torture?

I understand your exasperation with 35 Rhums and with Claire Denis, but that's the kind of filmmaker she is. She specializes in the theatre of detachment, of loneliness, of alienation, of ennui, of cultural separation. She's a philosophical filmmaker, and that can be the death knell for a lot of audiences.

To express herself cinematically, Denis chooses to use a technique of 'slowing' the camera down, of letting facial expression and physical movement tell much of her story. Her films usually feature very little dialogue. She certainly isn't for all tastes to be sure. I think she shows great compassion and understanding for those, as in 'Rhum 35,' who are struggling to find themselves amid rigid indifference. I like her films, except, most notably, for a real turkey a few years ago called 'Trouble Every Day,' where she just went off the deep end into silliness.

Out of curiousity, how does a film viewer like yourself come across a movie like this? This definitely isn't mainstream, and it doesn't sound like you have any experience with Denis' past movies.

My Film Journal - Chrisfilm.wordpress.com

Well ... the clue as to how this film was going to proceed and play out, was in the beginning before and during the roll-credits.
Precious little dialogue, or explanation as to what or who we were seeing.

Funnily enough, this film reminded me of Gallo's "Brown Bunny" in parts, for its paucity of dialogue or character back stories. The viewer was left to second guess about a lot, like ... why Josephine even fell for Noe (sorry, don't know how to type in accent-marks) and vice versa.

I'm with you all the way. This has my vote for worst film I've seen this year (and that does mean there have been plenty I've consciously avoided) - more disappointing than "Inglourious Basterds," more boring than "Eveybody's Fine," even more excruciating than "Amelia." I kept waiting for something to happen, and then when something did, it wasn't much, and even at the end I couldn't tell what HAD happened. This was the cinematic equivalent of "Waiting For Godot," without the insight. Yes, there was some interesting interplay between father and daughter. But it's never satisfactorily explained why she would want to make a change from their routine, even when she goes on her little rant. And there are unanswered questions all over the place. Who got married, and was it even a wedding? (Oh sure, it's implied that it's Jo and Noé, but it isn't shown.) Why doesn't Jo return the rice maker, and why would Lionel opening it up suffice as a closing shot? What is the significance of 35 shots of rum? Lionel never really tells the story - and this is the title of the film! While I'm at it, lots of those shots weren't even full, just a splash in the glass. Maybe that's symbolic of how I feel I was shortchanged. At least in "Amelia" some things did happen. Here, hardly anything did. I saw this at a matinee, and had to cut short my plans for the rest of the afternoon and take a nap. Total immersion in unconsciousness was a more productive and honest use of my time, and helped clear my mind of the dispiriting psychological trauma enduring this film caused.

This is one time I am disappointed in IMDB participants and their general tendency to pull their punches when rating films. How this gets a 7.2 rating is beyond me, and in fact shows how misleading these ratings can be. Also, whoever wrote the plot summation - "The relationship between a father and daughter is complicated by the arrival of a handsome young man" - needs to see the movie. The handsome young man was already there, and any complication caused by his presence was not visible on the screen.

My sentiments exactly. I actually do not have much of a problem with her style but with this specific lack of any substance. The story is lacking. I was really left hanging in the end.
OK, so Josephine gets married to the guy nextdoor. So what?
Lionel spurns Gabrielle..so what?
The story never really makes us feel close to the characters to have any empathy for them. I felt more sadness for the cat than for any of the characters in this movie.
Way too sentimental. Really this to me was an exercise in futility.

[deleted]

sounds like most people on here don't like seeing real characters in films, would you lot rather have things spelt out for you or have some sort of thing for the film to build up to??

this is the first claire denis film i've seen and i loved every minute and i think it deserves a 9/10. it reminded me of a lot of mike leigh films, especially secrets and lies, and life is sweet. and also the fassbinder film ali: fear eats the soul. all these films are so sensitive in their creation of characters that i become so invested in the story. there are so many things going on in the minds of the characters and it feels like people going through their lives. it is a portrayal of humanity. for me, i love these films as they always make me think about life and how we interact with each other. the acting is brilliant aswell, from all four leads, especially mati diop and alex descas.

some of your comments are ridiculous. especially about the cat. obviously it was either a model or a previously dead cat. this film is far from excruciating it is a quiet masterwork.

"gentlemen make your lives extraordinary"

I 100% agree with ratso-fitzgerald. I couldn't have said it better myself. Loved your review.