Chad

clckworang

I admire Denis a lot as a filmmaker, but I can't say I really liked this movie. There were elements or scenes that I thought were effective, but it left me cold as a whole. That's a bit how I felt about most of the characters, too - just cold. Maybe if I ever revisit this, I'll feel different knowing what to expect. As I was watching for my first time, I was expecting more focus on the medical issues, but that seemed to get dropped pretty quickly. I'm fine that this didn't turn out to be a medical drama, but that ultimately went nowhere.

The one sentence plot synopsis on IMDB: "Two American newlyweds in Paris experience a love so strong, it almost devours them." That doesn't sound at all like the movie I just watched.

Shack

I suggested Trouble Every Day having seen it years ago, but I found upon a rewatch I didn't remember that much of it. Claire Denis is an interesting filmmaker and I appreciated the visual touches throughout, the detail of the hotel and the lab, etc. She has an intentionally deliberate style, which goes against the traditional quick scares of horror.

It's an interesting mix of Arthouse and Exploitation, for sure. I can't figure out if I would have liked more medical detail, or less. But I did find the style mesmerizing enough to keep me watching to the end.

What did everyone else think?

WillieMLF

I've been working my way through the TSZDT list most of the summer and put this one on when all those french films were added to Shudder. Whenever I see Gallo in a film, I immediately get reservations about watching it. I didn't really care too much for this one, and 'glacial pace' is the best word I could come up with when I re-watched this morning. I honestly didn't remember much from my first viewing beyond Gallo masturbating in the tub. Not a good visual!

I agree, that there are some really great moments, it just seems they are few and far between brooding Gallo filler.

numbercrunch

I am an hour into this film and I still have no idea what it is about. Its artsy and has some nice cinematic touches, but what the hell is it? Best i can make out its about ravenous love.
4/10

wishbone

I knew from the start this would be a chore to get through. Ugh, merde alors!

Undeadcow

Trouble Every Day doesnt hand hold or even always make sense but it is artistically shot and interestingly structured. The cinematic quality of showing whatever we see adds a lot of depth and room for interpretation. Is the bloodletting a disease or metaphor for unsatisfied love? Why is Shame so interested in Dr Seamenymeaux? Maybe it doesnt matter.

Toddarino

Same here. I powered through this, but man it was rough. If this was released today, A24 would be all over it.

jholmes

Like WillieMLF, I watched this one a couple of years ago in my quest to get through the TSZDT list and, on this rewatch, found I remembered almost nothing about it. That's never a good sign.
I'm a person who likes a good story, so more artsy, abstract films really aren't my jam. This one is okay but, like others, I found it a chore to get through again and I was watching the clock, I need a more straight-forward narrative line in my horror films.

Spiderbite

My god, this movie was such a slog. It had a couple of nice gory moments but overall, this movie moves at the pace of watching grass grow.

Does Gallo ever make a movie where he speaks above a whisper and with inflection after the year 2000? I don't know and I don't care to find out since that would mean I would have to watch more movies with him. I was surprised to find that he didn't direct this because it comes across as the pretentious, masturbatory tripe that he has made himself known for. And those types of movies turn me off fast. Just not my thing.

I can say that the movie was shot well and looked like it was ripped straight out of 1974. It had an "old" look to it. That's about the only nice things I can say about it.

My rating: * out of *****