🎦 Requiem for a Dream full movie HD download (Darren Aronofsky) - Drama. 🎬
Requiem for a Dream
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 Download
DVD-rip 560x304 px 697 Mb mpeg4 1003 Kbps avi Download
Well, I´ve seen "Pi" and was fascinated. Now, there´s "Requiem for a dream" and my expectations were very, very high. That can be the downfall for a movie, but in this case I wasn´t disappointed. Aronofsky proves not only that he can direct a "bigger" movie, he also shows how one can do so without selling out. To be more precise: "RFAD" is one of the most disturbing and depressing movies that came out of the US for a looooong time. From the opening scene to its final curtain it´s...well, a requiem for the characters, who are all perfectly portrayed by their actors. Ellen Burstyn is unbelievable. The power of her performance can only be compared to that of Björk in "Dancer in the dark". Aronofskys direction is even more experimental than in "Pi" and some of his ideas, like his combination of sound and picture are really innovative and give his movie a musical feel -without creating a long music video. On the downside, you could say that this movie offers no hope, no solution - but then, this would´ve been a lousy compromise.
Not top 100 material.
I liked Requiem for a Dream but not enough to compensate its flaws. Ellen Burstyn was excellent and her story was fascinating to watch, but Jared Lato and his friends' far more tired tale kept interrupting it. It's old news that drugs are bad, and the original high will always be replaced by a mournful low, but why must it be so forcibly rammed down your throat. "Do drugs and you'll end up in a yokel prison getting racially abused, or you'll end up a prostitute, whoring yourself in front of 50 men for a fix, or you'll end up in a mental institute getting electro shocked back into coherence, or you'll end up an amputee!" It's all served up about as subtly as a sledgehammer to the forehead, with Guy Ritchie style fast cutting and camera tomfoolery.

I never particularly liked Trainspotting either but at least it handled the subject of drugs with a bit more common sense, there were consequences for drug abuse in most cases, they weren't ridiculously over the top and some people tried to sort themselves out. Requiem for a Dream is about as level headed as Mary Whitehouse. Anyone who goes near a drug ends up in abject misery.

I had heard so much about how this film would shock me and move me, how I'd love it but never want to see it again. Maybe this led to my expectations being too high but it had none of the impact of Irreversible or Dancer in the Dark (I know these are unrelated films, but I think they fit the description I'd been given).


`Drugs? ….. No, I don't do drugs!'
Absolutely one of the most overrated films of all time
You know, the problem with this flick is that the director is really good, the actors are really good, but the plot is just too stinking far fetched. I mean, come on, a little girl on girl sex is NOT something to get really upset about. I mean, working in an office for a living is a LOT worse than that. There are literally thousands of women who do that sorta thing for a living.

And then there's the problem with the guy and his arm. First problem with that is that no junkie, NO JUNKIE, would keep shooting into a vein that is that messed up. Junkies are not that stupid. They have their own lore and protocols, that they pass to each other, and that includes using different veins. Aronofsky obviously has never met a real life junkie. And that crap about getting arrested out of a doctors office. ANYWHERE in this country, if a doctor refused him medical treatment, dang, even if a doctor called the cops on the guy, that doctor would get his ass sued from here to eternity. There's something called doctor patient privilege, they're not ALLOWED to call the cops, ever, under any circumstances, barring a direct threat to someone else's life. AND if the was imprisoned, denied treatment, and then lost his arm, attorney's would be lining up to sue not only the doctor, but the state where he was imprisoned.

SO, even if the the incredibly unlikely event that the junkie let his arm go that bad, then the astronomically unlikely event that a doctor would risk being sued and losing his license to practice medicine by calling the cops, and THEN the cosmically ludicrous event that the guy would be denied medical treatment by the prison, he would STILL have lawyers lining up for the fat 50% fee they'd get from suing all those people.

The movie is about as tragic as if they'd all somehow won the lottery and then been struck by lightening the following day.

Requim for a Dream is not depressing, it's laughable.
One of the most awful movies ever
I'll never understand why so many reasonable people think so highly of this movie. It contains some of the worst dialogue ever written -- every sentence ends with a period and the speech has no flow or rhythm. The plot is so outlandish, it is more like Reefer Madness than real life. Darren Aronofsky directs movies for high school kids to watch and think that they are the only people smart enough to "get it."

This movie is more of a public service announcement than an artistic endeavor, and the message of the film is one that every American kid learned in D.A.R.E -- Drugs are bad. If you want to watch something about addiction, watch the Wire or read Infinite Jest, but whatever you do don't waste your time watching this movie.
Mind numbing!
It seems that most people either hate or love this movie. I do both.

Yes, it did make me feel numb for the past hours and it IS a powerful movie the first time you watch it.

For me, the true power of this movie lies in the shock value. What I mean by that is that they throw so many awful things in your face time over and over again and it just gets worse and worse and worse. Your brain gets kind of "uhm...oh...wow". It didn't make me think. It made my brain numb.

If you really look deep in to it though, you'll not find much other than the message that "Drugs are bad, just look how awful these people's lives has turned out!". There's not much more to it. The characters don't really have any deep struggles (other than drugs of course), at least not that we see. They are pretty one dimensional.

In the end, I didn't really feel sympathy for them per se, because they didn't really tell me anything other than "wow...oh...this is just awful" and they where just so incredibly pathetic, the whole lot.

On one hand, I hate this movie for making my brain numb and removing my thinking, and by that ignoring that this movie ISN'T that deep. It'll make you it is, but really isn't.

Once again, it's the shock value. This is really thanks to the whole feeling of the movie and the way it's filmed and the lovely soundtrack it has! It's really powerful, but there is not much behind it.

The acting is good.

I give this movie a 5 out of 10, just because it's so impressive how the movie affected me.
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.
The ultimate "art as pain" movie.
If you subscribe to the masochistic belief that great art must be painful, then by all means, see Requiem for a Dream. If, on the other hand, you'd rather not spend 2 hours having Aronofsky pick at you like a scab, skip it. The director's intention is clearly to upset you, give you a headache, and instill in you a hatred of addictive behavior. He succeeds marvelously.

Wayans, in the closing sequence of the film, vomits into a bucket of some white viscous somethingorother he's stirring.

That about sums up my reaction to Requiem for a Dream.
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.
Thoroughly despisable characters, utterly worthless film
I walked away from the film disgusted, and annoyed at the friend that recommended it. The characters demanded no sympathy and deserved their respective fates. If the movie's aim was to show how bad drugs are, or can be, then it is stating the obvious. If meant as a lesson to prospective drug users, the wrong medium was chosen to send such a message. There was a hint of glamor and excitement when dealing with the decadence that was the characters. I am no sadist and in no way enjoyed watching imbicile youngsters destroy themselves in a movie that glamorizes the process. Utterly despicable.
Way, way, way over rated

I was told this movie is really depressing, but in order for that to be true I would've had to watch a movie with engaging characters. Guess what? I couldn't empathize with any of these losers, because they were flat, one-dimensional and pathetic. Most stories of drug addiction give us some glimpse of a character's potential for success--their charm, their attractiveness, their intelligence, a successful career or academic promise--and then show it all going down the drain. Or maybe we'll see why they turned to drugs, what their problems were, what they need to escape. Here we get none of that. In this movie they start as loser/addicts and end as loser/addicts. Everyone gets what he and she deserves. Some initially neat camera and editing work that gets old very quickly--would've been cool in a music video, but that's about it. Why does Hubert Selby Jr. have to end all his movies with women whoring themselves in especially degrading ways (cf. Last Exit to Brooklyn)? 3/10
See Also
Con Man
Con Man
USA ‘2018
El Gallo
El Gallo
USA ‘2018
Eat Me
Eat Me
USA ‘2018
📹 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. 📀