Truly Dreadful Film

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this 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.

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.

The whole movie is strange, slow and disturbing. In a way you enter in the world of two cannibal in pain, because cannibalism is a illness (Béatrice Dalle) deliver a great performance, she very credible and tight. (Vincent Gallo) (bufallo 66) play the role of the other cannibal, with a life, he like he is under control of his animal instinct but like the girl cannibalism is a very troubling and dangerous disease and he no that fact. The movie is very animal, the character seem to be posses by instinct. The story is a bit confusing, there not much dialog in it (its a good thing) and there not a lot of thing reveled. The light, the effect, the cameras, the photograph is awesome. There a lot of inventive and in a way its refreshing to see an original movie. Don't wait.

True the movie was rather slow but it is European and you kind of have to expect that. A movie doesn't need to be about speed anyway, if you just relax and really let the imagery throw, its quite amazing.There was beautiful cinematography if noticed. The blood dripping from the blades of grass in the field Core was using as hunting grounds. The harsh lighting and color use in some of the lab scenes. the fragile jigsaw of brain matter being sliced and dissected in petri dishes. The wall and Core after she has eaten the boy who brakes in. Both were so intense you couldn't help appreciate the experience. The pace of the film was crucial when considering the character development and the slowly dawning knowledge that Core wasn't alone in her insanity, that Shane was falling further into madness too. Both the victims of their own prior experiments. The realization the audience must go throw, that each character is not going to avoid a grotesque end physically or emotionally. That everyone they touch is doomed to walk on a knife edge of danger as Core has and Shane is growing more animalistic and less human by the day. A stunning piece.