Cannibal Love - Mangiata viva

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.

Although I liked Claire Denis' "Trouble Every Day" even more on this second viewing, I can fully understand why many hate the film. It is not a film one enjoys (except in a manner appreciative of it as art), and offers a narrative with little closure and sparse plot. It is also moody, brilliantly photographed by Agnes Godard, excellently-acted, and genuinely unsettling, and not just for the much-talked about gore (which takes up around five or so minutes of the film over two scenes).

The film's thin plot is based around dark scientific secrets and is more than a little reminiscent of one of David Cronenberg's sexually-charged horror films, but Denis' approach is completely different. The film lacks dialogue for most of its scenes, but the visuals tell the story far better than dialogue could anyway. We don't find out very much about these experiments, but we don't need to; the film is about the characters, especially Shane (played brilliantly by Vincent Gallo), and the film is ultimately more about Shane's struggle with his condition and his love for his wife (girlfriend? Not that it really matters...) than about the general plot or the gore.

"Trouble Every Day" (Zappa reference!) is certainly graphic, but only when it needs to be. There are two scenes of gore, both far from the worst anybody well-acquainted with horror films has seen in terms of the actual on-screen violence, but it is testament to Denis' great skill as director and the actors' great conviction that they feel so hard to watch, in particular the latter scene.

There have been films with more or less similar subject matter made before, but most of them are harmed by a cynical, harsh approach to their subjects. Denis' approach to this film is far more human, even towards what some might not hesitate to call monsters. The film is quiet, ponderous, and sensitive (so is the brilliant score by Tindersticks). The brilliant photography and Denis' wonderful mise-en-scène capture this warm feel very well, especially during the sex scene between Shane and his wife .

The critics who almost unanimously lambasted the film in 2001 raise some good points. Perhaps "Trouble Every Day" is under-written, although I enjoyed the fact that the film let me piece things together rather than tell me precisely what was going on. Perhaps the film has less depth than it thinks it does. But the real question is whether or not that keeps "Trouble Every Day" from being a triumph of atmosphere and style, and a haunting examination of gender roles and human sexuality? As far as I'm concerned, it certainly does not.

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 ...

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.

"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.