Buy Requiem for a Dream movie online, buy Requiem for a Dream movie download, Requiem for a Dream movie buy online, where can i buy the movie Requiem for a Dream, where can i buy Requiem for a Dream movie, where can you buy Requiem for a Dream the movie.
Buy Requiem for a Dream 2000 Movie Online 1080p, 720p, BRrip and MOV
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
A complete waste of time disguised as "art"
Following up his pseudo-intellectual claptrap "Pi", Aronofsky gives us another example of his inability to direct anything other than an hour and a half long music video. And a poor one at that. Any comparisons to "A Clockwork Orange" are completely off the mark. While I'm no fan of that movie, either, I'll admit that Kubrick had talent.

Basically, rather like some other inexplicably popular movies, such as "Boogie Nights", this movie is akin to being stuck in a room full of crackheads for two hours, and we're supposed to find it not only interesting, but tragic. Sorry, but no go. I care not one whit for any of the characters in this movie, and wish they'd all just go away.

For me, this is the filmic equivalent of one of those books you get so mad at, that you just want to throw it across the room.
2001-09-02
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
didactic hollering
I've checked on the internet before writing this review, partly to check there wasn't some joke I was missing out on and partly to see if there weren't plenty of negative reviews to counter the adulatory ones I'd read already. No such luck. This film is universally respected and adored for it's portrayal of drug addiction. Personally I found it to be the most jaw droppingly risible, ham fisted load of old cobblers since Reefer Madness.

Mother, son, friend and girlfriend all descend into their own hell over the space of three seasons. It begins with giggling and dieting and, within 9 months, ends in amputation, dementia, electro shock therapy, imprisonment (black boy in a Southern white boy jail) and the insertion of double ended dildos anally in a lesbo gang bang for a bag of smack. The novel (by Last Exit to Brooklyn scribe Hubert Selby Jr) was written in 1978, and maybe in those far off distant dark ages the events of this film could happen. I dare say they could today. But the combination of all these tales within a 98 minute/9 month span (and a fast edited final ten minutes showcasing the simultaneous final consequences for all participants) makes this a laughable, monotonous and ludicrous film whose audacious visual style only serves to make you feel even more patronised by its didactic hollering.
2006-09-02
A movie to scare teenagers away from drugs.
Honestly, I hated the movie. Yes, it was very shocking and unforgettable, but it was also very grimy and pessimistic. It's just not the type of movie that will leave you deep in thought or searching for a meaning. It was very visual and had great actors, but the story itself was awful. After it finished, I felt very sick and disappointed of the world. It is disgusting and the only way I will ever watch it again is when I scare my children away from drugs.

Overall, if you're into films with degrading characters that gives you no hope into the future, this movie is perfect for you. I saw it once and will never watch it again.
2012-01-17
Possibly this film kept me from taking any kinds of drugs so far
I must have been 14 or 15 when accidentally I came to watch this movie. And I know that possibly that is not the right age to watch such a movie, but still... I think it was quite important for my development Although I did not dare to see it again since, all the images of the film are still somewhat burnt into my brain: It were some of the most disgusting scenes I have ever seen in movies so far and some were so dreadful I wasn't even able to cry. But this is, in my eyes, exactly what this film should be like! It shows every little piece of destruction in the lives of the protagonist, until the final end. Another aspect of the film that I truly liked was, that the mere showing of the damages, physically and mentally, without trying to be too moralistic and to spread wisdoms each of us has heard thousands of.

I think I am ready to watch it again by now, but I have to say that this is not a film to see for pleasure. This is a film to show you everything you never wanted to see but ought to!

10/10!
2007-01-22
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
Should Be Required Viewing
After watching this for first time, I thought to myself, "Wow, with some appropriate editing, this ought to be required viewing for high school students as it's probably one of the best "anti-drug" presentations one could ever see.

Young filmmaker Darren Aronofsky takes a depressing subject and makes it fun to watch, if that's possible. However, I'm speaking in general terms because - warning - a couple of scenes are anything but fun to view. Aronofsky uses stop- action/fast forward techniques, sound effects, hallucination scenes, etc. all to make this a good movie for the senses.

Ellen Burstyn is outstanding in this film and many people who viewed this thought she should have won an Academy Award for her performance. Boy, if she doesn't scare you away from taking diet pills, nobody can. She's the only one in this film that is actually fun to watch. Jennifer Connelly can be one easily ogled by us guys but she plays so many sleazy, unlikeble roles, it's tough to warm up to her.

Jared Leto, meanwhile, does his best to show us the horrors of what could happen when you hooked on junk which involves needles. In the last 30 minutes there are a few horrifying parts as Leto's infected arm gets worse and worse. People who have seen this film know what I'm talking about, It is grim, very grim but maybe that's what all of us need to see once in awhile.

To watch Bursteyn and Leto slowly disintegrate is unforgettable and for Aronofsky to make this watchable was quite a feat. But for the grace of God, as it is said, one of these characters could be us.
2006-03-07
Apparently, making sense is optional if you have a split screen.
It baffles me how Aronofsky has managed to fool audiences and critics to rave about not one but two nonsensical stories in the last few years. If you manage to keep your cool under the barrage of imagery thrown at you from frame one you should be able to spot plot holes in this film so large that they'll make Pi's nonsensical ending look like plausible narrative.

What bothers me most with these, apart from the fact that they make this film essentially pointless, is that they are all there simply to justify some supposedly shocking visuals. I can't help it, I must provide a list.

SPOILER SPACE (you shouldn't care, but it's the rules)

* * * * * *

1. Harry goes to a hospital to get his obviously gangrened arm cured. A doctor spots him as a drug addict and calls the police WITHOUT TENDING TO THE ARM FIRST. The weirdest thing about this is that the poor guy is later sent back to the hospital to have his arm cut off. The good part for Harry is that he should become a rich man in no time, after suing the doctor, the hospital and probably the police.

2. A dealer won't sell heroin for money, but he will trade it for sex. He could hire all the hookers he wants with the money he'd earn selling the heroin, specially considering he's the only provider for the whole city at that time. Still, all he wants is to see some lesbian sex live. Apparently, this is in the movie only to create tension between the lead and his girlfriend. Well, and to show Jennifer Connelly naked.

3. A previously healthy old lady is allowed to degenerate mentally to the point of being confined and given electroshocks without receiving any help, even though she's been shown previously socializing with many other people. For some reason the only person who realizes she's sick is his son, who doesn't care much for her anyway. Not that he does anything about it, either. Strangely enough, there's a shot of her friends waiting in the asylum looking worried while she receives electrical discharges without anesthetics.

4. Even though heroin can be injected practically anywhere, the lead will do it always in the same place. Even when the spot becomes a purulent wound he'll still do it the exact same position. Not an inch above, not in the other arm, not in a leg. Right in the middle of the wound.

* * * * *

END SPOILERS (but there are more of these, believe me)

You know, I wouldn't worry about plot holes that much if the filmmakers had set out to create just a series of disgusting images to show them around. The thing is they didn't. They made an attempt to create something vaguely resembling a storyline, they even had a shot at a subtext. They simply failed miserably. Let's see, this film seems to be about addiction. The points made about addiction in the film are:

a) Many people have addictions of different kinds.

b) Addictions aren't good things.

c) Disgusting things happen when people let their addictions go out of control.

and maybe, just maybe...

d) With addictions at first you'll feel good, but then you'll feel bad.

So much for depth.

But we might also have some character development, right? We could neglect story and subtext and still have strong, compelling characters.

Just we don't.

Even the best of the characters we're shown is one dimensional and flat. Everything the characters are or do is put there to be dismantled later, which makes it all feel like a cardboard building in a Godzilla movie. It's fake and cheap. Everything. The leads' love story, the mother-son relationship, friendship between Harry and Tyrone, and between Sarah and the other women. Nothing feels real because Aronofski only cares about the next cool shot.

This film might get you distracted enough the first time you watch it and make you to believe there's some depth behind that nauseous feeling in your stomach. In the end, it's just empty imagery planned to create a nauseous feeling in your stomach.

If you want imagery go and see the latest summer blockbuster. It might at least be some fun.
2002-11-28
Absent: most things that make film great!
While it is possible to see why some viewers like this movie, I have to side with those who do not. There are some fine filmic/technical aspects to the movie, and some moments of good acting, too. But the lack of imagination and nuance is numbing. All the actions and motivations are predictable, and everything the film does hits the audience with a ton of bricks, and then another ton and another and another. Only a very sheltered grade school kid could not see the plot coming for miles and miles. In the end, there was no art here, just a black hole, perhaps instructive for some, but not for others.
2002-02-14
Georgina Fisher (Houston) Maybe you are looking Darren Aronofsky for where can i buy the movie Requiem for a Dream? Here you can download it legally. Anne Tran (Indianapolis) It is very likely that you want to find a website Drama where can i buy Requiem for a Dream movie 2000? You are moving in the right direction and are in the right place! Donald Conrad (Brooklyn) Favorite actors: 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 in search of an answer to the question where can you buy Requiem for a Dream the movie USA? You have found this Drama genre on this page. Darren Conley (Dallas) Among the huge collection of films in 2000 in the formats mkv, mp4, avi, mov, and flv it was difficult to find where to buy Requiem for a Dream movie? But my favorite film director Darren Aronofsky shot this film in the USA in 2000.
×