Benutzerrezensionen

Vincent Gallo ... I should have known this would not be anything remotely "normal". And while the violence may borderline and vary to some (between ridiculous and scary), we do not get to see too much of certain things. Still there is an unease about this. Because it dares to show us glimpses of things ... especially sexuality and the insatiable hunger ... which I'm quite certain is a metaphor. For a lot of things.

As another reviewer has already stated, the movie is about sexuality and the gender roles. Or at least can be viewed as such. You can see beyond the horror and try to figure certain things out yourself. Gallo plays it straight ... and while there is not much dialog ... certain things are being repeated - I'm ok ... I'm ok. As if the characters are trying to convince themselves of what they are saying. Which is not really working - or fooling anyone for that matter.

There will be blood and there will be mayhem ... and there will be unsatisfied conclusions ... and some that may not even be considered a conclusion. A weird movie that for some reason was playing at a cinema the other day ... I reckon they knew I'd go and watch it anyway ... but I was not alone. A couple watched this with me ... and while we didn't know each other (and still don't), they shared their candy with me - not an innuendo. Although I am not ruling out or saying ... well anything. Anyway that anecdote aside that has nothing to do with the movie, it is as weird an encounter and experience as the movie itself was ...

I can see why 'Trouble Every Day' divides viewers. Some find it slow, pretentious and boring, and I totally understand why. It certainly has moments that fit those adjectives, but then there are scenes of great power that really impress. It's difficult and sometimes frustrating viewing, sure, but very beautiful and brutal, and ultimately an extremely fascinating film. 'Trouble Every Day's arthouse approach to horror themes reminded me a little bit of both Abel Ferrara's 'The Addiction' and Jean Rollin's 'Night Of The Hunted', but that's just to give you an idea of the strange territory the movie enters. I can also understand where the David Cronenberg comparisons are coming from, but Claire Denis is a lot less clinical and detached. It's a very emotional movie, and a lot of that has to do with Vincent Gallo's subtle performance. Gallo ('Buffalo '66', 'The Funeral') is a controversial figure as a person, but as an actor there's no disputing his talent. His wife, played by 'Ghost Dog's Tricia Vessey, is also excellent, and Beatrice Dalle ('Betty Blue')'s performance is way out there, but it's Gallo's movie as far as I'm concerned. This movie is not to everyone's taste (no pun intended!), but if you are looking for something different and are willing to put some effort in, I highly recommend this film. There's nothing quite like it.

If anything, this spooky little film will make newlyweds feel a whole lot better about their decisions; or maybe not. It's all fun and games until the vacation ends in exsanguination. See Vincent Gallo and his fetching snookum in gay Paris. See Vincent Gallo with an American Psycho-like mouthful of raw crotch meat. See Vincent Gallo dry grind some doughy matron on public transportation while holding an unharmed (Christmas is saved!) puppy. Thank your God that Gallo appears here, without his natural acting abilities and broodingly intense presence, this film would have been a pretentious bust. Like all of Claire Denis' films it lacks overall cohesion in the storytelling and feels deeply disjointed and dislocated. Atmospherically it works in large part, again, due to Gallo's presence. A fine young cannibal with no fear of transmitting Kuru and/or being aptly compared to Armie Hammer (too soon?). Also, bloody good soundtrack provided by the Tindersticks, one of the most monstrously underrated bands of all-time!

Another word (to me) for pretentious could be boring, or maybe dull, because when a film tries too hard to have hidden depths sometimes it just plunges deep into the abyss. This is where Trouble Every Day dwells.

I heard about the movie while reading a horror encyclopedia somewhere so I thought I'd track it down. I'm no newbie when it comes to challenging horror cinema and I actively seek out things which my local multiplex wouldn't show. I also don't mind if a film moves relatively slowly, but it takes a few morsels of plot along the way to smoulder my interest, Trouble Every Day fails to keep that interest and it's almost as if the director thought he could pad out 90% of the film with any dreary old shots because we wanted to see the reported shocking ending. I'm afraid not though.

When it finally gets to the good stuff, its a damp squib. So much more could have been done with the entire premise, much like Let The Right One In. The (little) gore is not really that shocking and at times you don't even know what's going on. All in all, it's just not that good of a film and it's no great wonder it doesn't get much recognition. I would have given it a 2 but I liked the theme music so a generous 3 then.

I was curious about this movie a few years back, when Fangoria wrote a piece on it. I must say a movie about a Femme Fatale cannibal intrigued me. I had heard bad things about the movie and believed it would never see the light of day. Until recently, I saw some Asian copies of the movie for sale. I rented the movie, I have no intention of buying it.I saw it once and wouldn't care to see it again, a movie like that leaves a bad taste in your mouth and stains your memory. I have to agree that this movie is certainly haunting. I saw it last night and I am still thinking about it this morning. I am not a huge Fan of Vincent Gallo, but he does play great unlikeable characters. It is a very graphic movie and the scenes are very moving and sickening. If you are easily offended by sexual content and gore I wouldn't advise that you see this movie. It is a very serious look at Mental illness and not to be taken lightly. It certainly accomplished what it set out to do. It's worth checking out, but I would rent before buying.

I don't know where to begin with this movie, it's just such a drag of a movie that seemingly goes on forever and focus on all the wrong things for the more part.

I tried watching it one 2 other ocassions but I just couldn't get into it so I switched it off and put on something else.

On the third I decided to just stick with it so I've at least watched it once, and kinda wished I hadn't.

A lot of long boring everyday scenes of people doing much to nothing or walking from point a to b or Vincent Gallo playing the fiddle (metaphorically speaking... yes just that, not once but twice in the movie we witness this, luckily nothing too graphic there at least).

There is a little gore but only in a couple scenes so the poster if a all bloody woman is a little misleading if you ask me.

And those scenes tbh feel a bit random, but then I suppose everything in this movie does, and there doesn't seem to be much point to anything (although I'm sure it does I just didn't have the patience or desire to translate some potential symbolisms as it was just boring simple and plain).

Beatrice Dalle is the only redeeming factor and why I give this a 2 instead of a 1.

The provocative cover image of a blood-spattered Beatrice Dalle only hints at the ferocity within Claire (Chocolat, Beau Travail) Denis' sad, haunting study of sex and cannibalism that caused record walkouts and faintings at its Cannes screening.

The voracious, predatory Core (Betty Blue's Dalle) is boarded up in a secluded Paris house by her husband, the errant scientist Leo (Alex Descas). She periodically escapes, seduces passing motorists and in sickening detail, methodically consumes her prey. Her fate is connected to a visiting American doctor Shane Brown (a seedy, unshaven, troubled-looking Vincent Gallo) on his honeymoon in Paris, apparently a test subject for Leo's experiments in unleashing the libido, and who is already having violent masturbatory fantasies of his gorgeous new bride (Tricia Vessey) covered in blood. "I will never hurt you," he whispers to his concerned wife, already showing a tell-tale bite mark on her shoulder.

Trouble Every Day is simply and beautifully shot, and while not as blatantly pornographic as Romance or Anatomy Of Hell, it has a dangerous and electric eroticism that's hard to shake. Wide-eyed Dalle says little yet conveys an air of both tragedy and primal appetite and doesn't overplay her animalism, while Gallo (Buffalo 66) is at his greasy, neurotic best. Its slow pace and spare action deliberately unfold the story in a distinctly European fashion; at the one hour mark the film switches from carnal to charnal, spiraling toward a grotesque and shattering crescendo worthy of the great excesses of the 70s art film. Stunning.

This slow moving horror movie might ignite some viewers to herald it is a misunderstood, haunting masterpiece of contemporary horror to place alongside Don't Look Now or, rather, The Addiction. This movie is no masterpiece. Clair Denis seems to be so full of her recent addition to the ranks of European auteurs, that she has seen fit to make this pretentious, preposterous mess. Certainly some directors can pull a "style-over-substance"-strategy off (e.g. Baz Luhrman), but Denis' refusal to give Trouble Every Day meaning is so frustrating that eventually you can't hold on any more. In a not so academic point of criticism, the film is 1) very boring, and 2) very gross. It seems, that Denis is never quite certain what the film is really about. Lust? Love? The dangers of biological tampering? Existential loneliness among modern city-dwellers? To this viewer it seems to be all about Clair Denis wanting to make a very "arty" horror movie. Well, she succeeded. This film is arty beyond the point of redemption.

"Trouble Everyday" has been criticized a lot because of two scenes. Two very hard scenes to watch, which caused two women to faint at the Cannes Film Festival screening . Those scenes are not necessary in the film to understand it or enjoy it. The suspense is extremely well held during the whole movie and it didn't have to be so violent. So, the question is "why?". The story would have interested people like Hitchcock or Polanski, and they would have been more subtle and cautious. Claire Denis is not a cautious director. She likes to approach her films with honesty and courage. She chooses to tell a story and wants to tell it as frankly as possible. She did a rational choice that is very modern. Her film is complete, and absolutely credible. She shows us some things that have never been shown before. She explores cinema with anxious desire and rage. That's what makes her film so moving and realistic. As a conclusion, let's say that Beatrice Dalle gives the most incredible performance as a woman who feels like an animal but yet wants to die.

Béatrice Dalle stars in one of the best horror movies of the year. She plays a character who has an unnatural and uncontrollable urge to eat people she has just had sex with. Whilst the movie leaves a lot of the details rather vague, we are led to believe this is probably some sort of disease rather than being told supernatural mumbo-jumbo or yet another second-rate vampire yarn. Trouble Every Day has plenty of gratuitous sex and gore but also a heavy veneer of continental artiness in its execution. This is a beautifully made film that seems unsensational and tasteful, yet there is the contrast of scenes that push the envelope as far as the censor is concerned and will upset anyone who doesn't have a very strong stomach indeed.

And the award for most boring, pretentious and pointless 'horror' film of the last 20 years goes to.... Trouble Every Day, a mind-numbingly tedious arthouse crap-fest featuring lethargic, understated performances from all involved (Brown Bunny star Vincent Gallo giving another emotionless and thoroughly irritating turn) with some sex and violence to stir up controversy (a la Lars Von Trier, another film-maker whose impenetrable and supposedly shocking work leaves me in a torpor).

Gallo plays Shane Brown, husband to pretty brunette June (Tricia Vessey). Shane would like to get busy with Jane in the Parisian hotel in which they are staying, but the communicable disease that has reduced him to cannibalism prevents him from doing so (meaning that he has to either crank one out in the bathroom or force himself upon hapless young women, both of which are shown in detail to qualify this film as provocative). Meanwhile, Coré (Béatrice Dalle) is also suffering from the same affliction, her husband Léo (Alex Descas) keeping her barricaded in their home so she can do no harm.

After 100 minutes of languorous scenes of contentious drivel, including the aforementioned masturbatory moment, Dalle covering herself in blood, and the rape and murder of a chambermaid (Shane 'eating her out' -- literally!), all of which is presented in the most dreary, uninvolving way possible, the film ends suddenly without resolution, leaving the viewer to ponder the purpose of the whole sorry affair. I don't believe there is one.

"Trouble Every Day" is, for me, one of the most unfairly maligned films of recent times. Surely it is the admittedly confronting content that has people dismissing this near-brilliant meditation on carnal desire, blood lust and homicidal tendencies, and not the filmmaking. There is something gratuitous about the scenes of explicit violence in "Trouble Every Day" but I see no reason why this is grounds to reject the film outright. I think everything else works pretty well from the elliptical narrative that never lets on more than it needs, the stripped and reserved performances, the suggestive camera work and the beautiful, atmospheric photography. The sense of menace created by the guttural aural track and the bloody violence suggest an unusual link between art-film and horror that is reminiscent of Cronenberg and Ferrara. One of the more compelling films I've seen in recent times.

Admittedly Trouble Every Day is a very different film than most I run across. It's quiet and subtle with so many undertones, I was sometimes left wondering what exactly was being conveyed from scene to scene. The story is a fairly simple one that takes forever to unwind: a former doctor (possibly current doctor, details are kept sparse) honeymoons with his new bride, and uses their trip to track down another doctor who is treating his wife for some sort of sadistic vampirism or something of that sort.

The movie, like sex caught on camera, is both disturbing and beautiful, visceral and permeating, yet somehow lacking. So many moments seemed to demand some sort of explanation, as though if you had a guide the journey would be slightly more meaningful. That aside, I was deeply attracted to the overall tone of the film, the confrontation of flesh, and the deeper meanings held within.

Look, just see it for yourself. This is definitely not one of those films for everyone. That being said, I feel that if you have a special place in your heart for films like Lost Highway, then you might want to give this one a chance. They're not in the same ballpark, but might be played in the same city if you catch my drift.

This is really not the movie I was expecting. At right about the halfway point we're given a flashback of a few minutes that dumps a boatload of plot on us, but up until then the narrative has scarcely been developed at all. More to the point, while a complete story is in fact told, it's emphatically fragmented, chopped into bits and pieces that are barely cohesive as they present. I've no doubt that this was the intent of filmmaker Claire Denis and collaborator Jean-Pol Fargeau from the start in shaping their screenplay, and I say this not as an immediate reflection on the title's quality - but it does make 'Trouble every day' more difficult to engage with right away, and for lack of narrative flow the picture has a hard time building atmosphere, or substantial investment or excitement.

Then again, to me the sequencing and cinematography seem all over the place: overly swift, overzealous, sometimes artistic in nature but emptily so, doing further disservice to the tale. At the same time, this maintains a surprisingly low-key tone; Denis' direction is so restrained that for the preponderance of the length any energy that one might suppose the tale to carry is all but entirely sapped from the proceedings. This is to say nothing of the acting; I struggle to conjure another example of a feature in which the cast broadly seemed so disinterested in their work. Or maybe they were just all very sleepy on each day of filming? Accentuating the point, it's not until the one-hour mark, when this is two-thirds over, that we're treated to some of the vibrancy we may have anticipated to have gotten all along. It takes 'Trouble every day' until the third act to warm up - and thereafter it just lets the electricity gradually fade again.

I actually do think this is good when all is said and done. I also think the unconventional approach to its storytelling, and the heavily subdued tenor, do the title no favors whatsoever. The end result is compelling and satisfying, and well done such as it is despite faults. It also passes by unremarkably, never leaving much of a mark and bereft of any emotional force. Scenes and story threads of little to no significant import are given undue weight; the ending rolls around in no time at all, and rather abruptly for how softly the material is treated. To conclude a film with no meaningful resolution is a fair and worthwhile notion, for there's no telling sometimes what the future may hold for characters - yet for as meagerly as the narrative has been handled all along in this case, that "up in the air" ending just feels like troubled writing. I like 'Trouble every day,' but I want to like it more than I do in the same instant that I wonder if I'm not being too kind.

I believe this earns a soft and cautious recommendation. Would that it did more to impress.

Well having seen the movie almost 4 years after its made also has its advantages, cause you may have seen more shocking movies than this or would have seen bad movies by the lead characters during the period.In fact thats what happened to me in this case,I wasn't shocked as I was promised with this movie but still Claire Denis does a very nice job with this one.Truly a story for the master story tellers a.k.a Polanski,Hitchcock,Michellangelo, .... but still good enough for a director like Claire. Béatrice Dalle does one hell of a job with her role and does it with authority, so does Vicent Gallo (I hated him in brown bunny). The rest of the cast also show how a movie can be ably supported by good actors. It takes the taboo's of society and hits them on your face. The last scene is testimonial of the whole mood and story of the film.Well giving anything away in this movie would be bad, but just for the comment sake its "a love story with a bizarre twist to it". I gave it 7 cause I have seen more shocking movies and I still don't like Vincent Gallo.But nice movie to really leave you unsettled for some time.

Who would have thought that you could make a boring movie about oversexed cannibals? By nature it should be shocking, graphic, thrilling, exciting, at the very least interesting. It's not.

Vincent Gallo plays a newlywed husband who is afraid to touch his wife for fear he will eat her. In the meantime he is searching for a cure to his cannibalism. His searching involves a lot of really bad acting; staring bug eyed at people while he delivers his lines as if he is reading them straight from cue cards and having a hard time making out the words. Who told this fool he could act? Someone get him back to his rightful place behind the fryer at the golden arches. He comes off as more of a mildly retarded bumpkin than a threatening sexual cannibal.

Beatrice Dalle is the only one who can act in this movie - if only they had given her a part. She lures men in, has sex with them, then eats them. Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? Ah, if only it were so. Her parts are fairly short, with little dialogue and badly edited. Even Beatrice can't save this movie.

No one else has a part really worth mentioning, the character development never gets started so it certainly can't develop, the story doesn't carry itself and just fades away into a sloppy mess. I had high hopes for this film, even with Vincent in it, but I was sadly disappointed.

I was hoping to see some cannibal carnage, but you could do better special effects with a bottle of ketsup and some spoiled meat. I was hoping for hot, graphic sex scenes, but apparently the director thought that Vincent Gallo staring bug eyed at women was hot, because that's about as graphic as it gets here. I was hoping to see Beatrice Dalle show some of her considerable acting talent, but each time she got started there was a scene cut back to Vincent trying unsuccessfully to be an actor.

If you have to watch this, I hope the popcorn is good. You'll need something to distract you.

The direction of this film was impressive, with perfect pacing of the storyline. The problem I had with it was that there was little real substance to the film. The theme of desire taken to extremes began as promising, but just went nowhere. The graphic scenes of vampire love-making were therefore simply gratuitous.

I saw this one when it came out in France, a few years ago. I have never left a theater before the end titles were rolling on the screen. But for this one, the temptation was very, very strong.

What can I say ? boring story (is there really a story, anyway), terrible acting (except for José Garcia, in two shots, which was a complete and pleasant surprise, especially at that time, while he was only acting in comedies), horrible camera and lighting.

I really can't understand who could ever give money to produce such an awful thing one could hardly call a movie.

Avoid at all cost.