I can name five things worse than having to sit through a film like "Requiem for a Dream". What exactly is this director trying to prove? That doing drugs gets you nowhere in life? Well I might have been impacted by that message if I knew what was going on half the time. I managed to put the whole mess together by the end of the picture (unfortunately) and the result was a headache. Why do people believe that if a film has a tremendously high amount of cuts that it's good editing? I don't know, probably because they think that it was difficult to do or something. No. Good editing is not seeing how many cuts you can fit into one picture (watch any Oliver Stone film after the 1980's). Good editing makes a film an interesting experience, a unique format, it does not necessarily have to flow well, but if you want good editing, see a movie like "Barry Lyndon", which probably has a quarter of the amount of cuts than this film, despite being double the length. If this is the future of film making, I don't want to be there to see it.
Review of Requiem for a Dream
