Trouble Every Day

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.

This is really a slow-paced and mostly boring film with mainly sexual-cannibalism as it`s focus.The actual storyline is quite intriguing and beautiful,pity then that this french director does`nt do it justice when it comes to convey it on screen.Well,you may ask;are`nt there any redeeming qualities about this film?As I said,this is a film that is MOSTLY boring,well when director Denise goes for the jugular,she truly does!!There are two flesh-consuming scenes here that,in my opinion,could be deemed to be very realistic,and I am especially referring to the burglary-scene.Seldom have I witnessed a more graphic presentation of love-bites,he,he.Nice set of teeth there!!Is this really worth a buy?Yes and no.If you,as I do,cherish mayhem and gloat over the macabre scenes portrayed here,wanting to show it to everybody(hoping they`ll vomit eventually,he!),then yes.On the other hand if you are looking for a remotely exciting film,then better avoid.Better still,rent it and copy the two scenes worth watching.Well,that truly was some expert advice,don`t you think?You`re welcome!

Saw this last night and was blown away by it. For me it played as an intense psychological study of infidelity and addiction. The performances are taught and understated, as is the direction, with attention often focused on minute details.

I've seen negative reviews of this film from two different perspectives. One is the art-house maven who feels the scenes of sexual violence are gratuitous and in poor taste; Kevin Maher's comments in the Guardian are an example. Once these reviews have had an airing they tend to attract gorehounds, some of whom (going by online reviews) had been led to expect a genre movie and were disappointed. Hence you get a lot of complaints about slow pace, unresolved endings, lack of gore etc etc.

The movie does contain some quite disturbing scenes, but they serve to heighten the emotional drama that the film's really about rather than being an end in themselves. You've probably seen plenty of things more graphic than this without straying into the outer reaches of the horror genre. The sexualisation of the violence does make it more potentially upsetting, as does the psychological context Denis so delicately builds up.

As other reviewers have said, this isn't supposed to be a plot-driven action movie, but the storytelling is impeccable. The ambiguous ending is absolutely logical, and people who say it "doesn't end properly" astonish me. The ending makes perfect sense in light of everything that's gone before.

The back-story about the pharmaceutical company etc is pretty cheesy, but it helps to have some kind of nod towards an explanation for what's happened to the lead characters, and that's really all it is.

I think this one is going to stay with me a long time and I'd definitely re-watch it.

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.

This movie is up until now the dullest and most boring movie of the Stockholm Film Festival. It is not touching, not moving, not repulsive, not anything, just boring. Slow and completely void of story and character development, it leaves me feeling empty. Lesson for the movie-makers: Just throwing in some blood and unnecessary rape doesn't take away that this is 100 minutes of nothing.

Crap I say.