Watch Trouble Every Day For Free

Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Better Late Then Never

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

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.

The movie unfolds nicely, but once it opens, there's not much there. Although the movie plays all its cards on the atmosphere, it still feels kind of trivial. Terrible Vincent Gallo acting doesn't help either. However, the rest of the acting is good and the pace of the movie is very adequate, slow but never painful. (Many could learn here how to make a slow movie that doesn't drag.) One of the best things in this movie is the music (by the Tindersticks); it's very good and intelligently used. The theme song is wonderful. If you want to see a more creative take on the vampirism theme or you want to see how drama can be gorier than most of the horror movies, you could find something interesting here.

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.