I had a chance to view Trouble Every Day at the Cinemuerte film festival here in Vancouver, and I felt the need to talk about it, as it's an extraordinary film, yet one which I'll never see again. The film, much like Abel Ferrera's 'The Addiction', features a twist on a well treaded horror device, in this case, Cannibalism, and treats it as a horrendous disease which afflicts someone, and the horrors that person, and as well the people around them suffer. Vincent Gallo, who is terrific here, plays a newlywed who takes his new wife to France for a honeymoon. It is soon learned that he is also searching for a college friend, who with Gallo, participated in experiments during their college days which have left them scarred and ravenous. Gallo seems to be fine, keeping his cannibalistic urges to a minimum, but his college mate, played with unabandon by Beatrice Dalle, is not. As a matter of fact, this is probably the most hateful character I have ever witnessed in a movie. She frequently lures men for sex, and when the sex drive kicks in, that's when the cannibalistic urges start. Much of the cinema in the past has treated Cannibalism either in a sci fi vein (much like George Romero's "dead" movies) or for use as shock value. (Cannibal Holocaust) Very rarely has cannibalism gone down to a believable state (the only film that I can think of right now is 'Alive', but the victims were already dead, and frozen). Much of the films, were of the fantastic vein, "this won't happen here" sort of thing. While the film does take place in France, the director, Claire Denis has made the fate of the characters so realistic and haunting that it's hard to shake off. This brings me to the most ghastly, frightening and sad scene I probably have seen ever. A young man is seduced by Dalle's character, and they proceed to have sex. During which, her impulses start to take over and proceeds to bite into his neck. What follows are the most primal, maddening, shocking, screaming coming from the male - It's hard to describe. He's crying, screaming, shaking. While this is happening, like some wild animal, Dalle starts playing with the terminally injured man, nipping, playing with pieces of flesh, and kissing him. Sickening, scary, hateful, disgusting, haunting. The scene is all of these, but it's amazingly well done, and probably will stick with me for a long time. All in all, I probably won't see Trouble Every Day for a long time (if at all). Don't get me wrong, I think the film is an amazing accomplishment, one of those hooror movies that truly get under your skin and stays there. It's just a movie that is truly hard to like.
86 Reviews
Hungry for ...
kosmasp6 March 2022
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 ...
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 ...
Worst Honeymoon Ever
lucifer_over_tinseltown20 June 2022
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!
Unique and Poetic
SheBear14 June 2005
I was tired and ready for bed but my curiosity got the better of me and I put the DVD in, expecting just to watch a few minutes. 1 & 1/2 hours later the film was over and I didn't want it to be.
Trouble Every Day is a haunting vision of desire gone haywire. Light on story and big on aesthetics, the film moves silently like a sensual and terrible dream. You've got to hand it to Claire Denis - it could have all gone horribly wrong were it not for her ability to set just the right poetic tone and mood.
This film is lovely to look at and the camera work is captivating. There is such suspense when the camera follows the back of the chambermaid's neck. The lack of dialog is so hypnotic that when characters began speaking it was an unwelcome jolt. This was especially true of Vincent Gallo (Shane) whose whiny voice is strangely at odds with his intense and unique looks. Beatrice Dalle is perfect as Core who is more animal than human. Her one speaking line says everything you need to know about her character. There was not a moment that I didn't fully believe Core's plight and pity and fear her.
When the movie begins Core has already completely succumbed to the unexplained sickness that Shane spends most of the film trying to suppress. Core is locked indoors all day in an attempt to prevent her from killing but she finds her way out and eventually the prey comes to her.
The two much talked about cannibalism scenes occur pretty late in the film and are worthy of the fuss -they are stunning.
There isn't enough plot development to figure out exactly what is happening to these people or why. There could have been a bit more explanation but the ambiguity makes everything a bit creepier.
Then I went to bed and you can only imagine my dreams.
Trouble Every Day is a haunting vision of desire gone haywire. Light on story and big on aesthetics, the film moves silently like a sensual and terrible dream. You've got to hand it to Claire Denis - it could have all gone horribly wrong were it not for her ability to set just the right poetic tone and mood.
This film is lovely to look at and the camera work is captivating. There is such suspense when the camera follows the back of the chambermaid's neck. The lack of dialog is so hypnotic that when characters began speaking it was an unwelcome jolt. This was especially true of Vincent Gallo (Shane) whose whiny voice is strangely at odds with his intense and unique looks. Beatrice Dalle is perfect as Core who is more animal than human. Her one speaking line says everything you need to know about her character. There was not a moment that I didn't fully believe Core's plight and pity and fear her.
When the movie begins Core has already completely succumbed to the unexplained sickness that Shane spends most of the film trying to suppress. Core is locked indoors all day in an attempt to prevent her from killing but she finds her way out and eventually the prey comes to her.
The two much talked about cannibalism scenes occur pretty late in the film and are worthy of the fuss -they are stunning.
There isn't enough plot development to figure out exactly what is happening to these people or why. There could have been a bit more explanation but the ambiguity makes everything a bit creepier.
Then I went to bed and you can only imagine my dreams.
A less-than-genuine attempt at horror
dceich3 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A man afflicted with a disease that makes him want to kill and eat people (I'm a "brass tacks" reviewer, so there it is) during intercourse (Gallo) and his wife are headed to Paris on their honeymoon. Meanwhile, somewhere in Paris, another man covers up some ghastly murders his wife (Dalle) commits, due to having the same disease. Gallo's condition is deteriorating. Some other things happen, slowly, that neither the director nor the audience care about, in order to set up the eventual meeting of Gallo and Dalle. Things get ugly right around there.
The first scene is haunting and reminds me of the best kind of horror, like Let The Right One In (Swedish version), creepy with what is left unsaid, the damage done by unstoppable carnal need and the lengths a husband will go through to cover up for his wife. I began loving this film.
Sadly, though, I didn't feel that way by the film's end. Much of it had to do with Gallo's flat performance, which may be due to the direction or to his lack of actorly ability. Either way it fails in every way when the guy speaks. Particularly bad were the attempts at a back story, which should have just been left out of the film altogether. If you're going to make an arty character study in the horror genre, just do it. Don't throw in awful scenes just to make the film partially coherent, don't CYA, don't bore me with Vincent Gallo attempting to read dialogue. It's just bad, unnecessary, and takes away from any good the film does eventually deliver.
That said, there were excellent moments in this film. The scenes with the chambermaid I found to be brilliantly done. We're proved again and again the pliability and vulnerability of human flesh. From the way the camera stares down at the back of her neck as she pushes her cart around, to the way she washes her feet after her long shift. This does really establish a sense of empathy for the victim that is essential (at least for me) to actually being horrified. Denis knows how to create an atmosphere, and capture a feeling stylistically, I'll give her that.
Dalle is breathtaking as a woman who is closeted away by her fearful but devoted husband. She shows remorse, but also seems resentful of his attempts to protect her, in one scene ripping up the entire household in an attempt to break out and kill again. He buries the bodies of her victims and then lovingly sponges away the blood from her body. Such an interesting relationship should have spent more time on screen than anything with Gallo having his "headaches."
I think this film would have been quite good had the back story just been absent. Does knowing why the afflicted have the disease really add to the meaning and metaphor attempting to be conveyed here? Not at all for me. Everything about the plot seems to be created, and by created I mean thrown in thoughtlessly, in order to have the meeting between Gallo's character and the one played by Dalle. Which ends, given the synopsis I read before seeing the movie, in a somewhat disappointing and far-from-climactic way.
Finally we have the couple of scenes that everyone mentions, and let's face it, these scenes are why this movie exists at all. Everything else seems to serve as a vehicle for the long and drawn out disgust-a-thon of eating someone alive whilst having sex. Now, I'm not sitting here aghast at the tastelessness of Denis for including this in her film. I'm a fan of Noe's Irreversible for it's incredibly stark and real depiction of rape in the sickest sense, because it is sick. But there's something about these scenes that is a little too shallow. The director is obviously messing with our heads, but can't quite pull it off. The scene with Dalle is perverse, but hauntingly so, and the scene with Gallo starts off, surprisingly, actually somewhat erotically. However I just can't be convinced these weren't done at least in part in the spirit just to satisfy the weird competitiveness people have for seeing the depths of depravity and/or having the "courage" to face it in their films. Something about these scenes, from at least a directorial point of view, is just less-than-genuine. Sorry, Ms. Denis, but I'm not convinced.
The first scene is haunting and reminds me of the best kind of horror, like Let The Right One In (Swedish version), creepy with what is left unsaid, the damage done by unstoppable carnal need and the lengths a husband will go through to cover up for his wife. I began loving this film.
Sadly, though, I didn't feel that way by the film's end. Much of it had to do with Gallo's flat performance, which may be due to the direction or to his lack of actorly ability. Either way it fails in every way when the guy speaks. Particularly bad were the attempts at a back story, which should have just been left out of the film altogether. If you're going to make an arty character study in the horror genre, just do it. Don't throw in awful scenes just to make the film partially coherent, don't CYA, don't bore me with Vincent Gallo attempting to read dialogue. It's just bad, unnecessary, and takes away from any good the film does eventually deliver.
That said, there were excellent moments in this film. The scenes with the chambermaid I found to be brilliantly done. We're proved again and again the pliability and vulnerability of human flesh. From the way the camera stares down at the back of her neck as she pushes her cart around, to the way she washes her feet after her long shift. This does really establish a sense of empathy for the victim that is essential (at least for me) to actually being horrified. Denis knows how to create an atmosphere, and capture a feeling stylistically, I'll give her that.
Dalle is breathtaking as a woman who is closeted away by her fearful but devoted husband. She shows remorse, but also seems resentful of his attempts to protect her, in one scene ripping up the entire household in an attempt to break out and kill again. He buries the bodies of her victims and then lovingly sponges away the blood from her body. Such an interesting relationship should have spent more time on screen than anything with Gallo having his "headaches."
I think this film would have been quite good had the back story just been absent. Does knowing why the afflicted have the disease really add to the meaning and metaphor attempting to be conveyed here? Not at all for me. Everything about the plot seems to be created, and by created I mean thrown in thoughtlessly, in order to have the meeting between Gallo's character and the one played by Dalle. Which ends, given the synopsis I read before seeing the movie, in a somewhat disappointing and far-from-climactic way.
Finally we have the couple of scenes that everyone mentions, and let's face it, these scenes are why this movie exists at all. Everything else seems to serve as a vehicle for the long and drawn out disgust-a-thon of eating someone alive whilst having sex. Now, I'm not sitting here aghast at the tastelessness of Denis for including this in her film. I'm a fan of Noe's Irreversible for it's incredibly stark and real depiction of rape in the sickest sense, because it is sick. But there's something about these scenes that is a little too shallow. The director is obviously messing with our heads, but can't quite pull it off. The scene with Dalle is perverse, but hauntingly so, and the scene with Gallo starts off, surprisingly, actually somewhat erotically. However I just can't be convinced these weren't done at least in part in the spirit just to satisfy the weird competitiveness people have for seeing the depths of depravity and/or having the "courage" to face it in their films. Something about these scenes, from at least a directorial point of view, is just less-than-genuine. Sorry, Ms. Denis, but I'm not convinced.
It won't scare you to death but it might bore you to it
Seth_Rogue_One23 July 2016
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.
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.
Reality bites
joyisyourfriend19 June 2005
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.
Dreary All The Way
horizon200818 October 2013
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 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.
Is Vincent Gallo Trying to be Serge Gainsbourg?
derek-duerden6 April 2021
I've seen a couple of things where Vincent has cast himself as the guy that women can't seem to resist - but this is the first one I've seen where another director does it. And a woman, at that. I'm not a woman, so it could be that he's got something - like Serge - but really I can't see it. I'm also not sure he can really act.
However, in this weird film, he comes across quite well, I think. His style seems to match the general other-worldliness of the approach and the fact that he and his wife seem completely mismatched fits right in with the rest of the chaos.
I really enjoyed High Life and based on this also, Claire clearly has her own vision and way of doing things, which works well here, in my view. If you have any liking for body horror you'll go for this, I'm sure, as long as you are OK with the relatively gentle build-up and pacing.
However, in this weird film, he comes across quite well, I think. His style seems to match the general other-worldliness of the approach and the fact that he and his wife seem completely mismatched fits right in with the rest of the chaos.
I really enjoyed High Life and based on this also, Claire clearly has her own vision and way of doing things, which works well here, in my view. If you have any liking for body horror you'll go for this, I'm sure, as long as you are OK with the relatively gentle build-up and pacing.
Enjoyable and worthwhile, but a soft tone & scattered storytelling do it no favors
I_Ailurophile13 May 2023
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.
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.
What a mess.
chr_seidelin4 April 2003
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.
A dangerous and electric eroticism
El-Stumpo2 November 2007
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.
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.
Hard to Attach Labels
lost4wurds2 August 2006
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.
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.
I should have pressed stop when I saw Gallo's name in the credits.
BA_Harrison2 November 2019
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.
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.
unfairly maligned
cogs12 December 2003
"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.
Potentially Great But Ultimately Disappointing Horror/Art Film...
EVOL66610 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was pretty excited to get my hands on a copy of TROUBLE EVERY DAY, as I am a fan of Vincent Gallo's works that I've seen so far, and also as a horror fan, this one slipped under my radar. Before I got my copy, I checked a couple reviews and found that opinions were quite mixed regarding this film. After viewing it, I can see why. That's exactly how I felt after sitting through it - mixed...and honestly quite a bit disappointed. On one hand - the story seems interesting and I liked the way that the plot and characters were exposed a little bit at a time...it made everything that transpired in the film feel sort of "mysterious". But by the end, there are too many things unexplained and leaves WAY too much of the content open for interpretation. Being that a good portion of the "backstory" is never adequately explained - I'll give you my take as I understood what was going on (which may not have been very much...):
TROUBLE EVERY DAY tells two parallel stories that intersect because of a past connection. Gallo is in France on his honeymoon. While there, he is also searching for a lost colleague who was working on some unorthodox experiments that are never fully explained. This colleague has a wife who seems mentally disturbed at the onset of the film, that he keeps locked away in the bedroom of their home. It slowly becomes made aware that Gallo and his colleague's wife both suffer from some sort of "condition" that is either a side-effect, or the direct result of the "mysterious" experiments - but I don't know which (or if my interpretation of this is even accurate...), because it's never explained. The only thing that IS obvious by this point, is that the "condition" creates a thirst for blood and flesh that is strongest when the afflicted person is sexually aroused. Gallo continues searching for his colleague (for exactly what purpose is never made entirely clear either...) and instead ends up finding the colleague's wife. Some more confusing things happen upon and after this "meeting", and then the film ends abruptly with no real resolution...
The good thing about TROUBLE EVERY DAY, is that all the way through it, it was really interesting. It's definitely a "slow-burn" kind of film, with very little action (except for 2 or 3 noteworthy scenes) and the storyline is made known only in very small doses - which keeps the film interesting without becoming boring - but this is also the films biggest downfall...you spend all this time watching and trying to unravel the story, but then the end never offers the audience any of the "payoff" that we've been patiently waiting for. There are a few good scenes of sexual violence towards the end, but the film is so infuriatingly vague, that I would have traded those few "cool" scenes for an explanation as to just what the hell was going on. And then the VERY end makes no sense whatsoever and adds absolutely nothing in way of resolution or explanation, unless I missed something pretty damn big - and believe me - my eyes never left the screen. I'm surprised that with the handful of reviews that I've read on here, no one seems to mention the inconsistencies or things that go unexplained in the film. Some say it's boring and needs more gore, some say it's a beautiful art film - but besides all that - where is the god damn story? Why does it just stop at the end with no explanation? How does Gallo's wife put up with him when he's obviously such a freak? This film just brings up way more questions than it ever answers, and that MIGHT be OK if this were JUST an "art-film"...but the narrative and storyline are too strong to dismiss glaring plot holes just by classifying this as an art-film.
I find TROUBLE EVERY DAY hard to rate because I really enjoyed the performances and the story was interesting until the end, but the ending and basic story-telling is so fundamentally flawed that I can't give this film a high rating. I'll settle on a 6/10 (which for me is a pretty low rating for anything in the horror genre...) and to be fair, I would probably have rated it a 9 if the situations leading up to the events that were filmed, and the ending, were explained better (or at all, for that matter...). 6/10
TROUBLE EVERY DAY tells two parallel stories that intersect because of a past connection. Gallo is in France on his honeymoon. While there, he is also searching for a lost colleague who was working on some unorthodox experiments that are never fully explained. This colleague has a wife who seems mentally disturbed at the onset of the film, that he keeps locked away in the bedroom of their home. It slowly becomes made aware that Gallo and his colleague's wife both suffer from some sort of "condition" that is either a side-effect, or the direct result of the "mysterious" experiments - but I don't know which (or if my interpretation of this is even accurate...), because it's never explained. The only thing that IS obvious by this point, is that the "condition" creates a thirst for blood and flesh that is strongest when the afflicted person is sexually aroused. Gallo continues searching for his colleague (for exactly what purpose is never made entirely clear either...) and instead ends up finding the colleague's wife. Some more confusing things happen upon and after this "meeting", and then the film ends abruptly with no real resolution...
The good thing about TROUBLE EVERY DAY, is that all the way through it, it was really interesting. It's definitely a "slow-burn" kind of film, with very little action (except for 2 or 3 noteworthy scenes) and the storyline is made known only in very small doses - which keeps the film interesting without becoming boring - but this is also the films biggest downfall...you spend all this time watching and trying to unravel the story, but then the end never offers the audience any of the "payoff" that we've been patiently waiting for. There are a few good scenes of sexual violence towards the end, but the film is so infuriatingly vague, that I would have traded those few "cool" scenes for an explanation as to just what the hell was going on. And then the VERY end makes no sense whatsoever and adds absolutely nothing in way of resolution or explanation, unless I missed something pretty damn big - and believe me - my eyes never left the screen. I'm surprised that with the handful of reviews that I've read on here, no one seems to mention the inconsistencies or things that go unexplained in the film. Some say it's boring and needs more gore, some say it's a beautiful art film - but besides all that - where is the god damn story? Why does it just stop at the end with no explanation? How does Gallo's wife put up with him when he's obviously such a freak? This film just brings up way more questions than it ever answers, and that MIGHT be OK if this were JUST an "art-film"...but the narrative and storyline are too strong to dismiss glaring plot holes just by classifying this as an art-film.
I find TROUBLE EVERY DAY hard to rate because I really enjoyed the performances and the story was interesting until the end, but the ending and basic story-telling is so fundamentally flawed that I can't give this film a high rating. I'll settle on a 6/10 (which for me is a pretty low rating for anything in the horror genre...) and to be fair, I would probably have rated it a 9 if the situations leading up to the events that were filmed, and the ending, were explained better (or at all, for that matter...). 6/10
Wannabe Art-House Cannibalism
dagonseve4 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Here we have a French horror film, directed by Claire Denis. I found this film by chance and decided to check it out for no other reason than curiosity. Most of the films I watch I've either known about for years or discovered through a "paper trail" as it were. It's films like Trouble Every Day that sap all the energy out of me when writing a review
I'm teetering very slowly on the edge of exclusively reviewing older films rather than traipsing through a land of the absolute garbage that's been released in the past decade. It's a good thing this came out 9 years ago, otherwise the statement I made about French cinema in a recent review would be rendered useless.
The synopsis of the film is about a recently married American couple who are honey-mooning in Paris. The husband is stricken with a strange sexual desire to inflict damage during intimacy. The affects, on a more grand scale, mirror those of cannibalistic tendencies. He seeks treatment from an expert in the field that may be of use to him; the doctor's wife also suffers from this strange desire but on a more severe level.
Horror films within the last decade have tried so desperately to create their own niche in the market, and more often than not, end up creating a sub-genre of try-too-hards. Speaking on a more personal level, I am an artist. I am appreciative of various mediums and I can respect a film's artistic vision if it actually has one. There has to be some level of structure involved on all fronts, otherwise the talent pool becomes cluttered with a mass of idiots who like to pretend they're something they aren't. I don't know Claire Denis as a human being face to face but it's apparent that the message of her film is obscure and "artistic" just for the sake of being that way; there are few things on this planet that annoy me greater than that.
The people that praised this film for its direction are probably the same people that live in a delusional fairyland where untalented directors can release vomit for wholesale and be praised for it simultaneously. This one is for the birds. If you'd like to watch a film that doesn't pretend to be sophisticated, watch 1984's The Company of Wolves – a film that utilizes terrific use of symbolism as a result of REAL talent – not slapdash ridiculousness produced by a team of wannabe's.
The synopsis of the film is about a recently married American couple who are honey-mooning in Paris. The husband is stricken with a strange sexual desire to inflict damage during intimacy. The affects, on a more grand scale, mirror those of cannibalistic tendencies. He seeks treatment from an expert in the field that may be of use to him; the doctor's wife also suffers from this strange desire but on a more severe level.
Horror films within the last decade have tried so desperately to create their own niche in the market, and more often than not, end up creating a sub-genre of try-too-hards. Speaking on a more personal level, I am an artist. I am appreciative of various mediums and I can respect a film's artistic vision if it actually has one. There has to be some level of structure involved on all fronts, otherwise the talent pool becomes cluttered with a mass of idiots who like to pretend they're something they aren't. I don't know Claire Denis as a human being face to face but it's apparent that the message of her film is obscure and "artistic" just for the sake of being that way; there are few things on this planet that annoy me greater than that.
The people that praised this film for its direction are probably the same people that live in a delusional fairyland where untalented directors can release vomit for wholesale and be praised for it simultaneously. This one is for the birds. If you'd like to watch a film that doesn't pretend to be sophisticated, watch 1984's The Company of Wolves – a film that utilizes terrific use of symbolism as a result of REAL talent – not slapdash ridiculousness produced by a team of wannabe's.
Fresh horror
Chris_Docker27 August 2001
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.
Ugh. Just bad. Plain bad.
Pedro-3730 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Somehow, this film set my world in order again. I don't like French films, but then, stuff like "Amélie" or "Le pacte des loups" came along - one a perfect movie, one a very entertaining one. And they were French. Could this be? Would the French finally make good movies?
So I went to see "Trouble Every Day" because Beatrice Dalle is in it, because it sort of deals with Vampires - and because some women fainted in the Cannes audience. Always a good sign. But, alas, "Trouble Every Day" is the worst movie I've seen this year so far. And I see a *lot* of films. It's perhaps the only movie which makes sex and violence look boring. Imagine that!
First of all it's boring. Nothing happens. A man lights a cigarette. A man buys a dog. Stuff like this fills about 80 minutes of the movie. Most of it is utterly pointless. The graphic scenes are graphic indeed. I'll discuss one in length (Spoilers): The camera crawls around the chest of a young man. We see every hair, every pimple. It's nice for some time to see a camera analyze human skin but it goes on forever. Then comes the sex scene. Raunchy. Slightly erotic (the people in this movie are ugly. Not much eroticism there. Yes, even Dull, sorry Dalle looks bad) - and then lots of blood. And screams. I had to laugh. Those screams were amazing. First piercing, but then only laughable. And again, it goes on forever.
Well, I could go on forever too, but I should come to a point: "Trouble Every Day" belongs to those movies that THINK they are so amazingly clever and artsy - but actually are only tedious, shallow and stupid. "Trouble Every Day" thinks it's better than your average horror movie, it thinks it lifts the erotic vampire theme to another level. Yes, to the level of utter boredom.
Avoid this movie at all cost. It's a sleeping pill. Watch a porn movie (for the sex) and a good horror movie (for the blood). You'll get more out of it. Just don't let yourself be lured to the idea that this movie has something to say, that it's deep. If you have to watch a Denis-movie, stick to "Beau travail" which is very good.
Rating: 1/10 ... vive la France.
So I went to see "Trouble Every Day" because Beatrice Dalle is in it, because it sort of deals with Vampires - and because some women fainted in the Cannes audience. Always a good sign. But, alas, "Trouble Every Day" is the worst movie I've seen this year so far. And I see a *lot* of films. It's perhaps the only movie which makes sex and violence look boring. Imagine that!
First of all it's boring. Nothing happens. A man lights a cigarette. A man buys a dog. Stuff like this fills about 80 minutes of the movie. Most of it is utterly pointless. The graphic scenes are graphic indeed. I'll discuss one in length (Spoilers): The camera crawls around the chest of a young man. We see every hair, every pimple. It's nice for some time to see a camera analyze human skin but it goes on forever. Then comes the sex scene. Raunchy. Slightly erotic (the people in this movie are ugly. Not much eroticism there. Yes, even Dull, sorry Dalle looks bad) - and then lots of blood. And screams. I had to laugh. Those screams were amazing. First piercing, but then only laughable. And again, it goes on forever.
Well, I could go on forever too, but I should come to a point: "Trouble Every Day" belongs to those movies that THINK they are so amazingly clever and artsy - but actually are only tedious, shallow and stupid. "Trouble Every Day" thinks it's better than your average horror movie, it thinks it lifts the erotic vampire theme to another level. Yes, to the level of utter boredom.
Avoid this movie at all cost. It's a sleeping pill. Watch a porn movie (for the sex) and a good horror movie (for the blood). You'll get more out of it. Just don't let yourself be lured to the idea that this movie has something to say, that it's deep. If you have to watch a Denis-movie, stick to "Beau travail" which is very good.
Rating: 1/10 ... vive la France.
Is desire biologically,chemically or emotionally driven?
hofnarr1 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
What relationship (if any) does affection have with care and/or concern and/or desire and/or love and/or lust? What generates these emotions? What terminates them? Are there lines of demarcation and how and when do they become blurred? Do we have totally free will over the way we think and feel? How do you keep a life in balance?
So - just what is going on in this film (which feels more like a poem and/or fable to me?) You could probably get a spectrum of viewpoints from different people (indeed, the present comments attest to that) - mine is as follows, and will contain spoilers.
One of the pivotal points occurs when one of the researchers in the lab where Dr. Leo had worked asks Shane a two-part question dealing with both loyalty & betrayal. In the same conversation she comments on his acceptance of work from the pharmaceutical company with the best financial offer. Let's leave that on the back burner and go to some other questions . ..
Why is Shane in Paris? What were he and Leo doing out in the rain forest (or some such place with yet unexamined botanical specimens)? What did Shane steal from Leo, and why?
Ever think about how much money the makers of Viagra make annually? I don't, but I bet it's pretty substantial - possibly even more than minoxidil (aka Rogaine). Sex and vanity - two rather powerful drives. What if you could come up with a drug for sexual desire, rather than just a physiological support for a body part? What if before you had all the safety protocols in place, before the double blind experiments were done, one researcher started dosing himself, and the wife of another researcher also was given/took the drug?
That's my premise - if you need a premise. It works for me. But the story seems to be about imbalance - unbridled desire to an extreme, whether it be sexual or financial. "Greed is good", said Gordon Gecko. But you can get too much of a good thing. And both Shane and Leo and Core have found this out. June hasn't yet - but she probably will.
There are a number of unanswered questions in the film - nagging, but perhaps unimportant.
Whatever the effect of the drug in amplification of sexual desire to the point of eating one's partner, it's not totally over-riding either Core or Shane's basic humanity. Core doesn't want to go on living the way she is; she says she wants to die. Leo seems to be doing as much as he can to protect her, both physically and by coming up with some solution in the research lab. June discovers numerous vials of unlabelled pills in Shane's bag - attempts to dampen his drug-induced desire so he doesn't harm her? Shane is having nightmares (daymares?) in the plane coming over to Paris about ravaging (literally) June. At one point in foreplay he seems to realize if they go through with copulating, he will kill her, and runs to the bathroom to jerk off so she'll be safe. He hasn't told her anything about what's going on, and feels incredibly rejected.
Shane and June's decision at film end? "Let's go home." But - you can't go home again. As Heraclitus noted some millenia ago "You can't step into the same river twice."
Nikki Giovanni said "Love is the only true adventure." Some "adventures" can get out of hand. This film seems to be a warning against that unbalance. KOYANNISQUATSI has already been taken for a film title. But an English translation of this Hopi word, "life out of balance" could well go along with TROUBLE EVERY DAY as a title for this film.
So - just what is going on in this film (which feels more like a poem and/or fable to me?) You could probably get a spectrum of viewpoints from different people (indeed, the present comments attest to that) - mine is as follows, and will contain spoilers.
One of the pivotal points occurs when one of the researchers in the lab where Dr. Leo had worked asks Shane a two-part question dealing with both loyalty & betrayal. In the same conversation she comments on his acceptance of work from the pharmaceutical company with the best financial offer. Let's leave that on the back burner and go to some other questions . ..
Why is Shane in Paris? What were he and Leo doing out in the rain forest (or some such place with yet unexamined botanical specimens)? What did Shane steal from Leo, and why?
Ever think about how much money the makers of Viagra make annually? I don't, but I bet it's pretty substantial - possibly even more than minoxidil (aka Rogaine). Sex and vanity - two rather powerful drives. What if you could come up with a drug for sexual desire, rather than just a physiological support for a body part? What if before you had all the safety protocols in place, before the double blind experiments were done, one researcher started dosing himself, and the wife of another researcher also was given/took the drug?
That's my premise - if you need a premise. It works for me. But the story seems to be about imbalance - unbridled desire to an extreme, whether it be sexual or financial. "Greed is good", said Gordon Gecko. But you can get too much of a good thing. And both Shane and Leo and Core have found this out. June hasn't yet - but she probably will.
There are a number of unanswered questions in the film - nagging, but perhaps unimportant.
Whatever the effect of the drug in amplification of sexual desire to the point of eating one's partner, it's not totally over-riding either Core or Shane's basic humanity. Core doesn't want to go on living the way she is; she says she wants to die. Leo seems to be doing as much as he can to protect her, both physically and by coming up with some solution in the research lab. June discovers numerous vials of unlabelled pills in Shane's bag - attempts to dampen his drug-induced desire so he doesn't harm her? Shane is having nightmares (daymares?) in the plane coming over to Paris about ravaging (literally) June. At one point in foreplay he seems to realize if they go through with copulating, he will kill her, and runs to the bathroom to jerk off so she'll be safe. He hasn't told her anything about what's going on, and feels incredibly rejected.
Shane and June's decision at film end? "Let's go home." But - you can't go home again. As Heraclitus noted some millenia ago "You can't step into the same river twice."
Nikki Giovanni said "Love is the only true adventure." Some "adventures" can get out of hand. This film seems to be a warning against that unbalance. KOYANNISQUATSI has already been taken for a film title. But an English translation of this Hopi word, "life out of balance" could well go along with TROUBLE EVERY DAY as a title for this film.
Another Subtle,Disturbing,Painful,Traumatic experience.................
ramsri8122 September 2005
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 told Vincent Gallo he was an actor?
slake095 March 2005
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.
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.
Sweat, blood and sperm
steph-paris20 July 2001
"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.
Little real substance to the film
mob61uk21 July 2002
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.
Totally awful. Avoid.
vasselot30 March 2005
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
