MovieChat Forums > Trouble Every Day (2001) Discussion > whoever filmed this abomination . . .

whoever filmed this abomination . . .

posted 15 years ago by universe940-3
16 replies | jump to latest

Should be issued a restraining order ,for the good of the viewing public, in case they get within 100 feet of any camera equipment ever again. It almost hurt my eyes watching this sh$t! I fast forwarded through this piece of sh$t after the first 20 minutes, and was surprised I even made it that long.

Gallo in full blown creepiness mode was truly cringe worthy. Bet he could even send shivers down Ron Jeremy's spine and creep 'the king of sleaze' himself out with that performance, and that's saying something!

This was as if someone sifted up a shovels worth of raw sewerage and somehow transmogrified it into cinematic form. People with such obvious lack of any talent or sense should do something other than this.

[–] marismi 15 years ago

1948 born director, which was best boy (? assistant?) to wim wenders before she started to direct her own films.
winner in locarno ("nenette et boni"), in montreal and geneve ("beau travail").

for me, "trouble every day" is a very sad, very good film, though it´s so brutal; but that brutality got it´s sense here.

friendly wave

m.

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL

[–] WelcomeToParadise 15 years ago

Just because you get offended easily or can't handle what the movie shows does not make it sh$t.

[–] lastknown 15 years ago

Why was he fast-forwarding? Was he looking for the sweet titty and pussy action?

----------------------------------
I hate heroes. They always end up being rapists.

[–] marismi 15 years ago

@lastknown:
could you please say it with other words?
when i try to understand your question with dictionary´s help, it makes no sense.
especially i can´t understand what "fast- forwarding" means in this connection (dictionary says, that it means to send/post it very quickly) and i don´t know which "he" is; the only possibly "he" is brown (gallo), but he´s not sending anything... .

sorry.

friendly wave

m.

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL

[–] lastknown 15 years ago

The dictionary is, at best, unreliable. Understand?

Why did he fast-forward if he hated it so much? If he hated it, why didn't he just turn the film off? My theory: he was still invested in the nudity contained in the film.

Pick up your dictionary, esl student.

----------------------------------
I hate heroes. They always end up being rapists.

[–] marismi 15 years ago

the director is a 1948 born woman (look here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0219136/ ) and i don´t think that she hates her film (and surely she was not invested in that rare nudityscenes(((g))) ).

and why should she hate it?

the film is good: there are few brutal scenes, maybe a bit nudity.
it´s a sad story about two people which get into bloodthirstiness through sexuality because of their own fault some years ago (they made gene-altering experiments and took something).
while the female one must live in a blocked up house (sometimes escapes), the male one felt in love in the meantime, married and and now - during honeymoon - makes desperate efforts to find an antitoxin.
that search and the forlorness of the couple (it´s a honeymoon without sex and because he can´t tell her the story, she can´t understand what happens) are the mean themes of the film.
all in all the film is very sad, very calm and got few action (like it´s music).
people which want to see a splatter- and/or sexfilm, will absolutely be bored!

friendly wave

m.

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL

[–] universe940-3 15 years ago

It's dismal, deppressing, squalid and rank.

It's a decrepid film.

Does it lift your spirit? Does it give insight into anything? I mean really, not trying to overanalyse and read some garbage into it, as we could do that with anything.

Does it entertain . . . ? let's face it, it's just a creepy story, developed by someone who likes creepy deppressing stories. Good for them! Maybe they are very creepy?

I didn't want to see a spatter (sex film would've been ok though) or sex film, but didn't want to be deppresed by *beep* filmaking either.

it's like some lardy oiled up pervert regurgitating fecal matter . . . that's how much appeal this crappy little film has.

Do you like watching nonsensical worthless *beep* idiot deppressing images. I don't! There is no art in that. Only idiocy and a lack of any real talent.

Marismi, I like your signiture very much. Now that's something with a bit of beauty and life about it.

(the reason I fast-forwarded) Hey, that's partly why a lot of filmakers put nudity in films. I also wanted to see if it would get any better and how it ended.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] itspoop 15 years ago

uh... i actually like depressing movies. i think, uni, you need to update your definition of art. art does not have to entertain you, lift your spirit, or anything else you mention. all art needs to do is shed some light on the human condition. this does.

and while you say that this film has no appeal, i'd agree....for you. for me it was very appealing. i have to say i find it funny that you come off so high and mighty when you were fast forwarding for nudity.

heh....i guess gratuitous nudity uplifts your spirit, so to speak.

i guess that's fine, but you're not much of a film critic, and if you didn't watch the film, you're not a credible judge of the material.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PoppyTransfusion 10 years ago

OP: you make a lot of assumptions about what films should be. Two in your post are that a film should life the spirit and/or entertain. Well, no ...

A film is a film and what it intends and what it does are not circumscribed by you or your assumptions.

The best films IMO hold a mirror to reality and reflect reality back to us/me in a way not seen before. Briefly stated the film is about the dangers of sexual love and the sorrow and problems that stem from this danger, a man-made danger. It certainly can be seen as dismal, deppressing, squalid and rank and what's wrong with these aspects/feelings being reflected on screen?

Movement ends, intent continues;
Intent ends, spirit continues

[–] Foxbarking 9 years ago

I love it. You tell the OP that his opinions cannot define what makes a good film and then you immediately try to define what a good film is in your opinion.

Pure egocentric hypocrisy.

[–] baphomet1313 13 years ago

"Why was he fast-forwarding? Was he looking for the sweet ti%^y and pu&*y action?"

I know it is 2 years later, but I feel you did not understand. The original poster stated that he watched the film on "Fast-Forward" which means he set his DVD player to play through the film at a faster speed. "Lastknown" was intimating that the OP still scanned through the film hoping to see nudity. It was sarcasm and actually quite funny. If you tell me your language, I could find a better meaning for "fast-foward" for you to understand.

"I kept it in a cage,
watched it weeping but I made it stay"
www.watcheditweeping.com

[–] timmy_501 15 years ago

Say what you will about the film's quality overall but Agnes Godard's camera work is consistently great. Between her contributions and the work of director Claire Denis this film couldn't look much better.

This is not a signature.

[–] standardbearer 14 years ago

that was an amusing comment:)

[–] georgegates 12 years ago

there was nothing cinematic about it. showing a closeup of a navel for 1 minute during a 2 minute sex-scene?

-==-
Life's too short for mediocrity
Best shows:http://www.imdb.com/list/n9h_caKA-ZU/