View Full Version : Are there 2 versions of requiem for a dream?
I was looking on Amazon and they had 2 versions of the Requiem for a Dream DVD, the regular and director's cut. Are there 2 versions or are they listed twice by mistake?
05-22-2001, 03:28 PM
There are two versions -- a bare-bones R-rated version and the supplement-packed director's cut. From what I understand, the biggest difference between the two versions is the montage near the end.
Werner Von Wallenrod
05-22-2001, 04:49 PM
What I'm wondering is - do the R-rated versions of films, when released in conjunction with the unrated versions, ever really sell? I don't even see why video stores carry them, much less why a private collector would get the edited version (unless s/he was SUCH a completist s/he felt compelled to purchase both)... How is it cost effective to release both versions?
05-22-2001, 04:51 PM
I saw Requiem for a Dream in theaters and it was unrated, and I could see why, as there is a lot there that wouldn't seem to make it in an R rated movie today. It's a pretty intense and powerful movie, and I'm about to hop in the shower so I can get my ass out of this house and get my hands on the DVD :)
05-22-2001, 05:11 PM
What I'm wondering is - do the R-rated versions of films, when released in conjunction with the unrated versions, ever really sell?
The unrated version of "American Pie" outsold the R-rated version by a pretty huge margin. Still, a lower number of sales for an R-rated cut beats the alternative, since an uncut version of "Requiem For A Dream" wouldn't be available in Blockbuster or the larger "family-oriented" retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, etc.
Werner Von Wallenrod
05-23-2001, 10:01 AM
But, as a schmoe who rents at Blockbuster substantially more than he ought, I can assure you that Blockbuster often gets the unrated versions of films...
05-23-2001, 12:48 PM
I saw Requiem in the theatre three times and I believe I saw the NC-17 cut of the film, because I know it certainly wasen't R rated, as there was no rating anywhere in the credits or before the film. I just got the Unrated DVD however and there were some major differences, mostly a few more intense shots during the final montage but also shots of Jared Leto looking at his infected arm earlier on and a bit with Jennifer Connelley waking up from a nightmare. This is by far the best horror film I've seen released theatrically in a looong time.
05-23-2001, 01:16 PM
So you're saying those shots were in the roadshow or they're in the dvd? I'm confused.
05-23-2001, 02:05 PM
There wasn't an NC-17 version, technically. "Requiem" was released theatrically unrated, and there was never an R-rated cut released theatrically in the U.S.
05-23-2001, 04:18 PM
That's really odd because I saw it three times theatrically and there are shots in the unrated DVD that I didn't see in a theatre.
So, what the hell version did I see in the theatre?
05-23-2001, 08:46 PM
I saw the theatrical release, and it was advertised as the unrated (they IDed me and all). Thankfully, too, because I know I got the true film, and a fucking superb one at that. For the outrageous amount of money they charge for film tickets in Manhattan, they damn well better not cheat us for the lousy R-rarted versions! But we usually get screenings for unrated films. Wee Hoo for that! :D :p :cool: ;)
05-24-2001, 12:34 AM
Party pooper :p
05-24-2001, 03:28 AM
First and foremost the film was certainly not deriviative in any form, sure it was a drug movie, but does that make every movie with vampires deriviative or any movie that falls into any genre or sub-genre derivitive?
I would actually not even label the film a "drug" movie, it was a addiction movie.
And it certainly was a horror film, the final 20 minutes of that movie were the most terrifying things I have seen on screen in a long long time, not since the heyday of David Cronenberg have I seen anything that disturbed me like that.
A movie dosen't have to have ghosts and goblins in it to make it a horror film. This is a hell of a lot more of a horror film than many movies that have been released recently under that banner, I use The Haunting,and The Mummy as prime examples.
05-24-2001, 06:20 AM
It's possible a couple of shots were added in for the DVD release, but I haven't read anything along those lines...
05-24-2001, 06:31 AM
Werner Von Wallenrod,
By policy, Blockbuster cannot carry "unrated" movies. I worked there for about 7 years, and they even retroactively removed the "unrated" titles that were holdovers from the store they took over.
The odd time any of the stores do get an "unrated" film, they send it back.
That being said, I'm sure there are the odd exceptions.
And *THAT* being said, Requiem was the most derivative "drug" flick I've seen in years. Paled in comparison to Pi-and Pi didn't have Jen Connelly...
05-24-2001, 07:41 AM
I just watched this film(the R-rated cut was all Lackluster had to offer, of course.) It was one of the hardest films to watch, if not the hardest, I have seen. I'm just curious as to what had to be cut out for the R. It clocks in at 102 minutes according to the box, as does the director's cut according to Amazon. What exactly is missing?
05-24-2001, 12:01 PM
I picked up and watched the unrated dvd tonight. First time to see it in any form too. I thought (or think rather, as I literally just finished watching it) that it was a visually stunning movie.
I think Aronofsky's camera work is really very intriquing, and even suffocating at times. The word relentless comes to mind. The imagery, and the pace at which it is presented is quite repulsive at times, but so captivating that you can't take your eyes away, or I couldn't anyway. I come away from this movie emotionally and somewhat physically drained, and not solely for the subject matter, rather more for how it is presented, in it's imagery and editing. This guy, Aronofsky, certainly is one kick-ass cinematographer/editor (I know he wasn't officially either of these, but I just mean he has that vision).
As in Pi, the music really fits well with the film, and is very much a part of the story. I think I may just have to go out tomorrow and get the soundtrack, as well as the soundtrack to Pi.
I'm not really sure I want to try and explain my feelings about the story just yet; I've tried, deleted, tried again, and deleted again. I think I need to sleep on it, and maybe even watch again. Bluntly, I don't think there was much of a "story" at all. But then, I thought Pi was very minimalistic as well. Again, incredibly crafted visually, but not much more than surface deep in story (I know, some of you are screaming at me now). Sure, you can theorize and interpret the movies on your own terms, actively participating in Aronofsky's films and "filling in the blanks". It seems to me, that scriptwise, he just scratches the surface, and leaves the rest to you. And I'm not exactly against this; I love movies that don't "do it all" for you and make you think. Maybe that's what he's going for, but I have a sneaky suspiscion it's more that his stories are just not fully developed. I guess I'm trying to decide whether he's making ambiguous stories for the sake of getting his audience to think, or if he just hasn't quite completed his stories. Actually, I don't think he's interested in telling stories at all - not so much as crafting imagery, creating splendid, wondrous scenes. Maybe I'm being hard on him, since he is a beginning director, and need to see more material to make up my mind. One thing I am absolutely certain of though, is that I look forward to seeing that material.
I'll only say a little about the acting, as I really need to crash. What can I say? It was great, all around. Ellen Burstyn of course had the best part, and really just ran with it. She nailed her part, was enthralling, and damn the Acadamy for not awarding her the Oscar she certainly deserves. Jared Leto and Marlon Wayons were very good, again without much to work with, and you all know how I feel about Jennifer Connelly. Not only is she still a babe that I would give up everything I had to marry, she has mastered physical acting; her emotions are so strongly conveyed through her facial expressions and body language, she hardly needs a script.
I say check it out, if you haven't already. Me, I'm crashin'.
Multehyde, Requiem for a Dream is simply about addictions. You should check out if not already the Anatomy Of A Scene featurette, where Aronofosky talks about the story and visuals.
05-24-2001, 04:59 PM
I saw it twice theatrically at the 2nd run $4 theater across the street from my school, and when I watched it again on DVD, I saw nothing different. It was the unrated version both times. I agree with the soundtrack too, I have both Requiem for a Dream and the Pi soundtrack.
Werner Von Wallenrod
05-24-2001, 07:49 PM
Call it what you will, agentsusp. When Joe Schmoe goes to the video store next year, Requiem WON'T be in the horror section; it'll be in depressing drama, along with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and Glengarry Glen Ross.
Since we all seem to be in consensus that Blockbuster, uhm, sucks, I don't see why we should let their pitiably limited perceptions on what is and isn't horror define the genre for us...
My Blockbuster also has Silence of the Lambs and Seven under drama, and Alien under Sci-Fi; but I think they'd belong in this discussion, too.
And, anyway, if a lot of people here seem to like it, that seems reason enough to talk about it here - I don't see a reason to censor ourselves (I'm sure there are many *official* horror movies talked about here that many people on this board don't care for... Usually just skip over those posts).
But, hey - I'm no moderator. :p
P.s. - It's pretty easy to find, so this probably isn't news to anyone here, but just in case - there's a cool "easter egg" on the RfaD main menu. If you push down anywhere on the row of options, it highlights some of the phoney ad text at the bottom, which lets you view a lot more (it's not complete) of the ficticious JUICE infomercial starring "Shooter McGavin," seen in snippets throughout the movie, a la Magnolia.
05-25-2001, 04:08 AM
Ash, thanks for your input, but I know all too well that the story is about addictions. You hit the nail on the head when you said the movie was "simply" about addictions. The story IS simple, and there is little meat to it. I'm over 30, and am quite familiar with addiction, both through my own experiences and past and present friends. I have slept on it, and I'm sticking to my guns that Aronofsky only scratched the surface of the addiction phenomena - at least for now. I still haven't gone back for a second helping yet. Maybe that will help me with the age old question, "Where's the beef?" I do know I'm interested in reading Selby's book, as I just know there is more to these people than was shown in the movie. Marion's story was hardly touched on at all, her addiction to the American Dream of business ownership. I think there was so much more there, but then again, is that just me filling in the gaps, or was that originally explored in the book and screenplay. It seemed to me that Sarahs world was the most explored, or exploited rather, Ty and Harrys' worlds were somewhat explored, and Marion's world was hardly touched on.
Please don't get me wrong - as much as I harp on about this, I do think the film must be seen. It is an incredible achievement.
05-25-2001, 08:04 PM
Nope - not gonna do it.
05-25-2001, 10:20 PM
I had a morbid curiosity as to what the true differences were, and I had a gift card to crapbuster, so I decided to get the edited version. I will watch it tonight and let everyone know what the exact differences are (I've seen the movie 3 times, so I have a good idea of what is and isn't there)
05-26-2001, 05:59 AM
ok, I watched it, and noticed the differences. I believe i caught it all because i ran it watching them side by side (like picture in picture, but it actually had the two sources next to each other). They were all at the end. First, they replaced the opening shot of the "party" with soemthing less sexually explicit. It's something along the lines of a girl (still with clothes on) doing kind of a stripper type dance on teh table, instead of the girls all having sex with each other. Them they replaced a shot of them lubing up the dildo with a shot of the doctor's head again (from what's going on with Sara), then they complete cut out the shot of them "setting up" the ass-to-ass with the dildos. To make up for that lost second, they added another shot of the other girls face after showing Marion's in that sequence. The next thing different was instead of showing another shot of the girl at the other end of Marion thrusting a little, they cut to another shot of the men all cheering. Ok, in case you're wondering why it's kind of disjointed in the sentences, I'm watching it now as i'm typing. THe next thing changed is that instead of showing the overhead shot of teh girls "ass to ass", it cuts to one of the shots of Tyron mashing the potatoes. The final thing is a couple more shots that were closeups of their butts, again replaced with shots already used of what's going on with the others. Sorry if this has been a little too descriptive for some of you, I was not trying to be vulgar at all, I just figured we'd put all this to an end.
05-26-2001, 06:53 AM
freerangehuman (love the name, by the way :D ), to answer your question about the difference between the R and Unrated cuts of the film... the difference lies within the finale of Marion's story. There are at least two close-up shots that were practically pornographic. Though I have not seen the R rated version (and have no desire to) I'd be willing to bet that it is these two shots that are removed. Like Angel Heart before it, the difference between unrated and Blockbuster friendly is a mere few seconds of pelvic thrusting. So the overall running time would essentially be the same.
This is a truely great film, and by no means is it "simple." We're not talking about a formulaic back-woods-serial-killer romp, a the-hero-will-always-win summer cheese fest or a Lifetime MOW with cuss words (Erin Brochovich or The Contender), those are simple films. Requiem for a Dream is not! It is a disturbing psychological portrait of an underlying culture within our society that many are afraid to even admitt exists. By no means glamourous either. It succeeds quite well on not just one but several levels, whereas previously mentioned films are perhaps succeesful on one level if they're lucky. I think it does a great misjustice to this film to call it "simple." Perhaps, like Cronenberg's Crash if one takes it merely for the shock induced by the surface level, the mislabel of "simple" might come into play. But don't cheat yourself, the movie itself or other viewers by slapping it with such an absurdly unwarrented glib-tag like "simple." It's demeaning.
Although you probably are not missing much, I would most recommend the unrated version. Especially when considering that Aronofsky wanted nothing to do with the R rated cut. DVD collectors will no doubt keep far away from the bare-bones rated version.
Wow, thanks Tobalrox. I don't think my piddly review of this movie will matter after this long list of others, but I bought Requiem yesterday, and I can say it is one of the most powerful films I've seen in a while. I haven't been able to get it out of my head all day. It was so good I had to run out today and buy Pi (which I've never seen, but imagine can't be as good.).
05-27-2001, 05:17 PM
I saw Pi for the first time three weeks ago. I thought it was an okay movie for a first effort, and I definitly wanted to see what else Aronofsky could do. When I read on IMDb that he did Requiem, and then I saw this thread here, I knew I had to see it. I rented it Friday night, and then bought it Saturday. Damn it was a good movie.
I think Pi is worth seeing, but don't go expecting another Requiem, or you will be disappointed.
David666, I think you're overanalyzing the film. it is a simple film but with complex imagery. Get the DVD and you'll see.
Werner Von Wallenrod
05-27-2001, 08:36 PM
I disagree, Ash - but, then, I read the novel, so maybe I can appreciate the subtext more because I've seen it put more directly. The imagery is definitely more what "comes across" in the film.
Still, it did a really good job capturing the book, unlike, say, [I]American Psycho[/i}, the movie of which didn't suck or anything (thanks largely to Christian Bale), but failed to do its name-sake justice.
05-27-2001, 08:47 PM
I did the same thing with Pi, as soon as I saw Requiem, I ran out and bought Pi as well as the soundtrack. I was bummed though, a few weeks later, they lowered the price of the DVD from $20 to $10... ah well. Oh, and I was in awe of Requiem for days as well, and downloaded the soundtrack off Napster that night and listened to it non-stop for weeks... every time I went to a store that sold CDs, I looked for it, but could not find it. It wasn't until about last month that I finally found it when I went on a trip to boston. Both are great soundtracks, but I definitely enjoy Requiem's much better. I can't wait for his next project, and then Batman: Year One.
05-28-2001, 01:21 AM
Ash, I think we're seeing eye to eye bud. ;)
Werner, I can absolutely see how having read the book would "open the story up" to you a little more. Well, much more. I can not wait until I have the chance to read the book. I've never read Selby, but after seeing Requiem, and Last Exit to Brooklyn oh so many years ago, I know I have got to give this author a read.
Tobal, you're making me jones for that soundtrack! I have yet had a chance to pick it up. So what is Aronofsky's next project? I thought it WAS Batman. Please, inform me! Also, after reading your comparative study, I realized I was just plain missing something. The party you were talking about just plain didn't happen when I first watched the movie. And the only time I saw Marlon stirring the taters was in the extra scenes. I figured the whole segment was left out. Well, I was sure that although I had bought the unrated version at Best Buy, it must've been a rated version in the package. But then, it had the extras, which aren't on the rated disc. WTF!? Well, I go to chapter 30, let it play, up to the point where Ty screams behind the bars for someone to help them, then when it gets to chapter 31, the screen freezes for a good half second, the sound stops in mid beat, and chapter 31 continues. Sure enough, all the climactic downward spiral finale is there in all it's mashed tater/double-dong/limb-choppin'/gimme gimme shock treatment glory. My Panasonic had froze at the chapter change on my first viewing, and skipped chapter 31 altogether, going directly to 32, where the nurse asks Harry who Marion is. Gee, no wonder I felt less of an impact from the movie than the rest of you! I still feel the same about the story elements, but that scene certainly gives much, MUCH more closure to the film than what I unfortuneately witnessed on my first viewing. I am positive that this problem is due to the pressing of the disc. The manufacturer is pressing the same disc, alternating only the one chapter, instead of pressing the discs completely separate. Panasonic, the a110 to be exact, has had a less than perfect history with certain dvds, and I think this is one of 'em.
05-28-2001, 01:39 AM
Man, I'm sorry to hear that you missed out originally. That's a major reason the movie had such an impact on me, just the downward spiral at the end. As for his next project, I haven't really heard much, but he announced at some film festival or something that he has another project coming out before Batman, but he didn't really say what it was. Either that, or i just don't remember what it was :-) either way, he didn't talk about Batman too much because he said he was real excited about this next movie coming out. I know if it's playing anywhere within driving range for me, I'll be there.
05-28-2001, 10:04 PM
I stand by earlier comment that RFAD is nothing more than a typical "drug-movie".
I'm not trying to be an elitist snob here, but it played out like an MTV video-totally lowest common denominator.
The "quick-cut" scene where they do the drugs, accompanied by the sounds was SO played out by the end of the movie. It was incredibly preachy. And Bursten...I don't see what the big deal is. She was decent, but playing an addict is probably the easiest role there is in Hollywood. Wayans was the only one who actually did a decent job.
In all seriousness the movie was no better than most direct to video titles I've seen.
That being said, Clint Mansell did a bang up job on the soundtrack. If anyone here is a fan of PWEI/Mansell and is looking for tracks by him, e-mail me off the board (email@example.com) and I'll post a DJ set he did on my site...
All of the above is solely subjective, of course :)
05-29-2001, 02:06 AM
Did I miss something? How did this film end up being discussed on this board? This was nothing more or less a film about drug addiction. Nothing that has not been seen before, including the "quick-cut" editing. I found it extremely difficult to feel anything for these characters when they felt nothing for themselves or each other. As for the editing, it was pretty cool to see the first time, but they used the SAME SHOTS each time the characters used. If we want to mention the music...ok I'll give you that. This was just another movie about junkies in the same vein as Drugstore Cowboy, Rush, Trainspotting (which was a far better film), etc...I guess the point of my rant is that if you read this board before seeing the film you would think you're missing out on some grand achievement in cinema. Some cool camera shots and Jennifer Connelly do not a great film make. The only connection between this flick and horror is that I hope I don't get chased by a masked psycho with a chainsaw and I hope I don't become a junkie with an infected arm.
05-29-2001, 03:14 AM
Well, I thought the characters DID feel something for each other, as they were all drawn to an others "light", while taking their own for granted. Sarah wanted public approval, but also loved Harry very much. Both Marion and Ty loved Harry, in different ways of course :rolleyes: , and Harry just plain loved everyone. The problem is that no one loved their selves enough to ensure that they were ultimately "there" for those they loved. Did you follow?
The repetitious editing of the same shots was meant to show the repetitious monotony of junkiedom.
"I guess the point of my rant is that if you read this board before seeing the film you would think you're missing out on some grand achievement in cinema."
Well, yeah, you would be, or so many of us think.
"Some cool camera shots and Jennifer Connelly do not a great film make."
Um, no. You're just wrong there! ;)
05-29-2001, 05:45 AM
mutleyhyde: I AGREE with you 100%
It is a shame that this film is not seen for a cinematic acheivement that deserves respect from everyone. It, in my opnion, is better than films like Trainspotting and Drugstore Cowboy for the simple fact that it shows what really happens to drug addicts. They never get better, they always go back, and they always go down in the saddest and most disturbing way. It is also not even close to any other film because, for one, there is no redemption, no "fun" had in the end. and before anyone jumps to hell, there were more than a few lighthearted scenes in Drugstore and Transpotting. In Requiem for a Dream you get it, and you get it hard. This is the real deal here, and it's the closest film I've seen to it. Just had to say my piece.
05-29-2001, 10:31 PM
Very good points, and no disrespect intended to those that felt a deep attachment to this film. I actually thought the film was not bad, just nothing special. I still feel that some are WAAAAAY over analyzing it. It also seems odd that some can point their fingers at a movie and say 'Yep...that's the way it REALLY is'. Again no disrespect, but debating the value of what a film was really about is like expecting everyone to see the same image as you in a cloud.Everyone sees what they want to see and if they're honest, not what others tell them they're supposed to see. Follow me.............
05-30-2001, 01:03 AM
Hey Hunter, you got that right! Go back and check out my two posts dated 5/24 in this thread, and you'll see that, while I think the film is great, it's not perfect. Great analogy on the clouds there too Hunter. I know of at least one member who is SIMPLY stuck in the clouds! ;)
05-30-2001, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by flesh-hunter:
<STRONG>I still feel that some are WAAAAAY over analyzing it. It also seems odd that some can point their fingers at a movie and say 'Yep...that's the way it REALLY is'...but debating the value of what a film was really about is like expecting everyone to see the same image as you in a cloud.</STRONG>
No disrespect from me either, but this is ultimately a website for film, so analyizing these things is part of the intention. I mean, there is a thread about wrinkled plastic on keepcases. ya dig. You express what you think about the films, their case, whatever. And I can point my finger and say that's the way it really is simply becasue it's my finger that's pointing and it's my interpretation. I am not and would never try to change your mind. I respect an honest opinion. :D ;)
05-30-2001, 03:25 AM
I dig...and I must admit that this must have hit a nerve with horror fans to have 30 some odd replies with more than not being positive. I also think it's cool to have a disagreement with someone that has an intelligent response for their argument....nuff said
05-30-2001, 05:56 AM
I still haven't seen this damn movie; I guess I'll have to pick it up this weekend so I can participate too :)
06-01-2001, 05:14 AM
Out of all the drug movies that I have seen this one has to be the best. It's brutal in the way of story-telling. My only complaint would have to be the over used "eye" shots hehe. My dad is an addict and this movie pretty much sums it up. Pretty much the exact things you see in the movie happened to him in the real world. Where is he you ask? In jail. Been in and out of jail all of his life. I can remember a time when I was younger and he came to get our tv/vcr, he traded it in and got more money for drugs. Sad and I never thought I would ever post this in a forum...
06-10-2001, 10:45 AM
I finally got to see this film and was it ever powerful. The editing was absolutely fabulous, and the whole downward spiral montage at the end was extremely tough to watch. I haven't been hit this hard with a film in awhile. I also thought the soundtrack fit the film perfectly, and I will definitely be picking this one up. As far as performances go, Ellen Burstyn was in top form here, and easily makes Julia Robert's Oscar look unjustified. Wayans was refreshingly subdued, and Leto and Connelly are great as always. As far as story goes, yes, it is simple, but that is all it needs to be. To delve into further character detail would simply upset the brisk editing and moving pace of the film. The plot is kept simple, and the film serves to visually detail the cycle of addicitions. There is no redemption, just shot after shot of horrible images and situations. The constant imagery opens up windows for further contemplation, rather than feed the viewer with more story. In short, I can't picture the film done any better. Truely mesmerizing and truely horrific, this is a must see film!
06-10-2001, 10:48 PM
I just picked this DVD up & it was a very impressive film. I will admit that I wasn't shocked or amazed by anything in it because I had heard my friends & everyone else telling me how great it was for months before I ever saw it, so my expectations of it were very high (this seems to happen to me with lots of films :()
Also, the supplements look like they'll be entertaining to sit through. All in all, I'd say it was $20.00 well spent.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.