Oct. 6, 2000, 3:08 p.m. CST
wow, harry. you are really getting me excited about this movie...aronofsky will resurrect the once-great batman franchise...
Oct. 6, 2000, 3:16 p.m. CST
I am definitely going to see this film when it hits the L.A. circuit. Harry really does make a good point! This film should be viewed by young people.... young impressionable people. Not to market the movie. Not the make the studio money and lure in the 'under 17' demographic. But to administer the cure. To show them the reality of their 'smoking', 'drinking', 'pary till you overdose' lives. These kids really need to witness the true horrors of drug use before they are even tempted to drown themselves in it. Harry,... You are so right about this one.
Oct. 6, 2000, 3:23 p.m. CST
Thank you, Harry, for finally doing something with the clout Hollywood is so obviously lavishing upon you. I'm 16, and no one, not theater owners, not my parents, is stopping me from seeing Requiem For A Dream. It's clearly a work of maturity from a man who will be (or by many people's standards, already is) a great director. This is a movie that uses its technique for a reason, because it has something to tell us. Like 1998's Happiness, the idea is to rectify our society by shocking some common sense into it. I know a lot of people my age who use drugs and I hope I can persuade them to see this film if I can. (I write for my high school paper.) Your comments, Harry, about showing this film to teenagers and politicians alike are among the most sensible things you've ever said. The film is unrated, so theoretically no punk 22 year old theater employee can tell me I can't see a movie I'm more ready and mature to see than he is. Hopefully, the press Requiem For A Dream will get with the whole MPAA debacle will just help it at the box office even more. This film is a wake up call to a nation that just keeps wanting to hit the snooze button.
Oct. 6, 2000, 3:37 p.m. CST
by BGW Claw
Because hypocrisy should be a crime. I'm so sick of their preaching for all of America's parents. America's parents for the most part are doing jack and shit to control what their kids see. But it sounds good that the government is taking a stand at big bad Hollywood right? BULL SHIT. Because these idiots actually think that seeing the images that are as intense and hardcore as in this film will actually ENCOURAGE kids to do drugs. Wow, gifted, logical thinkers we have in office huh? Maybe they should worry about bigger problems, like KEEPING GUNS AWAY FROM KIDS and KEEPING DRUGS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. Oh wait, the government MAKES MONEY from these drugs. Nevermind that thought. Let TRAFFIC and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM kick these fucks right in the balls. And damn them for being too blind to see the truth.
Oct. 6, 2000, 3:47 p.m. CST
I got this clip using SCOUR ,software at www.scour.com. Use the keyword search: "lesbian_anal_jennifer_connelly_orgy.mpg" or try a varient. It was some real freaky shit. BTW aside from the glowing review and a few character snippets, what was the story about?
Oct. 6, 2000, 4:15 p.m. CST
By far the best film I've yet seen this year, or in recent years, period. Ellen Burstyn is my early pick for Best Actress, and based on early word on the remaining films of the year, there doesn't appear too many other likely contenders to unthrone her. Like Harry, and every other male between the ages of 18-34, I've been in love with Jennifer Connelly just about as long as I can remember, and it's thoroughly satisfying to see her exercising her considerable acting chops in something other than dreck like Inventing the Abbots and Mulholland Falls. Her performance isn't in Burstyn's league here, but it's unquestionably the best work she's ever done, or at least, that I've ever seen her do. But as to the MPAA -- I had the opposite reaction to Harry on that one. Rather than being proof the MPAA should "revise" its rating system, I think this movie is EXACTLY what an NC-17 film should be. It is dark, and disturbing, and thoroughly adult in nature. No, it's appropriate for children, and I don't think most teens are mature enough to appreciate it either. Whether you like it or not, some films are simply meant for adults, and I think this is a key example of one of them. What I would hope could come out of this is, rather than a revision of the ratings system itself (revising to what is always the key question, as one would imagine there will always be a "top" rating of some sort, whether we call it X or NC-17 or something else) is a revision of the attitudes of the big cinema chains and distributors toward the NC-17 rating itself -- that if there can be material of this quality with that stamp, then surely, somewhere out there, there is an audience of people who appreciate such things large enough to make it worth their while to buy into it.
Oct. 6, 2000, 4:16 p.m. CST
Okay, first of all Pi was one of the most influential movies for me, so of course I was cheering for Aronofsky ever since I heard that production began on this film. But anyway, I'm definitely itching to see this. A friend of mine works at a movie theater and he told his manager was this movie was about. He was very interested, but then he asked by friend what it was rated. "Um, well it was NC-17, but now it's unrated." The theater manager responded, "Well, then there's no way in hell I'll show it here." Now, this makes me angry! It proves again how the MPAA grades on content but not on morals! But anyway, my friends and I are planning on taking a 2 hour drive down to Milwaukee when it opens, and I suggest that ALL OF YOU TAKE SIMILAR ACTION! (or write angry letters, whatever)
Oct. 6, 2000, 5:16 p.m. CST
I wasn't really interested in seeing this movie, but now I'll have oto remind myself to make sure and pick it up on video at least. The only thing I knew about it was that it was directed by the guy who directed PI, and a lot of people seem to like that movie. I probably won't even be able to rent it until in 17 anyway. The MPAA sucks.
Oct. 6, 2000, 5:29 p.m. CST
An R rated movie is much more fun to see when you have to sneak in to see it. I hate all this stupid shit over marketing R rated movies to kids. If you don't want your kid to see the movie, just don't let him. If he's the kinda kid who would sneak off by himself to go see the movie, then I'm sure his mind is already rotted enough that a movie won't make him any meaner or angrier. And most parents don't mind their kid seeing an R movie, but you still can't get it even if your parent is right there telling the people that their kid can go see the movie. All they want is more money. They should at least lower the age at which u can see them. When you're 14, or even 12, you aren't going to change your whole lifestyle based on a movie you saw. I understand how it could shape the minds of real little kids, but you can't say that a 16 year is going to suddenly go on a rampage because he saw the matrix, or suddenly start to swear becaue he saw South Park. And the swearing this is incredibly retarded. There can't be one person in this country who hasn't sworn before. Swearing is a great way to express youre feelings. If you tell somebody to "go away you stupidhead.", they are just gotta beat you up or something. But if you say "leave me the fuck alone you fucking ass goblin.", then maybe they will leave you alone. I don't go see an R rated movie because it has bad language, maybe I'll see it for action, but that's just because where else are you gonna see action? You hear swears all the time but you never see buildings exploding or people getting shot at. They should make a new rating, S for Swear movie, it will be like pg-13, except u have to be 13 to see it, and it will basically be like your run of the mill R comedy or something that only has bad language. Can you beleive Clerks was nearly rated NC-17? I hate these morons in charge of the system.
Oct. 6, 2000, 5:31 p.m. CST
Nobody should be allowed to make comedies that are rated PG anymore. Those movies probably fail more consistently than any other kind of movie out there. I can't say that for older movies though, but that was before PG-13. Like Ghostbusters kicks ass and thats PG, but that was bad in the day so it doesn't count.
Oct. 6, 2000, 5:51 p.m. CST
by Mr. Sartre
This is a tough movie sit through because it is so powerful and gut wrenching and depressing. I've never been thrown into a pit of despair so bleak and inescapable. Yet, it's a rewarding fim going experience. Burstyn made me weep with he performance and I still get misty eyed when I think about a certain scene she's in talking about her lonely life. I saw it at a press screening in San Diego almost two weeks ago and I've been raving about it to all my friends since. This should be MANDATORY viewing for any anti-drug campaign run by schools. Scare those children straight. I am making my friends see this movie in hopes it will make them wise up about drug use and addictions. Watch it, everyone, just watch it. It is a true work of artistic genius and one of the few bright spots this year. If Darren Aronofsky didn't solidify his genius with "Pi", then "Requiem" is a testament to his incredible talents. Aronofsky is the best thing to happen to film in many moons. 10/10... (or can it go to 11?) Take care
Oct. 6, 2000, 7:15 p.m. CST
Forget the high-schoolers for just a minute -- a LOT of people won't get to see this movie. You think the movie theater chains are going to want to show this movie? NC-17 is the kiss of death. It would be hard to find this film in the first place, but the rating will make it damn near impossible. Our rating system is just plain stupid -- about ten murders will give you the equivalent rating of one naked breast. Do you have any idea how weird that is? And that's just one example. Movies with stylish violence and streams of swear words are dangled in front of audiences like forbidden fruit, so that people and kids especially can get through the slap-the-wrist rating and feel like rebels.. while films that take real risks, with real ideas, can be pushed aside. Movies with real content like this one (and folks I've heard from seem to be in agreement with Harry on Requiem) can get buried by the system for showing some grit, and it's a shame.
Oct. 6, 2000, 8:43 p.m. CST
What kind of release is "Requiem for a Dream" getting exactly? Despite the MPAA bullshit, will it be challenged by some chains, or go straight to arthouses? If anyone knows, please leave a message for me. Also, regarding the Union Square UA13 theatre, checking IDs at the door? My God! I was there last week, and in the lobby, people we smoking a joint, with employees nearby! This film gets security guards? Jesus.
Oct. 6, 2000, 10:28 p.m. CST
harry, great review, but i said all that 2 weeks ago...well, it was to my friends and family, but i said it none the less. it really hurts me that i saw this movie weeks ago and fell in love with it, because i feel like it is MY MOVIE. i have already gotten into fights about its superiority to Dancer in the Dark....This movie is....just see it
Oct. 6, 2000, 11:04 p.m. CST
After the credits rolled, I hightailed it out of there. I didn't quite know how to discuss what I had seen with anyone, much less the Austin Film Mafia assembled in the theater. I agree with Harry's assessment. This film should be mandatory viewing for every high schooler in the country. It would scare the crap out of anyone using anything. Particular kudos going to Burstyn and Connelly. I too harbor a secret crush on Ms. Connelly, and knowing that she just earned her spurs in this film makes her that much more enticing :) I'm particularly interested in seeing how Traffic will be received after Requiem is in the theaters. Arnofsky has just thrown down the gauntlet, and moviegoers are the better for it. Arnofsky, Artisan, don't ever change.
Oct. 6, 2000, 11:56 p.m. CST
by Mr. Sartre
I can kind of see your point about how one can be turned off by the "just say no" nature of the rants of these posts, but instead of paying attention to the rants why not see it yourself and decide. If you initially had a desire to see "Requiem" then by all means indulge in this desire. Just realize that this movie is not just a simple anti-drug/just say no/reefer madness type movie. This is profound work examining how people become broken under the weight of hoping things will get better, oblivious to the reality of the situations they are in. It just so happens, however, that through this examination of desperation the film becomes powerful on different levels. One of those levels happens to be the anti-drug message. Don't let your perceptions due to our posts get in the way of enjoying the movie. The reason many suggest that it should be mandatory viewing is because it is the type of film that has the potential to steer people away from doing drugs. "Requiem" is art that also has social applications to it. It's good... just watch it. Interested in hearing your take on what I said. Take care.
Oct. 7, 2000, 12:35 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
I've seen Trainspotting and I can't really remember anything that glorified heroin...the dead baby crawling on the ceiling, maybe? I don't really know what Harry meant by Requiem being an "antidote" to Trainspotting...be more clear next review, Harry. Still, I hope Requiem makes it here...the theaters in this town are run by a bunch of monkey-assed idiots who probably couldn't get in to see Requiem anyway.
Oct. 7, 2000, 4:50 a.m. CST
.... But do you know what else every kid in school should be obliged to???? Hear and go through Eminem's "The Kids". Just read this right here..... Artist: Eminem Album: The Marshall Mathers LP (Clean Version) Song: The Kids * Typed by: SwizzRULER@aol.com, email@example.com * replaced "Kim" on the CLEAN VERSION of the album; if you can't find a copy of the album try NAPSTER.com or Wal*Mart [Mr. Mackey] (Eric Cartman) And everyone should get along.. Okay children quiet down, quiet down Children I'd like to introduce our new substitute teacher for the day His name is Mr. Shady Children quiet down please Brian don't throw that (SHUT UP!) Mr. Shady will be your new substitute while Mr. Kaniff is out with pneumonia (HE'S GOT AIDS!) Good luck Mr. Shady [Eminem] Hi there little boys and girls (FUCK YOU!) Today we're gonna to learn how to poison squirrels But first, I'd like you to meet my friend Bob (Huh?) Say hi Bob! ("Hi Bob") Bob's 30 and still lives with his mom and he don't got a job, cause Bob sits at home and smokes pot but his twelve-year old brother looks up to him an awful lot And Bob likes to hang out at the local waffle spot and wait in the parkin
Oct. 7, 2000, 4:57 a.m. CST
....and if Harry said otherwise, well, he's just wrong. "Trainspotting" deserved best picture of 1996, but then again we have all the controversy and get something like "The English Pasient" instead (Which was a good movie but not even close to the level of brilliant filmmaking that "Trainspottign" was). All in all I think Harry was wrong to mention "Trainspotting" the way he did. If he had to mention it he could say that they do the same. Cuz it seems like they do. So... "Trainspotting" was there to scare off everyone considering doing drugs and everyone saying anything else has Jack Valenti-tendences and is either lying or just not thinking about what they are saying. So Harry, that was wrong. We doon't need an antidote to "Trainspotting" because that film was and andiDOPE. Allright? We're all clear on this now???? And Andy Travis, the baby crawling in the ceiling was one of the most heart-ripping-scenes ever. That baby was the one who died because the mother was out trippin' man and it haunted McGregor's character when he tried to clean his system!!! That was the scene that most encouraged to NOT do heroin!!!!!
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:01 a.m. CST
....I was going to finish off with "so your are damn right mr. Travis" (Just so you don't think it was jmeant as a didn't you get it and then repeat what you had already said-thingee)
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:52 a.m. CST
Oh, that's right...me. How likely is it I'll get to see it on the big screen? Not very. FUCK. The theatres need to start showing NC-17 stuff. BAH.
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:54 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
Yeah, I guess it WAS a happy ending...if you're a drug-dealing psychopath! Let me see if I remember this...McGregor steals the money from his drugged-out friends because he's a pathetic heroin addict. Oh, yeah, made ME feel better! I wouldn't call it a happy ending, even from McGregor's character's point-of-view.
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:56 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
Yeah, I guess it WAS a happy ending...if you're a drug-dealing psychopath! Let me see if I remember this...McGregor steals the money from his drugged-out friends because he's a pathetic heroin addict. Oh, yeah, made ME feel better! I wouldn't call it a happy ending, even from McGregor's character's point-of-view.
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:58 a.m. CST
by Andy Travis
Sorry about the double-post. Stupid computer.
Oct. 7, 2000, 9:58 a.m. CST
by Smart Mark
Thank God there is a voice of reason out there. Let's just hope the "fishwrap" critics get on the bandwagon. Give 'em hell, Harry!
Oct. 7, 2000, 10:27 a.m. CST
The idea that this movie should be "required viewing" for ANYONE (except maybe drug addicts), especially minors, is 10,000 times stupider than ANYTHING Lieberman or McCain ever said on their worst days. No one is going to tell ME "Now we must disturb your children and shake their fragile little minds all for their own good and you can't stop us." Sorry, you fascists, I'M the parent, I'm the one who decides what's good for my children. You hypocrites -- parents who DON'T exercise discretion over what their children see, you attack for abdicating responsibility; and parents who DO exercise discretion, you attack for trying to "shelter" their kids and stunting them somehow. Our society is becoming constantly more invasive in trying to dictate to parents how they should raise their children. The problem with kids today isn't that parents today are substantially less competent than they were fifty years ago, it's that the culture is more deleterious (not that I'm saying this particular movie is deleterious; try to follow a generalization). I love Harry's site but I'm tired of his illiterate and profanity-laden rants that "I watched disgusting shit when I was in diapers and I turned out all right." Never mind that he can't find the spell-check on his own computer and can't tell "its" from "it's" (despite the constant efforts of many dedicated TalkBackers to teach him). "REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is filmmaking at it's height." Learn writing at its height, Harry; it'll make you sound like you have a brain in your head. Don't tell me you're all just complaining about the MPAA keeping adults from seeing this movie or even from deciding to let your own kids see it. Harry's rant went way beyond that and so have some of the TalkBacks. The sad thing is that this may actually be a brilliant and wonderful film, but with friends like these, it doesn't need any enemies.
Oct. 7, 2000, 11:37 a.m. CST
Wow SDG don't take it so personally. I don't think he meant it too literally. I haven't seen it yet (though I want to) but if it's like its reputation says it is..... then I would suppose that it would be good viewing for a high schooler who's in danger of getting into the whole drug thing. But then again you have to deal with this on a n individual basis. Harry takes these things rather emotionally.......... Besides, it's not like he's coming over to your house and dragging your kid to the theater. But I can see where it could make sense as a "scare the shit out of the kid to quell his or her thoughts about doing crack".
Oct. 7, 2000, 11:37 a.m. CST
I agree with SDG. Now, that doesn't mean I won't require my 15-year-old to see it, as he is the type who trivializes just about everything I try to teach him. I fully intend to make sure he sees the movie. But he'll see it with his parents. I have no intention of sending him off to see the film with his school chums; but I want his attitude knocked on its ass by some reality. By the same token, I think it's as irresponsible in the extreme for Harry to dictate that ALL teenagers MUST see this movie. As with all other issues in good childrearing, this must be discussed and decided on its own merits by each parent with each kid. I want my kid to see it. Other parents may have compelling reason to feel differently. Harry, you do all kids, and their parents, a disservice by painting them with such a broad brush.
Oct. 7, 2000, 11:42 a.m. CST
.... I do agree with you on setting a limit on what your kids should see. I mean, let's not get into the Exorcist thing again, but it still kinda gets me a little unsettled thinking of the mom that was taking her 10-year-old to see Scary Movie.......
Oct. 7, 2000, 12:05 p.m. CST
Yes, Harry does tend to get emotional over these things. There are powerful emotions on the other side too. That was the point of my post. A TalkBacker above writes that most parents are doing "jack and shit" to control what their kids see. Now on the one hand that's true, most parents are too laissez-faire and not enough hands-on in their children's development. But on the other hand the vicious and contemptuous parent-bashing so common on this site is a convenient way to draw attention from the fact that the culture used to support parents and now it works against them. Nowadays you have to be twice as good a parent to have half as good a chance of your kids turning out well. What passed as acceptable parenting 50 years ago is no longer adequate; parents today have to spend twice as much time shoveling shit against the tide. There's an interesting book that is neither liberal nor conservative called THE WAR AGAINST PARENTS that catalogues some of this. Harry may have been only half serious when he talked about making the film "required viewing," but a lot of what already is required in public schools is driven by politics and ideology that undermines parental authority and control. TalkBackers want to dismantle the MPAA and the ratings system. Well, I agree the ratings system doesn't work. That's because 12-year-old kids can go to the multiplex, buy a ticket for BRING IT ON, then waltz over to the next theater over and see THE CELL, which is a thoroughly adult film that 12-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to see even if they are accompanied by an adult. Now, Valdar wants to take his (?) kid to see the film, and it sounds like he's a responsible parent who wants to do so for valid reasons. I've got nothing against that. But his situation isn't mine, and my kids don't need shock therapy to prevent them from doing drugs. No my head is not in the sand. But I know where my kids' heads are, and it's not in the gutter.
Oct. 7, 2000, 1:48 p.m. CST
I am really really really looking forward to this movie. Can anyone tell me how close it is to Hubert Selby Jr.'s book? Anyone who says the movie of LAST EXIT TO BROOKLYN is faithful to the book obviously hasn't read it! Obviously it has to be changed a little for the screen, but LAST EXIT was changed to such an extent that it wasn't even similar to Selby's masterpiece. (And it's shot like some stupid BATMAN movie and has a really crap Mark Knopfler ultra-synthy score.) Also thought PI was ace and Aronofsky shows definite promise.
Oct. 7, 2000, 1:59 p.m. CST
Whenever I disagree with Harry, I like to overreact, ignore the spirit of what he was *really* trying to say, and then criticize him for his writing style! It doesn't matter that it's a completely seperate issue, because I'm very angry! I get upset easily and I stopped taking those stupid pills. Next time that doctor tries to tell me I have an "anger problem" I'm going to hit him in the face. I see no hypocrisy in telling people they have no right to tell a parent what they should and should not show to their children, and then immediately saying that parents should not be allowed to show their kids The Cell. Also, I hate the way Harry writes. Did I mention that? It's stupid and he uses bad words. I am a good writer, because I call people Nazis. That's clever. I think that because Harry says that that Requiem or whatever movie would be good to show young people, it means he hates the Jews. I like to say Fascist too because Harry advocates an authoritarian hierarchical government. He wants extremist nationalism and racism, along with his Nazi Jew-hating. Ps...I love semicolons!
Oct. 7, 2000, 2:48 p.m. CST
...but this is sounding even better!! Not sure I can comment on the MPAA here in Britain, but if they are anything like the BBFC then they need a good kicking! And cinema security at my local is a joke - you can usually get away without paying, let alone being underage!! Jennifer Connolly - oh man, I was seriously ill and I stayed awake until 4:00am to catch a late night showing of The Hot Spot on TV - yep, pretty sad I know and it wasn't even a good film. Damn, i'm obsessed and I know it! Looking foward to this one.....now for a drink!
Oct. 7, 2000, 3:04 p.m. CST
Briefly: (a) I don't make a practice of violently disagreeing with Harry or anyone else. My posts are all over TalkBack, and I almost never get bent out of shape (usually if I do it's with disgust at constant inane flame-fests that don't advance the discussion). (b) On the other hand, this particular discussion is not being carried out in isolation. There is a history on this site, especially in TalkBack, of parent-bashing and scapegoating parents as a means of drawing fire from broader cultural problems. In this very TalkBack someone charges that most parents "aren't doing jack and shit to control what their kids see" -- a charge I admitted is true -- and goes on to conclude that Lieberman and McCain and anyone else who is concerned about broader cultural issues is a hypocrite who ought to be locked up (I guess that's probably not what he *really* meant, huh?). And whether or not Harry really means it -- or whatever you think he is *really* trying to say -- Harry's rhetoric feeds right into this anti-parent sentiment. I don't think a little anger here is out of place. (c) Are you sure Harry's substandard writing is a separate issue? The claim to have the right to say what is best for the nation's children may reasonably be thought to carry with it a certain baseline expectation of general all-around knowledge and competency that isn't exactly reinforced by constant grammatical and spelling errors. (d) I made no claim of any literary merit for my own post, beyond an implicit claim of basic structural correctness. (e) The term "Nazi," like all terms, is in itself neither clever nor unclever; what makes a term appropriate or inappropriate is context. I think "Fascist" is an appropriate if somewhat hyperbolic term to keep handy in any discussion that involves dictating to parents what their children must be exposed to. "Nazi" admittedly doesn't add anything useful in this context and would have been better avoided, especially since it is as you implicitly point out rather hackneyed. On the other hand, anti-Semitism is naturally a red herring that had nothing to do with the spirit of what I was trying to say. (f) No, there is no hypocrisy, or contradiction, in the claim that, while no one can tell parents that their children have to watch REQUIEM, theaters can prevent parents from taking their children to see THE CELL. No one has the right to expose a child to something against the parents' wishes, but parents do not have a sovereign right to expose their children to absolutely anything they wish. (g) What on earth do you have against semicolons?
Oct. 7, 2000, 3:37 p.m. CST
The fact that I don't get upset at every single post means no one should point it out when I do. Unless one does things constantly, it doesn't really matter when they do it on occasion. I mean, I don't date rape EVERY girl I go out with, so the odd one here and there aren't really big issues. Whatever I think is true is a "broad cultural issue." All these people in talkback say that the MPAA should stay out of it, and that parents should monitor their own children. Ya know...be parents. I disagree with that. I want these things to be taken care of for me, and if anyone suggests that a film is something that should be seen by kids I will have an "episode." I like to call people "anti-parent" even though they advocate fathers and mothers of children behaving as parents. Hey, it makes sense to me. I think that the writing on this site should be deemed acceptable by me before its sentiment can be given any credence. I never said my writing was decent, but you should listen to my opinion or I'll get righteously indignant again. Yes, I choose to ignore the fact that many, many great writers are awful spellers. I choose to draw a stupid and incorrect parallel between my getting in a huff over something that I took far too literally, and the purposely ridiculous literal interpretation used against me in order to point out my own foolishness in using such a term as "Nazi. using the word "Fascist" is completely different from using "Nazi" because...um...they're different words. The fact that they are both overused terms for political theologies doesn't mean a thing. Nothing has to go both ways. It is not ok to tell someone that they should show their kids something, because that questions their judgement as a parent, and it is the right of a parent to make such a choice for their child. However, it is ok to tell a parent that they are not allowed to show their children something. It is also ok for me to say that parents should not be allowed to show children The Cell, even though the MPAA deemed it acceptable. When Harry has an opinion I go into a frenzy, but I am always right. PS...Semicolons rule!
Oct. 7, 2000, 3:40 p.m. CST
Here it is: cinema as blunt instrument. Then again, most of our populace would benefit from Aronofsky's extreme measures, and should, therefore, be required to see it. I, unfortunately, learned about the ravages of addiction first-hand; so, for me, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM got redundant fast. Still, this is an accomplished work from a filmmaker who has delivered on the promise of his shaggy dog debut. I'm not prepared to call it brilliant (despite the tricked-up visuals, it's pretty standard-issue cautionary filmmaking,) but it just might be one of the most disturbing films I've ever seen, and that's *something*, I guess.
Oct. 7, 2000, 3:44 p.m. CST
I live in San Diego, not that small of a city, and i cant find a listing for it playing ANYWHERE! Can somone tell me where its playing????
Oct. 7, 2000, 4:03 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
I'm really interested in that. And are they refereing to elipses or semi-colons? I'm just wondering.***And I am going to make a plea here: could we stop using "Fascist" and "Nazi" to describe people, ideas or things we don't agree with? Just because Harry is suggesting, albeit quite passionately, that "Requiem" be shown to teens as a way to scare them away from drugs doesn't mean he's a fascist who wants to force things down the throats of parents. I think the spreading of all types of information is the opposite of at least one part of the definition of fascism. His suggestion reminds me more of when they bussed us in high school over to the movie theatre to watch "Schindler's List" (and I heard of few complaints, most were about the nudity and that's an entire issue in itself). Parents were given permission slips to sign BEFORE a child was allowed to see the film. Just like with sex education the parent had the opportunity to have his/her child sit out of the program. Now, I don't know if I agree with scare tactics for all teenagers, but I do think if this is an honest film about drug use it might be valuable for a teenager to see and keep in mind when the decision is made. I also would like to see this film, but thanks to the fact it is either non-rated or is NC-17, I can't because the local theatres won't show it. Not that they show anything good anyways. "What Lies Beneath" is still playing here.
Oct. 7, 2000, 4:04 p.m. CST
by All Thumbs
Don't hate me everyone.
Oct. 7, 2000, 4:30 p.m. CST
by Mr. Sartre
I live in San Diego currently as well. There was a press screening two or three weeks ago at Balboa Park which is where I saw it. It's not getting its limited release run until November. You can go to New York to see it right now or LA in about a week but it'll be a month before it hits San Diego as far as I know. There is going to be a promo screening for it late October at the Landmark theater in Hillcrest (I think). If you need it, I can provide you with the exact date of the screening within the next week. Take care, sorry I couldn't be of any more help
Oct. 7, 2000, 4:49 p.m. CST
I'm so hyped for Batman Year One, I'm real hyperactive now. Now Arnofsky, go make an R rated BATMAN! you kick @$$...wooOOO!
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:14 p.m. CST
by Fatal Discharge
It only opened in New York this Friday. It will be in L.A. on October 20 and will expand to other cities on November 3rd. Uhm, I found it a little weird that Harry thinks Bette Davis in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane gives one the best acting performances ever. Sure it's a good film but her performance is over-the-top and campy like much of her later roles. Also, about the ratings board arguments seem odd to me living in Canada where we don't have an NC-17 rating. R means restricted to those 18 and over - period. This means no snotty teens and kids in adult films and thank heaven for that. Sure you can try and sneak into a theater but you know what, ushers walk the aisles several times during the film to check for just such a thing - it's called enforcing the rating system! Ratings are also supposed to judge violence, sex and drugs "in context" to what the message of the film is giving the audience, so the film "KIDS" was rated AA (14 and under accompanied by adult) because it gave teenagers a message that promiscuity can lead to some bad things happening, while in the U.S. the film was NC-17 and held up recently by government critics as a film that corrupted teens....makes you think doesn't it?
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:31 p.m. CST
Okay, I'm still not mad, but now I'm a bit puzzled and taken aback. I could see where someone might want to respond to the tone of my first post with satire, and I thought you did a fine job. I thought you were worth talking to (still do, maybe, apparently, since I'm writing this). I switched modes and wrote to you in what I thought was a moderate tone, and was willing to eat some crow right up front; and you wrote back to me in the same satiric mode with more ridicule. All right, maybe you aren' interested in talking to me, maybe you just want to write satire. That's your perogative, I guess; it's a free country. FWIW: (a) I never said "no one should point out" that my first post was angry. I said that it isn't true that I get angry "whenever I disagree with Harry" or otherwise a lot, and that my anger in this case is arguably legitimate. Your comparison between my claim of arguably legitimate anger and "the odd date rape here and there" seems to me far less defensible than my hyperbolic use of Fascist or even Nazi. (Come on Q, I bet you could satirize your own post on this point right off the top of your head.) (b) I'm at a loss what to make of your suggestion that "I disagree with" the premise that parents should "be parents," when anyone can see that I explicitly said twice already that parental uninvolvement is a real part of the problem. And I do think it's fair to characterize as "anti-parent" the attitude that says that society owes no help or support to parents in their parental endeavor. That is in large part what society is there for -- the support of the family. (c) Even if Harry were a great writer -- which as much as I like him he isn't -- that wouldn't qualify him to say what should be required viewing for anyone. (Just out of curiosity, who are some of your favorites among the "many, many great writers" who are "awful spellers"?) (d) There is a very simple, very straightforward reason why the word "fascist" has a broader acceptable range of application than "Nazi": because "fascist" is a general descriptive term, while "Nazi" is the proper term of a specific historical movement and its concommitant racial ideology. "Nazi" does get used colloquially to mean essentially "Fascist" (or even more colloquially "anything I don't like"), but that's not a trend to reinforce, so I admit -- again -- that it wasn't a good word choice. (e) Is everyone allowed to disagree with and criticize the MPAA except me? Roger Ebert for one has written extensively and often about the misuse of the "R" rating for properly adult material due to the commercial inviability of the NC-17 rating -- the very thing TalkBackers here are mostly bellyaching about. I happen to agree. Like Roger Ebert, I think there should be a workable adults-only rating, and also like Roger Ebert, I think that certain recent films such as EYES WIDE SHUT, EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, and, yes, THE CELL should have been rated adults only. The fact that THE CELL received an "R" rating is a mistake. Friends of mine were at a showing in which some idiot parents were there with their 10-ish little girl. That shouldn't have been allowed to happen. (f) There is a very simple, very straightforward reason why parents do have the right to veto any movie the parents wish to veto but don't have the right to insist that their kids see absolutely any movie the parents want to expose them to. It's the same reason doctors can't give drugs to a child against the parents' express wishes, but parents don't have the right to insist that their kid get pumped up full of whatever drugs they want. "Nothing has to go both ways" is a red herring. Some things do and some don't. No one can mandate that my child be exposed to something against my wishes, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to expose my child to anything I want. Parents who foolishly or unnecessarily exercise their right to deny their children access to certain movies that wouldn't have harmed them is unlikely to do any positive damage to the child (there's no movie that kids "have to see"), but parents who foolishly fail to exercise discretion where they ought to can harm their children, and society can and should have certain reasonable safeguards in place to help prevent that. Does this seem wildly inconsistent or ridiculous to you? (g) Semicolons have a power-sharing coalition with commas, colons, and periods. Exclamation points and question marks are the executive branch. Peace out, SDG
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:47 p.m. CST
My last reply was shunted to the top of the TalkBack. Just in case you're interested and in case this winds up at the bottom.
Oct. 7, 2000, 5:58 p.m. CST
This is an amazing movie. It is brilliant filmmaking, and probably will end up being in my top five for this year. I probably won't go see it twice. That says a lot, because I watch movies that I like obsessively. This one just hits a little too close to home. I am a refugee of the very scene that was represented in this film and seeing it brought back a lot of memories that were painful to me. It almost shouldn't be considered fiction, it is so real. I do in someway agree with Harry in saying that every fifteen year old shoud watch this movie. It reaches the goal that 1950's drug scare movies attempted in vain to reach but doesn't make the subject glamourous or even funny ( fear and loathing is one of my favorite movies - Gilliam being my favorite director - but it still makes me chuckle:"getting high was cool" ). I really didn't like PI, but Arnofsky has shot to the top of my list of talented directors. I'll be the first in line to buy "Year One" tickets. I'd love to see that edge in the telling of Batman's origin.
Oct. 7, 2000, 6:29 p.m. CST
I can guarantee that I will sit down to watch this film, get up two hours later with a sore back and a nicotine craving, yawn, scratch my nuts, think "Yeah, big deal?" as I saunter through the crowd towards the exit. Earnest, brutal realism and prettily unpretty photography does not a great film make. Who the fuck wants to watch this kind of shit? If you want to change the world, make films about getting inside people's heads, expose the core of individual and societal motivations, pluck out the gruesome throbbing heart at the essence of power and show it to us. Not this shit. Superficially 'powerful' or not, this film will have about as much positive impact on the world as The Bridges of Madison COunty.
Oct. 7, 2000, 6:32 p.m. CST
by Robin Goodfellow
Wow... as much as I'd hate being redundant, "Requiem for a Dream" is incredible, heart-wrenching, gut-wrenching, painful, brillaint, and tragic all at the same time. It is (forgive the odd analogy) a beautiful garden of nightmare: you want to wake up from the anxiety it creates, but it has somehow captivated you and planted a seed of disturbing images in the mind. I'll still be haunted by this film years from now as roots from the seed have already begun to pervade throughout my psyche. Go see this movie. Aronofsky has done it again, but has done it better this time around. Yeah, I loved "Pi" to death, but "Requiem..." is more visceral and emotional. One of this years best. This movie is a marker for the re-birth of quality film making. Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, and Darren Aronofky are among the new breed of great young film makers that will save us from unjustly accepted mediocrity. Aronofsky, I salute you. Great work and continued success in the future. BTW, I heard rumors by a reviewer on darkhorizons that there were cut scenes from the movie. Can anyone substantiate this?
Oct. 7, 2000, 6:50 p.m. CST
by Pips Orcille
If any of you live in the San Francisco area, then you should realize that Requiem for a Dream will be showing this coming week, the 12th of October. It will be at the McKenna Theatre, I think (not 100% sure). I believe either director Darren Aronofsky or the producer of "Requiem for a Dream" will be present at the screening and might even talk about the film afterwards (or beforehand). I'm not sure how much the tickets cost, but you could contact the Creative Arts department at San Francisco State for more information. I believe they are sponsoring the screening. I just happen to have remembered this, because I'm a film student at SFSU (not one of those snobby film brats) and during my break from my Documentary Film class two days ago, I saw this flyer for a "Requiem for a Dream" screening outside.
Oct. 7, 2000, 9:15 p.m. CST
by Lemmy Caution
Sounds good all around...when I read the book years ago, I couldn't shake the feeling that it would make a great movie if someone was able to give the story the treatment it deserved. Yeah, there are some strong anti-junk themes in the book (most of them inspired by Selby's own experiences), but the main point of it all is how these four characters' vague, unrealistic plans and aspirations crumble and they're left sinking lower than they had ever imagined. "Requiem for a Dream", indeed. Can't wait to see the finished product...
Oct. 7, 2000, 10:37 p.m. CST
Batman: Year One is one of the greatest comics to hit shelves anywhere! Aronofsky is an incredible director. Warners actually made a good choice (first time for everything) in casting a director. I think we will see a direction that the Dark Knight has never gone in before...I can't wait...eh, Harry...?
Oct. 8, 2000, 2:41 a.m. CST
I continually miss the point.
Oct. 8, 2000, 9:19 a.m. CST
I guess you're just too clever for me. Maybe next time we run into each other you'll take my limited capacity into consideration and try to make your point in a more straightforward way I might be able to understand. Peace out, SDG
Oct. 8, 2000, 9:47 a.m. CST
I will take you up on that. I want you to post a message for me on this board and tell me when you are going to go see this movie. And then I want to see what you have to say. Why even post something like that? Why on earth would you say something so negative about a film YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN YET!! Either you are really insecure and this is your place to bitch and moan, or you are just...um...stupid.
Oct. 8, 2000, 11:48 a.m. CST
You have got to be kidding. To even mention this hack in the same sentence as Tarantino, PT, Fincher and Soderbergh is a joke. Those guys can make visually cool flicks that also, here's a novel idea, TELL A STORY WELL. Pi was one of the worst films I've ever seen, and this film looks no better. But then, Harry, you also liked Viva Rock Vegas, so we know you're stoned. No wonder you liked this too.
Oct. 8, 2000, 12:17 p.m. CST
Requiem is not about drugs. The comparisons to Reefer Madness are silly. The film is about ADDICTION, especially our collective addiction to hope, and about our frailties and what happens when our chosen crutches can no longer support our weight. To focus on the heroin and uppers is in some respects to miss the point. As for you Twig, I wasn't going to bother to respond to what I hope is a pathetic attempt to troll, but I can't help myself. Do you even bother to read? Not just other posts, but ANYTHING? Requiem is based on a novel that an awful lot of people think is brilliant. And the reactions of people who have both read the book and seen the movie are that it is one of the best adaptations of a novel EVER. And you bitch about the story? You, sir, could not get a clue if you were standing naked in a field full of clues during clue mating season, wearing clue musk and doing the clue mating dance. Go away.
Oct. 8, 2000, 12:33 p.m. CST
Maybe I'll try that technique, because I need a clue real bad...
Oct. 8, 2000, 5:17 p.m. CST
After seeing this film at TIFF, I went and read the book and found the movie was extremely faithful. To the point that the editing was done in such a way to be a visual style to Selby's runon dialogue in the book. Even minor developmental incidents that other filmmakers would've edited out, such as the fantasy about stealing the cop's gun early on, are left in. The major changes are the updating to current times (the book takes place in the 70s). I also agree that the movie (and book) are about addiction as well as chasing the American dream and failing to achieve the impossible. If the one person who condemns this film without seeing the movie would wake up and see it, I think they would be eating their words. In fact, as I wrote in my review from Toronto, I spent the first 30 minutes of the film going "What was all the hype about?" and spent the last 30 minutes with my jaw plastered to the floor. Harry, glad you agreed with my assesment of this film and then some. I'm so worried that the unrated issue will keep Burstyn from the most deserved Oscar in the last decade.
Oct. 8, 2000, 5:21 p.m. CST
by Mr. Sartre
Gotcha on that point. Definitely no desire to see means something don't see it. Anyways, little more can or should be said on the matter, then. Take care
Oct. 8, 2000, 7:48 p.m. CST
I live in Chicago. I want to see this movie. I cant find it in any of the listings, could a local tell me where its playing, or when it is coming out.
Oct. 8, 2000, 8:36 p.m. CST
by t. mifune
This is cinemasturbation. Aronosfsky needs to just sit back and tell a story. His filmmaking represents everything that is wrong with young directors. They have to prove to us that they've seen all of Martin Scorsese's films, but have no idea why he used his camera tricks. It wasn't to make a cool movie. Do you care about a single character in Requiem for a Dream, because I sure didn't. Example of bad filmmaking: Every time, EVERY TIME, a character shoots up we get the same little montage of extreme close ups followed by a minute of time lapse photography. It was kind of cool the first time, but the 15th time it got dull. And what was the subtext of this movie? All I got out of it was DRUGS ARE BAD. Thanks, because I didn't know that going in. As far as a great movie about addiction, try Bad Lieutenant. It had a purpose. At the very least you don't have to sit through Jennifer Connelly and Jared Leto's bad acting. From a story stand point, I didn't buy what happened to Ellen Burnstyn. That just would not happen. **********SPOILER************** A doctor would NOT act that way. There are alternatives to a lobotomy******************************END OF SPOILER ********************* I expected such a rave from Harry. Let's keep track here - Good movies: Gladiator, Viva Rock Vegas, What Lies Beneath. Bad movies: Ride with the Devil, American Psycho, and he only seems to post bad reviews of Dr. T and the Women. I just don't get it. I guess he doesn't like movies that make you think. Maybe he thinks Requiem for a Dream is a deep movie. Pity.
Oct. 9, 2000, 1:31 a.m. CST
Oct. 9, 2000, 4:49 a.m. CST
I live in Chicago. I want to see this movie. I cant find it in any of the listings, could a local tell me where its playing, or when it is coming out.
Oct. 9, 2000, 6:10 a.m. CST
NYC on the 6th, LA on the 20th. 5 more markets added on the 27th. 10 more added on November 3rd.
Oct. 9, 2000, 7:01 a.m. CST
by Da House Katt
Movie sounds interesting, but I hope to god it isn't some horridly rightwing moral tale wrapped up in hip style. Many Drug's arn,t that great an evil, Hash for example definitly isn't. Of course some certainly are: Heroin and america's greatest import coke. But to be honest whats fucking up your country is its steady diet of GUNS,FOOD and ALCOHOL, oh that and its naked greed and arrogance. Try making a film about that you hypocritical fucks. Da house Katt, comin' at ya from in a proper country.
Oct. 9, 2000, 7:26 a.m. CST
I have no idea what this movie is about, but I pretend that I do so I can bitch about it and get up on my political soapbox, thereby proving that I have no idea what this movie is about.
Oct. 9, 2000, 9:32 a.m. CST
by Da House Katt
..ooh so sharp, I can do that as well, put simply... I think I'm being sarcastic but my very long and boring mails show, i have little grasp on HOW to be sarcastic... Quetzalcoatl, are you by any chance a single white american with too much free time on his hairy little hands? Da house katt
Oct. 9, 2000, 10:49 a.m. CST
by Da House Katt
Avidfan... >where you from anyways??? what so you can compare it to america? >Just curious what country >doesn't practice hypocracy and >greed??? Seriously where?? UK >Aussie? Where? hey I never said america are the only hypocrites... >I just read your earlier post >about American hypocracy and am >curious about what little >insignificant country you are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thats why you don't need to know, that and you'd probably have no fucking idea where it is... Why do you care?, I thought americans only viewed other countries as possible resources to drain. Anyway lets not get bogged down in stating the obvious. When are you going to wake up and realise the real problems facing your country, instead of always blaming drugs etc. Why do you think your population needs so many hard drugs, alcahol and guns? It doesn't sound like the land of opportunity to me. Like most sane people it sounds like hell. And you guys have the arrogance to go on how fucking great you are...only in the good 'ol US of A A point in your favour though, America maybe intellectually retarded, culturally barren and too fucking rich but it can certainly make good films and music ...oh and the odd book, but not for much longer I suspect..do they still read books there?
Oct. 9, 2000, 11:41 a.m. CST
I have been waiting for this movie to go to Dobie here in Austin ever since I heard it was being made. Does anyone know how and when Harry saw it at Dobie? I am going to be really pissed if I missed a preview or something I could have gotten into and not just critics.
Oct. 9, 2000, 11:43 a.m. CST
by Da House Katt
oh well, just winding you up... Honestly I don't give a monkeys about america, I know personally its a great mixture of good and bad. I just enjoy being rude to dullard over opinionated americans, you make me laugh. I'll put my hands across the water and admit I love a lot of your music, (not rock, the good stuff, the stuff that you guys internally supress..you know house, techno...underground black music that isn't sanatised MTV friendly hiphop, yes it exists) I love lots of your films, I love lots of your TV (your not really very good at TV comedy yet though),I love lots of your writing but ultimatly I don't think you guys realise how you come across, and I doubt you ever will. Put simply you overrate and overpromote yourselves to such a degree that it is completely laughable. bye my american friend
Oct. 9, 2000, 12:10 p.m. CST
Oct. 9, 2000, 12:12 p.m. CST
Brush your teeth...
Oct. 9, 2000, 12:41 p.m. CST
I presume to detail the intentions of others. I also don't know what sarcasm is. I should purchase a dictionary. Not an American one, though. Their dictionaries are faulty and have too much money. I choose to call others boring in order to draw attention from the fact that I really don't know what Requiem For A Dream is about so that I can get on with my exciting politicking. I also choose to call a three-line post "long" and then go on to write an eighteen line post about more of my political nonsense regarding a country I don't even live in. I think posts on a message board are "mails." PS...America sucks!
Oct. 9, 2000, 12:55 p.m. CST
What's needed, in my opinion, is a more lenient attitude for movies rated NC-17 and stricter application of the R rating. A movie like this gets the NC-17 while Scary Movie can show a guy getting a penis run through his head? I think the trouble is that the studios never really let films be NC-17, nor did the theatres really agree to show them like they should have. Nobody got that the stigma wasn't merely what it was called but how people reacted to it.
Oct. 9, 2000, 1:52 p.m. CST
The fact that you address me as "the guy who said it is harder to raise kids now then ever before" suggests that you are reply without actually having my post in front of you. It shows in your reply, since nothing you say addresses anything I said. Your grandparents faced a harder economy in which to make a living. They didn't face a harder world in which to raise decent children, which is a completely different thing and which is what I am talking about. Your stories about houses burning down and working docks and sweatshops, poignant as they are, are irrelevant to my point. My children are fine human beings so what would I possibly be trying to pass the buck for?? I am worried about OTHER people's children, not my own. "There were always gangs and violence and drugs, this is not new" -- that's like saying "There's always been pollution and harm to the environment, this is not new." True, but it hardly establishes that we aren't worse off in many measurable ways. Try reading Sylvia Hewlett & Cornel West's THE WAR AGAINST PARENTS for a little enlightenment. Or at least try reading my post while writing your reply. Peace out, SDG
Oct. 9, 2000, 2:04 p.m. CST
Just wanna know. I saw this film at UA 14th st here in NYC on Friday. Amazing! Breathtaking! Very Upsetting! Bizzare! And probably not the most disturbing film ever I have ever seen. I have something to say, and I actually feel entitled to say it as I have seen it. First off, the heroin issue: this is truely just a symbol here. It could have been twinkies. People wrapped up in this being a "heroin" film, believing it to be either Pro or Con are off the mark. It is another example of audiences being so blinded by whats in front of them that they miss the big picture. It appeared to me, to be a film about addiction, not to one thing, but an addiction to addiction. It was to me an essay on the need for something, anything. Wether it's a husband to dote on, a child to raise, food to eat, food to deprive yourself, or yes heroin, a void is the true terror here. The way Jennifer Connely and Jared Letos' charecters wanted and needed each other while speaking on the phone was an example of this to me. They needed something, a fix of each other, anything. Anyway, the film is not a brilliant Heroin film. It was a brilliantly moving film. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for young teens. Not for the heroin, or as the papers are calling it "Graphic sexual content" but for its accurate description of the possible hell the american dream and human desire to be needed and successful can lead you. This is a heart breaker not a horror movie or sex film. If people leave this and do not feel the need to call their mothers and grandmothers then i just don't understand it. Onto the MPAA... I think we can all agree that the only person who believes this works is Jack Valenti. And, gee, I wonder how much it would cost him every year if it was put out to pasture. I think parents should be given some sort of rating. I think there are films that are appropriate for adults that aren't appropriate for children. Yes there are children that are ready for films like this and the Exorcist long before others are. There is a way to get your children to see these films.... RENT THEM! That way you get to watch it in a place where they aren't trying to be cool around their friends. They can be moved by strong filmwork. In addition you as a parent get to be there in the living room to answer the hard questions brought by such film work. But I adamently belive there needs to be a rating for adult fims. If there is not we will never have many adult films. Requiem is a fabulous example but these movies are few and far between. If you think your child is ready for this fare, than I suggest you see it first. If you still feel your child is ready for it then sit with them and watch it. Movies were made to be art not babysitters. If your only option is to have your children watch any artform without you playing any decision role in what they view then you should not complain about what they see.
Oct. 9, 2000, 2:29 p.m. CST
SDG is absolutely correct. I like Harry as much as the next guy but I think his over-excitement sometimes lead him to ramble on and say some REALLY stupid things. I am not going to repeat what SDG said so eloquently so just read his post. P.S. Not that I care what any critics have to say about ANY movie but, everything that I have read so far about this movie says to avoid it like the plague. Just food for thought.
Oct. 9, 2000, 2:46 p.m. CST
Now that I've said that I agree with SDG I would like to clarify my views on something. Like SDG, I believe that parents do not have the right to force/let their kids see anything they want. However I DO NOT think we need Government regulation on this issue. The Government sticks its nose in enough crap as it is. The last thing we need is another Government agency paid for by taxpayers.
Oct. 9, 2000, 3:05 p.m. CST
I think we are in at least partial agreement. I certainly agree that raising kids is always hard, that no amount of cultural policing can making up for parental neglect, and that no amount of cultural poison can overcome first-rate parenting. All parents face challenges -- but not always the same challenges. Parents 50 years ago didn't have to worry about Internet porn. Yes, there was still dirty literature about, but you have to admit it's a thousand times more available now than it was once upon a time. Notice that I'm not calling for Internet censorship nor am I excusing parents whose kids look at things the parents don't want them to. Parents have an obligation to raise their kids they way they think is right, if the Internet makes it harder then it makes it harder, but I'm not going to throw up my hands and say either "What happens happens, don't blame me it's society's fault" or "We need legislation!" But the fact is that times change and parents today face new challenges. You may be right that guilty parents flock to Lieberman and McCain. I'm not especially a Lieberman or McCain fan myself, for a variety of reasons much too complicated to go into here, but I am concerned about what I call, much to Quetzalcoatl's amusement, broader cultural issues. The very fact you mention, that 50% of marriages today end in divorce, is itself part of a cultural trend that makes raising kids today harder. Granted, nobody else's broken marriage can force me and my wife to get divorced (no force on earth can do that), but "The Divorce Culture" (another interesting book BTW, by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead) is a pervasive social force that can't help but affect my children (e.g., my parents and parents-in-law are both divorced, so my kids have no "normal" grandparents the way I did). Public schools are trying to ram their ideas on everything from gender roles to safe sex to religion down kids' throats, and most parents don't have a clue what's going on (again, I'm not making any excuses for anybody). If I dare to mention another book, Christina Hoff Sommers, the author of Who Stole Feminism? has a good book called The War Against Boys that looks at social attempts to reconstruct boyness to make it more acceptable to radical feminism. Once upon a time society reinforced the lessons parents were trying to instill in their kids; today it attacks them. Basically I am hostile and suspicious, not of individual people, but of any attempt on the part of society or the world to tell me how to raise my kids. That was what touched off my original post. Anyway, I hope this clears up at least some of the issues between us. Peace out, SDG
Oct. 9, 2000, 3:57 p.m. CST
Once again I just want say that SDG on the money with his points. I think everyone else on this board needs to take lessons from him on how to argue INTELIGENTLY. Jigs
Oct. 9, 2000, 4:24 p.m. CST
If you want a good example of how to look like a complete moron on this message boards read anything posted by DA HOUSE KATT. If that is an example of what other Countries produce as a population then I sure am glad I'm an American. However, DA HOUSE KATT is probably shunned even in his own Country therefore not a good example of their citizens. P.S. Class envy is only going keep you down KATT. Get on a boat, cross a border or SHUT UP!
Oct. 9, 2000, 5:34 p.m. CST
I have to say I am rather upset with this sentament that parents should be able to corrupt their children by NOT letting them watch a movie. What? Dont i mean corrupt them by MAKING them watch the movie? Nope. I hate this attitude that parents should have the right to shelter their children from what they think is immoral. It is just as wrong as making your child watch nc-17 movies while they are 4 years old, if not worse. Trust me, I have met people who are 16 years old and their parents do not allow them to watch rated r movies. Guess how many of them are what you would consider "Good" citizens. None? yup. I watched the first Alien movie when i was around 5, and many other movies before and since then. Do I have any police record? Have i ever gotten in trouble for sex, violence, etc? No. What you have to realize is this; If you believe that movies can affect people in some harmfull way, you are saying that all people are is reflections of what they experience. I will grant that. However, the people MAKING those movies grew up reading the most violent novel ever created, with the most graphic sexual content ever created. The bible. So when these products of their enviroments read something the public sanctions, and then create something of minor poroportions to it, you deem it wrong. Shame on you.
Oct. 9, 2000, 6:49 p.m. CST
Isn't this another film that gets already known actors to portray drug addicts and strippers so that they look like they are doing really good acting, and aim for awards that get people to think it's arty, etc.? It's really easy to make the world look bad and people look evil. High Schooler's don't need to see that shit, fuck, give them a happy go lucky movie that makes the world seem nice. Alot of them are already suicidal, that would make a GOOD difference. Also, people are always asking to have something be a course in high school or mandatory in high school, having this film be mandatory sounds ridiculous to me. I haven't seen it, yet, so these views aren't all solid, I say the hs mandatory thing is ridiculous, though. What do people who have seen this thing, think?
Oct. 9, 2000, 7 p.m. CST
I'm sure it's directed very well, and has a nice message and effect that anti-drug people in schools don't seem to have on a few choice punks.
Oct. 9, 2000, 7:12 p.m. CST
I'm still waiting for a good movie with the moral message of the kids and requiem of a dream not rated R or NC17 for kids to watch. This movie spreads the message drugs are bad, like The Kids spread the (promiscuity) message that kids are pretty fucked up these days. But they got that way from seeing and hearing and knowing (not always from film) some pretty messed up things that someone their age really didn't need to know, do we put out a fire by lighting a match?
Oct. 9, 2000, 7:39 p.m. CST
If you have kids and choose not to exercise discretion over what they do or don't watch, that's a choice. Every parent makes a choice. You either choose to exercise responsibility or you choose to abdicate responsibility, to parent or not to parent. The choice is yours. You make your choice. I've made mine. * * * * * You say you are "rather upset" by the idea of parental authority and that you "hate the attitude" that parents should shelter their children. Fine. Be upset. Hate my attitude. What am I supposed to do about it, pay for therapy for you (or your children)? Thrawn9, I don't care that my parenting style upsets you or that you hate my attitude. I feel sorry for you, and would gladly help you if I could, but I don't see what options I have in that regard. * * * * * For some strange reason you bring up the Bible, which no one was talking about, and go on at ridiculously hyperbolic length about how it is "the most violent novel" ever with "the most graphic sexual content" ever. What strange hang-ups you must have about the Bible and sex and violence to make you suddenly and irrelevantly inject these subjects into conversations that were about other things. Your specific remarks about the Bible are so bizarre and separated from reality that I must presume either that (a) like Quetzalcoatl and Pallando Blue over on the LOTR TalkBack you are simply yanking my chain, or else (b) your own parents did an extraordinary job of sheltering you from absolutely everything except the Bible, so that you never discovered any *really* racy or violent literature (even in ancient literature there's lots racier stuff than even the raciest metaphors in Song of Songs; it isn't the Bible that tells us about the contours of Sarah's breasts, although there is non-biblical literature that does), or else (c) that you are simply babbling with no regard for truth. Which is it, I wonder? * * * * * You imagine that the proposition "movies can affect people in some harmfull way" somehow presupposes or implies the idea that "all people are is reflections of what they experience." That does not follow. It is possible to believe that people are more than reflections of what they experience and still believe that movies can affect people in harmful ways. Even you yourself admitted that movies can affect people in harmful ways, when you admitted it would be wrong to expose 4-year-olds to NC-17 content. * * * * * You talk about what sort of content "I deem wrong," just as if I had said anything on this subject, or as if you knew me or something. And then you have the gall to say "Shame on you." Thrawn9, this is the kind of "shame" I can well live with. Peace out, SDG
Oct. 9, 2000, 7:46 p.m. CST
Some of you people need to think a bit before writing your anti-establishment drivel. MPAA... bad. Therefore violent, drug induced sex... must be good. Bah. And the whole argument that keeping your children away from what you deem inappropriate as a parent is IRRESPONSIBLE and DESTRUCTIVE? Please. I'm sure if they experience molestation at the hands of a stranger they'll just "learn from it" too right? I'm sorry, but this whole talk back makes me ill. Don't even bother responding to this post... I won't be back.
Oct. 9, 2000, 8:26 p.m. CST
Because come October 20th I'll be able to see this dam movie, finally. It's plating at the Denver International Film Festival. And with that damned "Unrated" label...it increases my chance greatly on seeing it. Wonderful in my book...'cause where I used to live...well, it would've NEVER seen the light of day. I'm not unsure what a "unrated" label exactly means for 'big-wig' movie theaters, but I'm sure that it won't be playing there. I hope that many young adults my age and younger people than myself will see this movie and truly be disturbed. I say "the Exorcist" this past weekend and many younger views, and fellow viewers, where laughing and snickering at parts...this is pathetic. For the simple fact that while I don't find "the Exorcist" an all-and-all out 'disturbing; movie I think it is a true definitive movie that encompasses what true 'horror' movies are all about. We need a powerful movie. And I have no doubt that the performances demonstrated in this movie will be stunning, maybe the best of the year, I do know that NONE of them will receive Oscar Nominations. Just for the simple fact that this film is "unrated". I for one am extremely excited about this here little film. I'll have to post back once I've 'officially' seen it but I have no doubts that I'll be let down by any standards. I hate shock value. So, I'm not gonna say that every teenage should have to view this film. Leave this film to the ones who want to see it...and patronize it enough so the MPAA understands that they made a mistake by rating this in such a way. Make this the biggest grossing film that has been labeled "unrated". And finally for all of you that cannot see it and want too...I'm sorry. Hopefully it comes to DVD and VHS soon after its release...so all can embrace its dark glory. In the tradition of Saving Private Ryan and American history X, and In the company of Men...I hope this is a truly powerful film. I truly believe that it will be. I'm ready to be shocked, entertained, and revolted all at the same time. Viva passionate filmmaking!
Oct. 9, 2000, 10:45 p.m. CST
i just saw this movie tonight and i definately enjoyed it .personally i was more offended and grossed out by scary movie which had about 90% teenagers in the audience and had way more nudity than requiem. the mpaa is a joke. i dont think its right that they should decide who should see this movie. i even got proofed by some idiot ticket taker at the union square theatre in ny. im 33 years old and this guy actually thought that i was 16? i guess the lesbian scene was supposed to be the scene that was too much. but i guess when they showed balls hanging down in scary movie or ,the guy cums so its a geyser ,that its not as bad as a 1 second clip of 2 chicks with a dildo.their priorities are screwed up. anyway ,overall this is really a great movie and it wasnt as brutal to watch as i expected. ellen burstyn really must have went through hell for some of those scenes. definate oscar material.
Oct. 10, 2000, 12:24 a.m. CST
Excuse me, but is their webmaster on crack? That doesn't make me want to go see their movie - it makes me want to slap the Flash-happy, tripped-out web designer with a citation for being TOO FUCKING DEEP. Fight Club's website was trippy, and it made me want to see the movie. This site 1) was damn trippy, 2) didn't make sense, 3) didn't make sense, and finally 4) didn't make any FUCKING sense. Sean Gullette did the website for Pi - bring his talent back in there. The guys Aronofsky has now only show that they are too full of themselves to think that Joe User won't just click off their site when it opens up to a silly ass banner, thinking that it's a broken page or misplaced frame rather than the freaking "masterpiece of design" that it is and click through it. Plus, it shows how well they've studied and examined your standard website for shit that's too crappy to even bother selling on 3am Tuesday morning infomercials; they got that down to a T. And you've gotta love the fuzzy screen transition action with the little ones and zeros and squiggly lines - I _REALLY_ thought my web browser had turned into a FUCKING TV SCREEN. Next thing I know, people will be erasing my identity like in THE NET. They'll have a god-damned java applet that'll pop up a white pages-style listing of every human being in the motherfucking WORLD with little buttons next to them that say "RESET CLOCKS", "TURN ON STOVE", "STEAL CREDIT CARDS" and "ISSUE BOGUS WARRANT". I fear for the future of America. Really, I do. But back to the subject at hand, I just wanted to know when this indie movie was going to make it around to St Louis. I nearly missed Deterrence's run because there was no noise about it. This is some solid info that one expects on a narrowly released film. Get with the program, Artisan! In the meantime, I'll be hiding out in my basement wearing a copper foil braincap so you "cyberized" techno-freaks can't hack into my brain from your palm pilot in an airport in Ann Arbor or Tuscon or wherever the hell you are and steal my sexy thoughts before I can get the chance to wank to 'em!
Oct. 10, 2000, 12:26 p.m. CST
I am definitely there. I wonder if this little film is going to steal some of Traffic's thunder on the drug issue?
Oct. 11, 2000, 4:52 p.m. CST
by Ken's Girl
I saw the movie in Toronto, and had I thought it worth my while to chip in a comment about THE MOVIE in the midst of this raging parental responsibility debate, I would have said EXACTLY what mind_guerilla did. As it stands, I'm only commenting now to defend his/her opinion as valid (and as it happens, nearly telepathic).
Oct. 11, 2000, 4:56 p.m. CST
by Ken's Girl
OK, so I just re-read what mind_guerilla thinks he'll do after seeing this movie. Make that "his" opinion in my last post.
Oct. 12, 2000, 7:57 p.m. CST
Here's the review I sent to Harry, but so far he hasn't posted it. I disagreed with Harry's review A LOT. There's some stuff in here about a Q and A with the director, too, for those interested: I wanted to ask him. I had to ask him. Darren Aronofsky, director of the brilliant
Oct. 13, 2000, 9:24 a.m. CST
requiem's production company, Thousand Words, posted city by city release dates and theatres. check it out at http://www.thousand-words.com
Oct. 13, 2000, noon CST
Mylow thinks that REQUIEM was irresponsible, and Dutch believes that the movie gives you no one to identify with. For anyone reading these TalkBack posts who's made it this far the list, I'd like to say that these two are obviously misunderstanding the film. It's like, hmm . . . Ever watch a movie with a friend in which an actor makes a powerful and believable performance in the role of a villain, and then afterwards, you praise that actor for being so damn good while your friend spends the rest of his life whining about how he hates that actor? Well, your friend's reaction is a result of his being stupid; he's confused his feelings about the character with those he feels for the actor, not understanding that it was the actor's goal to make you dislike the villain, and the success of the performance is testament to the actor's worth as an actor, and in no way should the personality of the character portrayed reflect on the personality of the actor. Well, this is sort of like what happened whan Mylow and Dutch saw REQUIEM FOR A DREAM. Through no fault of the film, these two smooth-brained twits were unable to realize that their distaste for the situations depicted in the film was, in fact, the film's intended goal. REQUIEM's ability to elicit these feelings are what commends it as a very good, heck, Great Film.
Oct. 15, 2000, 1:22 a.m. CST
Zuuzuu, while I appreciate your response, you've misunderstood me. "...and Dutch believes that the movie gives you no one to identify with." I didn't say that - I said that the movie doesn't develop any characters, so why should you care about them? Personally, I'm more moved by a fully fleshed-out human being's battle with addiction then a generic stereotype. From the opening scenes of this movie, 3 of the 4 characters are already doped out -we learn virtually nothing about them, but just watch them get worse. Who cares? Only Ellen Burstyn's character has some sort of humanity to her, and everytime we start to learn something interesting, Aronofsky interrupts it with some "clever" montage of eyes dilating and coffee boiling. It's hard to identify with a stereotype---"these two are obviously misunderstanding the film." I get a kick out of people who think anyone who has an opinion other than theirs must be "misunderstanding" the movie.---"he's confused his feelings about the character with those he feels for the actor, not understanding that it was the actor's goal to make you dislike the villain, and the success of the performance is testament to the actor's worth as an actor, and in no way should the personality of the character portrayed reflect on the personality of the actor."I'm a big fan of Ellen Burstyn and Jennifer Connelly, have no real opinion about Jared Leto either way, and as I said in my review, I wish Marlon Wayans had more to do in the film. And I am indeed intelligent enough to distinguish the actor from the role being played. How many people can't stand Keanu Reeves but still loved The Matrix?--"Through no fault of the film, these two smooth-brained twits were unable to realize that their distaste for the situations depicted in the film was, in fact, the film's intended goal"-First off, there's no need to name call, you have no idea who I am, and it really just weakens your points. Secondly (Did you even read my post?) I LOVE drug movies. I mentioned my affection for Dead Ringers, Sid & Nancy, Rush and Less Than Zero, and may I also add Naked Lunch, The Man With The Golden Arm, The Lost Weekend and Barfly (off the top of my head), all movies about addiction who gave us FLESHED OUT characters, many of whom (Dead Ringers, Sid & Nancy, Barfly) were assholes. However, because they were well drawn, we cared about the characters and hence they were better films about addiction and dependency. I was moved by their struggles with addiction. I could have cared less what happened to the people in this movie, because I didn't know them---"REQUIEM's ability to elicit these feelings are what commends it as a very good, heck, Great Film." ("Commends it? and I'm a smooth brained twit?) If Requiem had elicited those feelings, yes, it would be a great film, but instead it plays like three stereotypes and one barely fleshed out character (who is a result of Burstyn's great performance, not Aronofsky - he was probably too busy trying to figure out whether it was time to put in another dilating eye montage)whose lives go down the tubes. Here's the bottom line - would it move you if someone you know personally became a drug addict, or does it bother you more when you read about a drug addict's death in a newspaper? Aronofsky leaves these characters at an arm's length like those in a newspaper, and so those "feelings" are never created with an audience. And what about the points I made, or are you completely ignoring them? What about the Dark City rip-off? What about Burstyn getting shock therapy (That would never really happen under those circumstances)? How about Aronofsky ripping huimself off with the pill-popping edits from "Pi"? Did you really feel for these characters, Zuuzuu, like you said, or were you just tricked by all the noises and edits and music? If you want to see a movie that has better "fireworks", and they work because they properly service the story, rent Fight Club, or Natural Born Killers even. Requiem For A Dream was not a great movie - it was a demo tape for a film editor.
Oct. 18, 2000, 1:28 p.m. CST
by Clark Nova
Requiem is awesome. Everyone should see it. Aronofsky came to San Francisco State (enroute to the Mill Valley Film Festical) and answered some questions after the film was over. When asked about what the plan was if Warner Bros. wanted to mess up Miller and his idea for the film, and impose the Batman Marketing Franchise one it, he said that they just wouldn't do it because, and he warned us not to post this here but screw it, "life's too short to be makin' Happy Meals." Also, I purchased the soundtrack to the album which includes SF local musicians The Kronos Quartet. Aronofsky also produced the album and it's amazing, it's almost like listening to the film. The track listings are devided by season, like the film, and it's about 50 minutes long. A must-have if you're like me and you couldn't stop thinking about the film or its music for days after you saw it. - your agent, Clark Nova
Oct. 19, 2000, 10 a.m. CST
The movie was amazing and I hope it opens in more theatres soon. Hate to say it, but some nominations might help and some critics awards wouldn't hurt either. I don't think that legitimizes the experience of the movie, but someone like my mother would see it if she knew others were taking it seriously. I really do want to stop people in the street and tell them to see this. Its been at least three years since I was this excited about a movie. It was easier to watch than "Trainspotting" or "Drugstore Cowboy" for me, as I sat in the theatre with my mouth hanging open most of the time. What a pretty picture that must have been. Then near the end, I am sure I did not breathe at all. I live in Brooklyn and when I got home I approached my fridge with the utmost in caution. As for my red dress....
Oct. 24, 2000, 2:28 p.m. CST
I don't think you're misunderstanding the movie just because I disagree with your take on it. I think so because your review of the movie, and your response to my comments on it, contain too many misconstruals not to come to that conclusion. First off, I'd like to apologize about the "smooth-brained twits" crack, it was an emotional outburst that was bound to make you take my comments less seriously, but your interpretation of REQUIEM was so flat that, frankly, it angered me. Let's start with the fact that the first thing you say in your review has nothing to do with the movie per se. It was, to refresh anyone who's reading this, an account of how you felt personally insulted by Mr. Aronofsky after a screening:'"Mr. Aronofsky," I stood up and asked after he selected my waving arm from the masses, "Have you ever seen
Nov. 2, 2000, 6:56 a.m. CST
Ah man, I don't know. On the plus side, yeah it looked great, effective use of all the camera tricks etc, and some genuinely great performances, but didn't anyone else think it was a little stale in conception? These people take drugs therefore these people will be punished. I find this portrayal of substance abuse kinda cliched and insulting. I know, I know, "the horrors of drugs" and all that, but come on, anyone making the effort to see this movie probably already has some clue in that regards. It's not like the junkie kid on the corner will be rushing to see the next Jennifer Connoly movie and be scared straight. Plus the whole conclusion, in which all four characters conveniently hit rock bottom (in rather forced and ridiculous manners) at the same time is too movie-of-the-week for me. I might have been able to accept that unfortunate mis-use of artistic license if the characters hadn't been so two dimensional. A bland NY boy, pretty beyond belief, with no real background at all. A bland rich girl, also pretty beyond belief whose only token stab at characterization is that she wants to be a designer?! The best friend character. Is there anything else to say about that? And the mother. It's unfortunate, because there could have been something interesting done with her, but as it stands she's a tv-movie type character, oh, she's lonely and obsessed with TV. Oh, she talks to her dead husband. Oh, she wants to be loved. Hell, the Stones painted a better picture in "mother's little helper." Please understand that I don't mean to ridicule those who have found themselves alone or torn by the memory of their lost, I ridicule the paint by numbers approach to her character. I just felt like the whole thing was an exercise in preaching to the converted, a telegraphed "just say no to drugs" story tricked up with some interesting visuals.
Nov. 8, 2000, 5:06 p.m. CST
by GEEKBASHER 3.0
I urge you to run to the Hillcrest Cinemas and brave yourselves to what I feel is what movies are made for...I could not move, could not eat afterwards, I was on a dinner/date movie, and we opted to go see the movie first...It took me and my date 45 minutes to catch our breaths and finally settle on Thai food afterwards...during the movie I was munching on White Chocolate bits and halfway thu witnessing what Ellen Burstyn was going thu, I thru my bag of candy down and was glued to the seats, eyes wide open....The final 15 minutes were beyond anything I have ever witnessed on the big screen...I have seen this movie twice and am going to bring a bunch of friends again tommorrow night! THIS IS THE BEST FUCKING MOVIE OF THE YEAR!
Nov. 9, 2000, 12:47 p.m. CST
I have just seen a film that has affected me like no other I've ever seen. It was Darren Aronofsky's REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (those who saw PI know the kind of filmmaker he is), and it "blew my fucking mind". Because of some gay ass ratings war, this film only plays in one theatre in every major city in North America. It's difficult to find, but well worth the search. The director didn't want his vision compromised, so he told the MPAA to "fuck off" (which more filmmakers should do more often) and just let the film be released Unrated (which is worse than NC-17), so that means that no major chain theatres can't play it. Oh well, their loss. Anyway, back to the movie, which I would easily call the most intense cinematic experience I've ever participated in during my life. I left the theatre with my head buzzing, my mood lowered, and my general outlook on life and film changed. How can a simple movie do this you might ask? Watch it, and see for yourself. The movie is just a visual, emotional and cerebral assault, and it never lets up. Never. By the end I was overtaken by the sheer power of the story, and generally felt terrible...... but in a good way. The movie concerns the lives of four characters (played by Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans, Jennifer Connolly and Ellen Burysten) whose lives are slowly destroyed by the vices they follow. These are mainly drugs (and in Burysten's case diet pills), but the film really does a number on you. Go see it. So, anywho, I left the theatre and actually felt like I was on something. The movie makes you feel like you are on a very bad "trip". I rode the subway home and could do nothing but stare ahead of me and think.... my head throbbed and my eyes were watering (I'm glad I wasn't driving). SO, I had a sudden urge to get off the subway and go see a mindless, fun action film. I had to counteract REQUIEM with something. So I went and saw CHARLIE'S ANGELS. The mix of cool action, comedy and beautiful women really did the trick. It's actually a pretty good movie. But REQUIEM still sat with me. I hope I can get rid of it soon, cause it's taking up too much space in my brain.
Nov. 9, 2000, 5:54 p.m. CST
SDG has hit the nail on the head post after post. As you can probably tell, I'm a parent, too, and one who is very involved in my kids' lives, because nothing is more important to me and their father than they are. Thrawn9 suggests that, because he has yet to mow people down with an Uzi in a mall, he's been unaffected by the cultural dreck he's been absorbing since age 5. I beg to differ -- his posts evidence otherwise. The MPAA ratings -- even when enforced scrupulously -- aren't preventing teenagers from seeing all R and NC-17 films; as a parent, I may not be able to trot my teenagers off to the theater to see REQUIEM, but I can certainly rent the video in a few months' time and watch it with them. However, the rating alerts me to the fact that I almost certainly should preview it first to assess its appropriateness for my particular teenagers. Avidfan, you deride inattentive parents, but ridicule those who express concern and seek help in filtering what their children are exposed to (so we parents are damned if we do and damned if we don't?). I agree that the MPAA ratings system is deeply flawed and fails to adequately address the pornography of violence; but as a parent I would like to see ratings become even more stringent. That doesn't make me a prude or a proponent of censorship for adults -- I will certainly see REQUIEM, as I've seen many other worthy NC-17 films over the years. But I will fight to the death to protect my children from the deadening effects of prurience and violence that floods our media. Those who say that this crap has no or little effect on children are emperors wearing no clothes -- they can't see or measure the destructive impact it's had on themselves. My husband and I restrict our 5th grader to G and PG rated films, while many of his buddies are permitted to watch PG-13 (consciously) or even R (through parental inattention and lack of monitoring)films by their parents. I've known all these kids since diapers and I see, at age 10, the damaging effect access to these and other age-inappropriate materials is beginning to have on those children whose parents don't protect them from it. I witness daily such kids'increased aggressiveness, contempt for girls among the boys, coarsening language, insensitivity to others' feelings, rudeness, and confusion about what is "normal" (or at least desirable)in male-female relationships and what kind a behavior is "acceptable" in the world (lying, cheating, stealing, injurious gossip). None of these children has yet to commit a crime, no; but one boy now obsessivly searches the internet for pornography through his grandparents' unfiltered computer (they apparently think he doesn't know about this stuff and aren't aware of the filth accessible on the web by unsupervised children); he confesses to my son that he knows its "forbidden" to look at this stuff but isn't, in his own mind, exactly sure why. Another boy, though extremely bright, has begun casual cheating on his quizzes and homework and a third regularly makes nasty remarks to the girls in his class (and my daughter) about what "girls are good for." My kids aren't the only ones, thank goodness, whose parents strive to shelter them from the pernicious influence of today's polluted media and, like my kids, they're generally happier, more considerate, and better-liked by both adults and other kids. What I find telling but saddening about the unsupervised kids' families is that these are also the parents who usually drop their kids off at their sports games, but rarely stay to cheer, and who don't know what or who their kids' current passions or best friends are. The argument has been made to me that it's foolish of me to try to shelter my kids because "this stuff is all around them anyway","they'll learn about it eventually" so "why bother". Well, yes, some will always leak through. But, as much as I can, I want to keep my kids in an environment where people don't curse or insult each other, lie, cheat, steal, push each other around, solve disagreements with violence, lash out in rage, consider their own wants to be paramount to those of others, treat women (or men) in a demeaning or sexist manner, cheat on their spouses, or fail to accept responsibility. The world portrayed by too much of the media inundates children with these sorts of images, who then can't help but think "this is the way it is and this is therefore the way I should behave" -- even if only in miniature. Children deserve better from all of us, especially their parents, and the MPAA system is one tool parents can use to do their highly imperfect best to expose their children, when young, to that which reinforces rather than undermines the values the parents are trying to inculcate (and, hopefully, live), and later to help them figure out how to reconcile all the crappy people and crappy values out in the world with those their parents have taught them. My 5th grader now comes to us regularly to ask why: why can't I see this movie when 3 of my friends have? what's wrong with unlimited television access? internet access? etc., etc., etc. He gets answers; we feel a child deserves (a) a truthful & generally complete answer to any question s/he asks (depending on age and ability to understand), (b) an explanation for why the family rules are what they are (not ultimatums), and (c) parents who live in accordance with the standards they impose and the values they espouse. We also freely concede to him that he not only may disagree with some of our decisions -- he may in time even be proven right -- but there are no arbitrary decisions being made and even if they're imperfect or downright wrong, he has two parents who care enough about him to expend time, energy and thought in making and enforcing rules (and let me tell the non-parents -- it requires a huge amount of time, energy and thought do do in reasonably well). I even bought him a journal so he could record every bad decision and rule we've made and we've promised that when he's 25 we'll review it with him and apologize for all the one we agree with; it'll be interetsing to see what his views are in 15 years. One amusing thing about being "mean" parents is that my kids' friends -- even those who know they won't be allowed to do at our house things their own parents will allow (or not prohibit) them to do -- ask if they can come to our house for play-dates, sleep-overs, etc. I guess they must finding something in the environment we create for our own kids that outweighs R rated movies.....
Nov. 19, 2000, 10:57 a.m. CST
I'm a parent, and I WILL show this film to my daughter when she's in her teens. But that being said, those who fight with the MPAA about an R Rating for this are simply wrong. I saw SCARY MOVIE, okay? If any movie deserved an NC-17 rating it was that one. And I saw more kids in that movie than I did in goddamn CHICKEN RUN! REQUIEM is brilliant balls-out filmmaking, first off. If my daughter was remotely interestd in film as a career, I'd show her this one, right off. But as a tale of addiction, it is required viewing...about not letting our NEED control us. But those whining about how the First Amendment isn't protecting the children of this country make me want to use the Second Amendment. If you're too stupid or uninformed to know what the Amendments are, don't bother e-mailing me to ask. I don't speak Hooked On Phonics.
Nov. 19, 2000, 11 a.m. CST
REQUIEM an R Rating GOOD. NC-17 for REQUIEM BAD. SCARY MOVIE an NC-17 GOOD. Clear it up?
Nov. 21, 2000, 12:48 a.m. CST
Yes, i can understand why some wouldn't like Requiem. What i can't grasp is how people can deny that it is revolutionary film making. Living in a smaller midwestern city, i was pissed to hear that i would have to wait several weeks before the film would actually be picked up by a theater here. My dear lord, it was worth the wait. The characters are a bit stale indeed, but that is Aronofsky's style. We take the character that he gives us and further deveop it on our own- a technique that some directors need to consider. So what if Requiem offered fewer shocks compared to Trainspotting as far as new content. As we saw in PI, Aronofsky focuses on the perspective and running with an idea over developing consistency of the plot. You have to pay attention to the more subtle breaking of film norms- such as, i found to be, one of the most disturbing things in the movie: In the midst of all the chaos that tears the end apart and no doubt captivates the audience the most- as all four characters are more or less suffering, Connely clutches her well-earned smack and smiles. That smile sums up the whole film. Aronofsky hit the mark this time. If he keeps it up, maybe even Kurt Russell couldn't ruin Batman.
Nov. 21, 2000, 12:50 p.m. CST
This was probably the best movie I've seen all year, and I'm the type to only like movies that have a Disnet ending. I highly recommend it. Mostly I want to comment on the cinematography. It was absolutely amazing. When Sarah was in the Doctor's office and was having problems seeing, hearing, and everything else, I can say that it was very similar to what I've experienced during an anxiety attack. Everything around you is being perceived in a way not like reality. It was strange to see a portrrayal of that on the big screen.
Nov. 21, 2000, 10:51 p.m. CST
I saw the absolutely brilliant movie "Requiem for a Dream" at the screening at Balboa Park in San Diego. I've seen it twice more since then. I go to Mesa College, and let me tell you just how cool of a paper they have: they reviewed "Requiem for a Dream" and gave it an A+! What other college paper would be cool enough to review it? I have a friend who just got the videoscreener from Artisan, who's pushing it for the Oscars. Hell, if we here in San Diego have to, I'm sure he'll let me borrow it, and we can get all the highschoolers who are thinking about fucking their lives up by doing drugs, and get them to watch this. Maybe we can even charge admission, and then just buy tickets for daily showings at Landmark with it to make up for the non-sales. This MUST be seen!!!
Nov. 22, 2000, 3:34 a.m. CST
by Filthy Fox
For those of you feel PI is a brilliant and original film, then you owe it to a bunch of crazy fucking Japanese filmmakers to see the film TETSUO THE IRON MAN. First of all this is the most fucking disturbing movie since ERASERHEAD. It's black and white, goes a hundred million miles per hour and is better than PI. Remember that scene in PI where the guy pokes at the brain with a pencil or pen or something, well that scene is in TETSUO, except it's a girl (still in a subway) and she pokes at this weird fucking mechanical thing. They're near identical. The camerawork is extremely similar to PI- all hand-held, and edited extremely quickly. Arrenofsky also stole the chest camera mount thing from Scorsese (MEAN STREETS). So, please see this movie, you'll like it a lot more than the overrated PI. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW: Despite my feelings about PI, I loved Requiem, the best movie I have seen since Fight Club.
Nov. 25, 2000, 12:21 p.m. CST
Alright for those out there that are still reading this board(it was off the front page a couple days b4 i saw the movie) I just would like to clarify that this is NOT a drug movie!!!! the drug use is merely a device. This is a movie about fear and human emotion and addiction in general. I mean sweet old mom and teens are both in the same boat, mom starts out addicted to food and tv and depression.....then she realizes finds something, a fantasy about being thin and famous and loved by her son, and becomes OBSESSED with it. This becomes her new addiction.....while on the other hand the "kids" get involved in heroin.....but why, is it because of peer pressure, or hey its cool to do it??? NO it is because of fear!! They start out wanting to get the best PURE shit and become the "man" and have everyone else lacking for them. And Harry wants to help Marion open her shop and she is afraid that shes not going to make anything of her life and shes going to have to rely on her folks, which she hates. So she gets involved in the fantasy and it consumes her... so what happens? Everyone is so engulfed in their fantasies about what they want to make of their lives they end up going to the ultimate extreme end of hell. The director said that the film in his mind was supposed to be like jumping out of an airplane and realizing you have no parachute, and that is where the movie starts, and it doesnt end until 5 mins after you hit the ground and are struggling to breath b4 you die......not too pleasent but i really couldnt think of a better way to describe it.... so sure there is drug use, and that is the underlying plot device, but that is all it is!! its a vehicle to drive the point home. He also said he was never interested in doing a "Drug" movie the only reason he decided to do it was because of the mother and her battle with herself.......there's a LOT happeneing in this movie!!!! and if all you got out of it was drug use and the dangers therein i think you better go see it a few more times and start evaluating beyond the obvious!!!!
Nov. 25, 2000, 3:23 p.m. CST
I drove about forty five minutes to see this the other day when it finally started to play in my area. I wanted this to be THE movie of the year for me but I walked out hardly moved at all and not the least bit rattled or disturbed. Aronofsky brings a lot of style to Requiem but overall I think the style overwhelms the movie. Aronofsky lays it on so thick with the rapid fire editing, the split screen work, the time lapse photography, and the restless camera moves that fifteen minutes into the movie, all I could pay attention to was the technique and the artifice and not the story. Ellen Burstyn's performance IS Oscar-worthy but this is not the gut-wrenching experience that I had hoped for. It's not cookie cutter filmmaking, to be sure - but that doesn't automatically make it a great piece of work, either.
Dec. 1, 2000, 8:04 a.m. CST
Dec. 1, 2000, 8:17 a.m. CST
I just do not understand why you think this film is so great, dont get me wrong i dont think its bad,it was some what interesting.But it was not great by any stretch of the imagination there were some interesting visuals,that is all, and they arent that good , the whole movie was very ammateurish and boring, believe me ive seen alot of student films and this is no different. The only reason i can think that you like it is because you think something in it was shocking because when Darren wasnt trying to shock us he was boring us stiff , but who gives a damn about shocking us anyway go watch a gangbang porn or the news and its much more shocking than this film , the performances were ok as was the movie but i dont understand what makes it great and Harry neglected to mention why it was great as well. could someone please tell me why they think it is?
Dec. 3, 2000, 2:27 a.m. CST
The music is as integral to this film as it was, say, to Liquid Sky (which it resembles in its frenetic pace and stylistic riffs, but especially its music) and A Clockwork Orange. Why is the importance of film music (especially of the "art film" variety) so often discounted? Imagine this film with music by John Williams or a similar Hollywood sell-out. Or with conventional techno fare, a la Trainspotting. Would it still be a great film? I don't know.
Dec. 5, 2000, 12:46 a.m. CST
my opinion: not a good movie. it might have affected me if it was the only drug movie i'd ever seen but, it wasn't, and therefore, it didn't. to those who liked it, i'm glad you found a movie you enjoyed so much. but i agree with those who have pointed out some fundamental and crucial flaws. just because an actor cries doesn't make it a great performance. and just because a movie looks good, doesn't mean it's a good movie. requiem for a dream was, to me, a magic trick where i was all too aware of the mirrors and the trap doors.
Dec. 6, 2000, 5:53 p.m. CST
a recent poll found an astounding fact. nearly half the population has breasts! isnt this amazing? why seeing these things in a movie should warrent a higher rating is just more proof that the MAwhatever-the-fuck-it-isAP is backasswards. on another note being underaged should not judge what I can and cannot see or do. if this movie is as good as harry says it is, (though I doubt his judgment abilities based on his five page description of diez's undies in his charlies angels review) I'll do whatever I can to see this movie, and tell my friends the same. I'm just happy we have some very liberal movie theaters here....otherwise I would be forced to get a bootleg copy somewhere........
Dec. 9, 2000, 10:15 p.m. CST
Best Film Of The Year 2000! I agree that everyone should see this film. I now have the book and the transfer to the screen is remarkable! Ellen should receive the award for Best Actress, definitely. I love a film that can kick my a**, which rarely happens, and this one did! Go Darren Aronofsky!! Don't forget to vist the official whacked-out site at http://www.requiemforadream.com A+ ~ 5 out of 5 stars!!!
Dec. 12, 2000, 12:02 p.m. CST
Definitely on my top 10 list for the year. One of my few complaints was the shock therapy at the end of the film. The acting was brilliant and EB gives the best performance I have seen this year. I agree that the film should have been rated "R," but then I remember that the board was the same group that gave Billy Elliot an "R" rating (an equally absurd decision). As far as Harry's rantings on the subject. Do you read what you write Harry? That's the reason you are accorded so little stature in critical circles. You have no clue as to how best make a point.
Dec. 15, 2000, 11:22 p.m. CST
I just saw the movie. I enjoyed pi and already heard the music for requiem so I wanted to see it even more. Having known people similar to two of the characters presented in this movie I can honestly say this is a very stron and realistic anti-drug movie. Having said that, there are those who will only pay attention to the first part of the movie (summer) and think the movie is saying drugs are fun ignore the rest. This just happens. People who want the movie to be evil will find a way to make it evil. Teen addicts who see this will see the first part and either ignore the last two-thirds of the movie or leave a little after "fall". They will still think it is fun or not a big deal to abuse drugs. That's the nature of their disease. But, if they stay and see the whole movie (or some of the final two-thirds) a small seed may get planted in one of their minds that helps them get in recovery later. This movie comes the closest to re-creating the hallucinatory states of a drug (amphetamines for Ellen Burstyn), and the slide into addiction than any movie I know of. This is especially true because of the fact it is four characters at once. I think this helps show the pattern is always the same for everyone. Darren Aronofsky is very talented and seems to have a strong humaness in his films so far.
Oct. 1, 2001, 1:12 a.m. CST
by Dwarf Sidious
Know what? I think that even if you show beautiful people who do horrible things reaping what they sow, you can STILL glamorize the horrible things.
Dec. 30, 2001, 2:52 p.m. CST
I have now been visiting this site for over a year and usually agree with most of Harry's reviews and commentary however after reading the review (used as a dvd insert) for Requiem for a Dream, for some reason I felt the need to disagree - Now let me preface what I am about to say by telling you that I consider myself a well-rounded film fan, I have also seen, enjoyed and been heavily influenced by films which subject matter is heavily influenced by drug use and addiction (Drugstore Cowboy, Rush, and Traffic, come to mind) -I think the message that these films conveyed was both clear and effective, while the tone still managed to be "cool", gritty and surreal. After watching Requiem for a Dream I was very troubled, not only as intended by the subject matter, but by the way in which Aronofsky chose to convey it. My first problem with the direction and look of the film in general, was the use of "pulse skip...split screen...frame shake,,,tracking perspectives...fisheye worldviews...trippy music...", his use of these techniques (clearly influenced by other "cool" directors such as Fincher, Tarantino, Boyle, Soderbergh...) almost make Guy Ritchie's editing in Snatch appear restrained and conventional. The film relies so heavily on these editing techniques, that what Harry classified as "BRILLIANT" seems more like a film school excercise in excess post-production (I wonder how many people considered Stephen May's excessive use of frame skips and quick edits in Get Carter to be brilliant?). Nonetheless even more troubling was the gratuitous way he handled Marion Silver's (Jennifer Connelly) spiral into prostitution. To be fair I saw a director's cut of the film and I have yet to watch the theatrical version this review was based on, but the imagery of her being forced to "perform" was beyond troubling. While I am aware that the scene is supposed to be "haunting", I think we should remember the way Soderbergh handled a similar scene in Traffic, as far as I'm concerned the scene between Erika Christensen (as Caroline Wakefield) and her drug dealer was handled and filmed much less graphically yet was more haunting and effective in its context then the one I saw in Requiem. Coming off an accliamed film it almost felt as though Aronofsky wanted to make a gritty, dark film, and show us all what a "cool", hip young director could get away with. All that said the performances in this film were fantastic, I agree that Burstyn's performance was award worthy, however I came away from the film more with a sense of disgust for the way the subject matter was handled, rather then for the subject matter itself.
Jan. 5, 2002, 5:34 p.m. CST
Just a week ago rented RFAD for the first time. I still can't shake it.
March 2, 2002, 5:19 p.m. CST
Shocking, disturbing... I'm in my late teens, I've never taken drugs, drank, etc.. The movie is still making my head pound. It's not escapist fare, that's for sure, but it deserves to be seen.(Also, I found it funny that the version of your review inside the booklet was edited, removing all of the MPAA bashing :-)
March 9, 2002, 9:03 p.m. CST
You've seen TRAFFIC? Well traffic's message is "Don't do drugs, please." Well this movie runs up to you and kicks you in the nuts and screams "DON'T FUCKING DO DRUGS!!!" Aside from this, Noone gets out in the end. In real life, shit happens and, holy fuck, they do not hide this fact. Darren Aronofski is a film genius. I'm 18 now, and I saw this last year. When I saw how Ellen Burstyn's character ended up, tears were in my eyes. In the beginning she was my grandma. And at the end...she was gone. All but dead. This movie made me NEVER want to do drugs and I agree that it should be required viewing at schools. Maybe if it was I wouldn't have lost so many friends at 18! Great movie.
March 30, 2002, 10:30 a.m. CST
by sackley whistle
What Harry said about the use of styles is dead right. I had a PHYSICAL reaction to this film. What i mean by that is not that i felt nauseous or bored or was crying, though the first and last of these are both true. There is a montage in the final act, maybe 20 minutes long, i don't know - it FELT long - which is unbelievably intense. I wanted it to end. Not like LOst in Space, which i just wanted to get the other side of... I found it hard to sit still and watch the things on screen. I was wincing, shifting in my seat, biting my knuckles, twisting my neck and so on./ And when it finished, and you see Ellen Burstyn in her "new state", both me and my best friend who were watching for the first time (in a group of four 22-year old males) burst out crying. It is ridiculously draining. And Aronofsky uses all those little gimmicks Guy Ritchie and Soderbergh etc use. The difference is, not only do they make sense here, not only do they not look like just another "ooh, that's nice" camera trick... they seem essential to the film. They ACCENTUATE what these characters go through. I mean, i love Lock, Stock and I have a special place for Snatch too, but i can't get excited about all the stylistic touches in them anymore. Because Aronofsky slaps Guy Ritchie's hand with this film. He is saying to him and all his contemporaries, "Naughty boy! Cinema is a gift - look what we can do! Stop jerking around!". This film WORKS. It establishes three and a half (Wayans is surprisingly good, but unresolved and not as essential as Connelly, Leto and most importanly, Burstyn) great, complex characters. It establishes their dreams. It makes you want them to succeed, to be living in the phat house sippin Pina Coladas. And then it sets them up for their falls. Guess what? They fall. Bigtime. And, yes, i've heard it called melodrama - that's not unwarranted i suppose. This is an extreme film. But this is the best fucking melodrama i've ever seen. You are supposed to be repulsed by the end, so it has to go a LITTLE overboard. But remember this takes place across four seasons... Visually, it's a delight. The opening scene on its own is genius on many levels. And it gets better. Sara Goldfarb's walk in Fall in the dress is beautiful, unique, outstanding and disturbing (in context) all at the same time. It signals a shift in pace, tone and style and any frame from that one shot would not look out of place on a gallery wall. A word on Ellen Burstyn: Yes, she IS a treasure. Check out The Exorcist. Check out The Yards. Then watch this. She is greatness personified. Possibly the most intelligent, well-controlled and unsettling female performance i have ever seen. If you have doubts, find a friend who has this on dvd and get them to show you the scene where she states her dream- "I like thinking about the red dress, and the television..." That's an award showreel, surely. It pisses me off that she didn't get every award under the sun for this performance. Erin Brockovich was better than this? What world are the academy from? Harry, you've never been more right. Aronofsky is now a great filmmaker. PI disappoints after watching this. Thats how good it is. See it once and let it scar you and stay in your mind. Have a couple of joints before hand, get comfy, skin one up when Leto and Connelly are on the roof. Then strap yourself in and don't touch the remote. There are films that come along every few years (Usual Suspects, Memento) which become classics in their own right. Among the best of their decade. IMHO Requiem is one of the most original and impressive films in over twenty years. Shoot me down for it if you want, thats your prerogative. But, for the sake of the future of cinema, i hope you agree. Contact me and let me know what you think. @The Whistle Man@ (you know how to whistle don't you?)
May 23, 2003, 2:39 p.m. CST
Although I liked Requiem for a Dream, and it did make me think. I don't think it is as groundshaking as some may say. As it tries to warn you (yeah you sitting behind your monitor with your mouse in your hand) not to get addicted, it misses a point. Is this movie made for trying to warn you or is it made to try to be a good "unusual" and "intellectual" movie? I think the last. It will surely as hell not make a hardcore heroine addict throw away his needle and help old ladies cross the road. It will not help an overweighted person to stop eating buckets of icecream and go to the gym twice a day. And it will not stop people from being addicts (although it may effect some). I think if you're in deep enough shit, and you want out, and you want to take a shot, smoke, eat or watch a gameshow, you are not gonna say "Ohh wait remember Requiem for a Dream, don't do it." I know I am being unfair now, cuz no movie will ever do this. But I think this movie was made for a certain type of viewers that don't just watch all the "normal" shit, but explore. I think this movie was made just to point out that the director is not the standard guy, but explores. Cuz why use well-known actors? Nothing wrong with them ofcourse but I don't think they were all that good (except for the red dress wearing, speedfreak, gameshow watching granny). I think if I didn't know Marlon or Jared from other movies it would have made a bigger impact. I mean if the actors are just really good it doesn't make a difference that they are well known, but these actors aren't that good (I think). About the rated R shit, I think this proves that the director wants to be "different". If he really wanted to change people, why not make the movie so it can be seen in most theatres. I know I am saying he should cut back on his style, which I sure as hell don't agree on. But with the society in the States being hypocrite, and dumb shit like the not well proportioned rating system (I do think there should be one, but not the one you have over there), he should have adjusted his movie so more people could be reached. And for the ones that are thinking what a spineless gut this "thinkaboutit" is for just agreeing to everything the State says and not willing to go against the rules. I think he made a point by not wanting to change his movie... true, but not the point he wanted to make with his movie about addiction. By the way I sure hope the one who posted that the director did not want to change the movie is correct about that. Well I guess you are tired of all the reading now and sick of all those people with their dumb ideas thinking they know it all (like ME). I just want to say one more thing: "when I was young I thought the world was black and white but now I know it is all grey."
Nov. 23, 2009, 3:40 a.m. CST
"Did you really feel for these characters, Zuuzuu, like you said, or were you just tricked by all the noises and edits and music?" Really,Dutch? You mean to tell me you did not feel literally anything for those characters at all based on the analogy that they weren't "deep"? Was it my imagination then, that the journey of a young man -- Harry who was concerned with his mother's deteriating health; pawned T.V's to feed his drug addiction, and flat out remarked during the movie that "everything was going to be perfect" once he made it to the pier and became a successful big time distributor....only to find himself knocked in the teeth when reality kicks in -- was indeed a sonnet worthy of praise and full of the levels of characterization that you only get within movies such as trainspotting? I guess I must have imagined all of that, when Harry runs out to the middle of the dock on the water demanding.....no, FEVERISHLY calling out to Marion and wishing for her to join him for their new successful career outside of Brooklyn Heights. So Harry can get his mother out of that run down halfway house. So Marion can open up with him, clothing store of designer clothes she has always wanted. Or perhaps what you meant by it not being deep......is that it was simply out of your depth entirely? Oh, I suppose I can also forget the fact Tyrone played by Marlon Wayans, dreams of his mother and living back in her house. Where he tells Harry, "you know man sometimes I still think of it...I want to get out of this life" and he motions back "What do you think I should do with Marion." "Get out there, get the powder sold and get out there while you still got time!" Or should we ignore alltogether, the fact Tyrone constantly has Harry's back even when he misses every single appointment. Or shall we dismiss entirely, the fact Harry always dreams of a better tomorrow; only to wake up smack faced with reality slamming his head against the wall. Or should we forget the fact that, like so many of US Harry discovers he does not have the girl and his own thriving clothing store in the East Coast. All because he made a stupid choice, one where he wasn't given many alternatives. I've seen someone just like Harry, a best friend in fact; who made me loathe him so much that I could not help but care for the guy. He nearly died of a drug overdose before his dream ever became reality. Harry was the hero who reached a crossroads. We have all been there. I even went there when I smacked head long into the fact my so called career was over, and nobody would hire me. I realized it WAS over. That I did not fit, just like a Harry or someone else for that matter. So I opened my own business and eventually -- THAT is where I became successful. All the while NOT experiencing as many doors opening, as the ones that slammed SHUT constantly. From basically being arrested, to nearly kicked out of my house more than enough times; I went through what the "Dream of America" is truly about. And as bitter sweet as it might be, I think it is more than necessary for kids to view it. Parents trying to shelter their kids from the harsh realities that Harry experienced, may only make them more messed up than they could have been from the start Dutch. Perhaps because, he portrays such a tragic and deep character - that would be why you find him repulsive then. Even though he did some scenes that were better than Ewan McGregor, the very fact where he was far too similar to the common man like you Dutch....was enough to get you repulsed and disgusted. Depth is one thing the actors of this film, were not ever lacking. Marion was fabulous. I have met plenty of girls like her who are certainly normal, that's the sad truth. Women who suffered from serious sexual abuse in their lives, past experiences of trauma and dire circumstances many fear to admit. They end up acting just like Marion, living like her for the hell of it until they make it again....and the way she rolled her tongue and exclaimed "You were supposed to get the powder!!!" and "I'm not my rich daddy's little girl anymore" made me quiver. Estranged from her parents due to their own incessant attitude and ego, Marion is a raw example -- yet neccesary one of what really happens in our society. We can close our eyes and slouch our shoulders, putting our faith in army movies that mix drugs within the plot like you have before Dutch. Or we can saddle up and take in through all our senses, the brutal reality which makes up life today. The type that makes life worth living by seeing the truth. He loved his mother, he was not a shallow 2-D character; he had many dreams to be the boss of his own estate and Clothing Industry. The issue was those dreams were all shattered, because he got addicted to drugs. His friend was the same way, as he cried in his prison cell wishing for his mother; not his girlfriend. Sometimes all we need is a dose of reality. And that my friend is the riddle for us all.