
Not as good as Requiem

This was a really decent movie - much better than a lot of crap that's out there. However, it was nowhere near as good as "Requiem for a Dream." Both movies feature Darren Aronofsky's individual style, which is imaginative, beautiful, and highly stylized. The main plot involves a dying woman (Rachel Weisz) and the man who loves her (Hugh Jackman). The majority of the movie takes place in the present, as Hugh Jackman's character (a doctor who tests medical treatments on animals), attempts to find a cure for his wife's disease. In effect, he is trying to cheat death and discover a modern-day Fountain of Youth. That particular story happens to be very moving, the dialogue is sparkling, and the acting top-notch.
Intermingled with that story is an epic from the 1600s of a Ponce deLeon type conquistador (also Jackman), seeking out the actual Fountain of Youth for his beloved Queen (also Weisz). The story there is effective and beautifully shot, and it serves the purpose of a metaphor for what the current-day Jackman and Weisz are going through. In those two stories alone, the movie is brilliant, and I would have definitely given it 5 stars.
HOWEVER, there is also a third storyline going on, which is rather confusing. The DVD jacket explains that the third story is set in the future, where Jackman's character meditates like Buddha near a beautiful tree. In actual watching of the movie, I felt more like the present-day character was dreaming, or that the "future" was really his imagination. But... obviously I was wong. There's many possibilities for what this third storyline represents or means, and I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but... ultimately, I was confused (or GASP! bored) whenever this particular thread was examined. These scenes tended to run on too long, and drew me out of the movie. They're beautifully shot, of course, and visually, they're a feast. I'm also convinced those "futuristic" scenes meant something very powerful to the filmmaker, but... I felt they detracted from the story. More importantly, I felt LESS emotionally attached during those scenes than during the rest of the movie.
In comparison to "Requiem", I have to say that "Requiem" CONSISTENTLY kept me emotionally engaged. I felt scared, worried, happy, turned on, turned off on a regular basis while watching that movie. At no point did I grow bored and start thinking about doing the dishes or laundry during "Requiem for a Dream." However, I did find myself doing that during this movie. Not often, and it is DEFINiTELY worth the watch. But those handful of slow scenes did make me feel more like giving this a 4 instead of a 5. Sorry, Darren! :O)
-Dan
Review ID: 10000000004240204

Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our
guidelines, it will be posted within 24 hours.
You cannot vote on the helpfulness of a review you wrote.
Your request cannot be processed at this time. Please try again later.