy photography (the only redeeming quality). The characters act like they are in some never ending music video gone terribly wrong - it was obvious that they were shallow attempts to try and make us squirm. In the end everything was so over the top and stylized it just turns out to be ridiculous, staged, and boring. If you want to go see a movie that is imaginative and breaks through the normal movie nonsense go see Dancer in the Dark!!
2000-11-27
Truly Unpleasant
I was pretty enthusiastic about both Pi and its soundtrack, and was pleased to see another movie from the same fellow.

However, whereas Pi had an interesting plot and occasional moments of brightness, this movie was almost exclusively about suffering, and the last half of the movie almost gratuitously dwelt on that. My biggest beef was with the plot, which became a contrivance to abuse the characters, again in the last half. Whenever chance would have it that the protagonists could have several possible futures ranging from fortunate to dismal, the plot always chose the worst possible future. After a while, the suffering was completely artificial, loaded with graphic, ugly images; high-strung and irritating music, and a disregard for reality that had hitherto remained intact.

The acting was well-done, the direction had style, the music, save for the grating violins when things were really getting bad (which I suppose were meant to invoke pathos), was interesting and well-suited, but I have to ask myself -- why did I watch the movie if it was completely unpleasant, if I didn't learn anything save for the depths of pain and disgust to which a movie can go? I am all for intelligent independent movies, but there has to be some spark of enjoyment in it instead of a kaleidoscopic barrage of suffering. I regret watching this film.
2001-11-12
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.
2001-09-23
when dreams and nightmares collide...
My God! "Requiem for a Dream" (2000), what a movie! It's always difficult to write reviews about perfect movies but I'm going to try. First, there are three adjectives which come to my mind to describe this movie and they're the ones which everyone thinks of: powerful, harrowing and heart-breaking and certain sequences remain engraved in the memories like for example, Jared Leto's wounded arm caused by drug.

To watch "Requiem for a Dream" is like being punched in the face. It's the kind of movie which can't leave indifferent. It is impossible to come out of this horrifying movie unharmed. It was made by a young director Darren Aronofsky whose previous movie "Pi" (1998) was very hailed. I must admit that I wasn't fully convinced by this indie movie but here, without a doubt, the director entirely hypnotized me and I thank him for that.

The movie was made from a novel written by Hubert Selby Jr. It isn't the first time that a work from this novelist is adapted for the screen. Indeed, in 1989, Uli Edel had shot "Last Exit to Brooklyn" which developed a nightmarish and apocalyptic vision of a mankind who lived in hell. Here, the movie focuses on 4 main characters. There's Harry Goldfarb. He, his girlfriend Marion Silver and his best mate Tyrone C Love plan to become high-rolling smack dealers. In the meantime, his mother Sarah Goldfarb has got her head in the clouds. She received a call and she learned that she's going to appear on television. At the beginning of the film, the 4 characters' hopes amazingly answers the shiny weather of the summer. But as we usually say: best things have an end. Summer will go away to leave place to fall and winter. Just like the dreams will slowly but surely shatter and the 4 main protagonists will embark on an endless suffering. A vertiginous descent into hell like we have never seen one and which will reach its climax in winter in the last half-hour of the movie. From this moment, the film presents a flood of incredible pictures; they are so painful so much that they make the view unbearable. However, you watch it flabbergasted with both repulsion and fascination.

Darren Aronofsky invites us to a climbing in the morbid. "Requiem for a Dream" strikes by its visual and sonorous frenzy. Through, accelerated frenetic sequences, hysterical split-screens, parallel images, the director doesn't pull his punches to describe this diving in absolute horror for the 4 characters. However, in his crazy making, there's none form of unwarranted nature. The features previously quoted may be disturbing but necessary to answer several things which aren't pleasant to hear like for example, to denounce the omnipresence of the consumer society. These abuses express themselves, here, by the crushing presence of objects, perfectly representative of this society like the television or the refrigerator. The another goals of the film: to make us share the physical and moral sufferings of a drug addict, notably through the deterioration of their visual and sonorous perceptions. But also to show us in a straight-forward and rough way, the dependence of a drug addict on his drug. Aronofsky's message is simple to understand. There's not only the drug like cocaine or amphetamines that make dependent but also simple objects apparently harmless which can become dangerous like the television or the refrigerator. They can destroy our faculties of reasoning and judgment. In a way "Requiem for a Dream" illustrates very well Brad Pitt's key cue in "Fight Club" (1999): "things you own end up owning you...". On the other hand, if we put the stress on drug, the least we can say is that the moments of shooting, the withdrawal times are showed with a realism and bluntness rarely reached. True, "Trainspotting" (1996) had already presented similar scenes but Darren Aronofsky isn't afraid to go further in daring.

It would be unfair to neglect the terrific cast. Beginning with Ellen Burstyn who in all respects gives a dazzling performance. She renders very well the degeneration of her character. In the beginning, she is a normal old lady but in the end, she looks like a senseless living dead. Why didn't she get her Oscar in 2001 instead of Julia Roberts in "Erin Brockovich" (2000)? Then, concerning Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly well their sensitiveness and fragility are impressive. But the biggest surprise is Marlon Wayans. Who could have thought that he could be at ease in a comic role (Scary Movie) as well as in a dramatic role? These 4 actors make particularly harrowing the very last sequences of the film which show them forever in the depths of despair or madness where pain, humiliation and misery suffer into them. And then, during the final credits, we can hear the sea with a little of relief as if we had just made a nightmare.

But what is extraordinary in Aronofsky's work is that he manages to find a little place for humor which acts in an efficient way. In conclusion, this young film-maker has shot a film with a real emotional power. I must confess that I almost shed a tear several times. "Requiem for a Dream" is a movie I highly recommend but beware! It's not a movie for everyone and for the spectators who didn't watch it, I advise you not to see it if you are in a sad mood. It demands a strong stomach and I think the people who say they weren't afraid during the projection are liars. Don't forget your handkerchief.
2005-02-20
pathetic trash nicely shot
Arsty-farsty shooting and gritty squalor cannot save this howlingly overblown cautionary tale.

From the deluded fat TV widow to the sinister black drug pusher, to the naive twerps brought low by the evils of drugs, there is not one character interesting enough to be played by a non-beautiful actor.

There's really no reason to have shot this live action. In fact, if Jack Chick ever gives up drawing religious pamphlets and tries his hand at screenplays, he'll probably come up with something just like this.

Lots of talented players, a great score, and a somewhat interesting story make it a real shame that this film is so annoyingly overrated and that it fails so badly. Despite snappy editing, some naughty director's cut sex footage and strong acting, this movie has the artistic value of a 1950s pot-scare movie shown in high-school phys ed.

The emotional impact of the plot is about as subtle as a bunker-buster falling on a box of puppies in slow motion.
2006-05-30
Not good.
Outstanding only in its mediocrity, if impressed by this buckle up and watch Trainspotting. A film centered on addiction done well.

Actinging more than passable, the charisma exuded by the performers kept me watching.

Direction - flamboyant but enjoyable, discernible talent for sure. In parts questions were asked on the necessity of such flourishes which felt tedious come the end.

Writing - If something needs to be said, it deserves to be said right. Clumsy dialogue left the whole film wanting. More bite needed.

All in all - Pretty film without guts. Seemed stuck in a murky middle ground unable to bridge either side unto which it could have been a decent film. Less direction, greater character progression, deeper storyline and weighty dialogue would benefit this film in my opinion.
2011-12-24
The Ultimate in WTF
I have no idea what to say about this film. Is it good? Maybe. Is it bad? It shows shades but it is not terrible. I have never seen such a film which gets so much right yet at the same time so very much wrong.

It is well shot, acted, directed, and as for writing says what it wants to say very well. However, it is a major downer, cannot seem to hold interest, and the message is a bit heavy-fisted throughout. I feel the suffering, but much of it seems overblown.

I would not recommend this to anyone, but still feel it to be a technical marvel. I guess if you're really curious you could see it, but it is too disturbing for most and will not resonate strongly due to the way the message is portrayed.

The five stars you see in the review are just for convenience so I know I've seen it. My actual rating is *null*/5 because no star rating would do my opinion of the film justice.
2013-11-27
a classic wannabe, an intellectual flop
I went to see this movie after hearing all the noise it did, after hearing some of my friends say it was the best picture ever... and I was truly disapointed.

First of all, its photography. Of course, it is great in technical point of view, the shot of the eye dilating is cool, all the visual effects are cool, and technically astonishing. But, it is just that, it is just cool. They do not mean anything, they are put there just to decorate the story, they are useless. And there is too many of them. I went to see a movie, not a parade of technical skills. A movie, not a video clip. What could have been an interesting aspect of the movie becomes boring and excessive.

It is the same thing with the story, which I find extremely moralistic. Of course, drugs are bad, of course they can kill you, I don't need to pay ten dollars and suffer during two hours to understand it. My parents told me that many times before. Besides, the way Aronofsky uses to affect his audience is easy, sadly easy. He wants to shock you, and in the hardest way. And he goes for the easy way. It is easy to make you cry and to make you hate a character showing him kick a dog to death. In the same way, he shows you a rotting arm, gore sex and all the disgraces that can happen to a poor junkie or to his mother addicted to pills and TV. He never tries to say things in a subtle way, he things people who see his movie are idiots who can not understand anything unless he shows it, completely. He made a movie for idiots, I must repeat it.

He does too much and is redundant in his message and in the way he tells it. I could elaborate, give more arguments and examples, but this movie really do not deserve more of my time. I have wasted enough seeing it. If "Requiem for a Dream" is worth something, it is just because of the images effects, because its subject, drugs, is the same a teenager would choose and what he says about it is not much more mature. Drugs are not so interesting and this movie does not tell me anything I did not know before about them. And what irritates me the most is to see that there still are people who have the courage to say this is a classic! Well, I just hope that, with the years, it will be forgotten...
2003-03-22
This movie is undeniably, extraordinarily... stupid
This is one of those films that everybody talks about as being so disturbing and shocking... well I finally saw it and I think it's neither.

First of all, it's utterly predictable. It's a movie about a bunch of drug addicts (one character is not knowingly a drug addict, but I'll get to that later). How do you think it's going to end up?! Either they sober up or go through a downward spiral, and the director chose the latter for all the characters to make you just think that "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?"

Second of all, it's not realistic at all. So many places to start. I'll just break it down. 1) The 2 guys, on a drug-induced whim, make the decision to become dealers. And somehow these 2 (I repeat, 2) people rise up the complicated ladder of heroin trafficking, making tons of money in the process, making it look like a cakewalk, without the director showing any insight into what exactly they're doing other than a few 2-second clips of them standing on a street corner. That's just lazyness on the director's part in my opinion. To anyone who knows even the slightest about dealing drugs (not saying that I do), "making it big" is not an easy feat that 2 junkies can just start up.

2) The older lady on diet pills. Presumably these contained methamphetamines. It does not make sense that she's just permanently "crazy" from taking them. Sure, you get methamphetamine toxicity from overdose, causing hallucinations and psychosis, but this would have been corrected in the hospital after withdrawing the meth and giving Haldol. She was not on them nearly long enough to suffer any "permanent effects", the existence of which are even questionable. Regardless, Etc (Electroconvulsive therapy) would NOT be used for this. And even if they did use it, the patient would sedated, not wide awake. The director just threw this in for shock value.

3) The guy being sent to jail for his arm infection. This is illegal. A physician cannot deny someone medical care just because they suspect a criminal act. Even a serial killer who goes on a rampage and then tries to kill himself but fails will go to a hospital for treatment (with security present) prior to going to jail. And even if they do suspect a criminal act, it's a violation of HIPAA for the physician to just "tell the police" unless the patient is an actual threat to himself or others. There is tons of medical literature about IV drug users... they are a unique and special patient population that have their own needs. I gotta say the director really makes doctors look like a-holes. And the sad thing is, some poor junkie out there probably saw this movie and thought "There's no way I'm going to the hospital if my arm looks likes that!"

4) Pupils constrict with heroin, they don't dilate like the film shows.

As for the "shock value", what exactly is so disturbing and shocking about this movie? The orgy/sex scene? First of all, you can find more shocking things on the internet. Second of all, I don't feel bad for Jeniffer Connely's character because despite how addicted to drugs she was, she still willingly CHOSE to go the dudes house and later the party. She know what she was getting into, and had other options.

That's it, I'm done. I have to say, I really enjoyed the cinematography in this movie and that actually makes it worth watching. The acting is great as well. But the plot/storyline is unrealistic making the whole thing suck.
2010-01-18
📹 Requiem for a Dream full movie HD download 2000 - 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 - USA. 📀
×