christopher-underwood This seemed fine at the very start. Leisurely but fine. I liked the landscapes and skylines. The way the petrol station and car were photographed and particularly when the couple stop to gaze in wonder at the wind turbines gave me hope for a visual treat. Not inappropriately either as it turns out that this was some sort of reccy for a magazine shoot. But it wasn't long before everything began to annoy me. The Japanese (?) singer on the radio really jarred, then I found the girl most annoying and had her down as nuts pretty quickly. Eventually the guy also annoyed me and finally, of course, the director himself. I have nothing against experimental cinema but I need to be engaged. I don't insist upon a linear narrative or a narrative at all but if I'm getting nothing from the venture i can get bored or annoyed. The couple get naked a lot but then they insist on doing in some really awkward place and making far too much damn noise about it. The ending would have been dramatic if I was involved enough to care but then this was someone's experiment so far be it from me to ask for anything. Generally well shot and presumably well intended.

Greenzombidog May contain spoilers.A couple drive about arguing, eating, getting naked in the desert and occasionally having some animalistic sex. There is no real plot. There is no depth to the characters. The woman is a completely vapid idiot. The guy is a shaggy haired Burk. The only positive for the almost two hours running time are some nice scenic shots. The movie contains every cliché of art house cinema. Long periods of silence, close ups of characters faces as they begin to cry, characters talking in different languages to each other, a three legged animal, it's like a student film maker saying "look, at me I'm being arty".Then in the final fifteen minutes the film turns "Dark". A totally unprovoked and vicious sexual attack takes place. The aftermath of which is probably more shocking than the event. These few scenes are made more shocking by how mundane the rest of the movie is. Which I feel is a cheat. I wasn't shocked because I cared about the characters it was just the visual of this scene. Remove this from the movie and there's literally nothing you would remember about it.Described as an experimental horror film, I don't know what the experiment was. Maybe it's whether you can get away with an hour and half of nothing as long as you stick something nasty on the end. I think the experiment was a waste of time.

tieman64 Opening scene: cars, oil, movement. Main characters: an American called David and a Russian woman called Katia. They're allies, but don't speak the same language, he speaking limited Russian, she limited English.They drive a gas-guzzling military vehicle through the desert. It's a "hummer", typically associated with the Gulf War and the US invasion of Panama (both wars to depose US puppets). Elsewhere, American military bases and soldiers dot the landscape. The Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, we recall, is situated at Twentynine Palms. Like director Bruno Dumont's later film, "Flanders", "Palms" uses a power struggle between a couple as a springboard for examining US militaristic and political power.Second scene: wind-farms, renewable energy. Our heroes squat and urinate beneath windmills whilst gazing out at automobiles. Having given green energy the middle finger, they continue on their journey. They're a preliminary force, scouting locations. But what comes after them? They drive. While she is largely silent, passive, he leads most of their conversations. Though international dialogue is dominated by one voice, she manages to shape his lingo. Her voice irks him. He puts up with it.He teaches her to drive his vehicle. She can't. She's useless. Still, she teases him. Mocks his ridiculously large vehicle and his irrational love for the machine. He doesn't like being belittled. Minutes later, during an outdoor sex act, he forces her to submit."Love scenes" are peppered throughout the film. The first takes place in a pool, the second in a dry desert, the third again in a pool. He becomes more abusive as their relationship progresses, almost drowning her during their third sex act. He watches a television programme; on screen a father is accused of abusing his daughter. Katia is disgusted. David doesn't care. What's wrong with power?The fourth sex act takes place in a bed. She forces him into submission now, wrestling an orgasm from him. From here on they put aside sex in favour for psychological and physical attacks on one another. She can no longer tolerate him. He becomes the death drive rendered pure. He wants everything at the cost of himself; to consume her whole.Final act: he injures a black dog with his ridiculously large vehicle. His masculine/military prowess is revealed to have repercussions, but so what? To him, it's just a dog. Meanwhile the natives, the symbolic Other, whom he condescending views as "dogs", fight back. Is this an act of justice, vengeance or just more macho posturing? Regardless, he's raped by a gang of locals and swiftly castrated. She wants to tell the police, but he can't bare the shame. He kills her, temporarily reasserting himself, before shamefully committing suicide out in the desert. Final sequences parody or re-contextualise John Ford's desert mountains, the motels of Hitchcock and Hollywood's vision of violence, good, evil, cowboys and Western masculinity. The film positions itself as a European critique of Western Hegemony and male ego, but its audience is baffled. It's too esoteric to do damage - a New French Extremist amalgamation of "The Shining", "Funny Games" and "Bigger Than Life". Credits roll. Required targets left confused, misreading film as existential travelogue or art house horror movie.7.9/10 – Worth one viewing. See "Afterschool".

lcky7strng I don't ever write bad reviews because I think people should have their own opinions about films. But this is literally the worst movie I've ever seen and felt it my duty to help steer people away from wasting part of their lives watching it. Manos The Hands of Fate has a better plot line and acting than this pseudo-intellectual drivel. Please, if you value your time stay away from this film. If it were possible to give this 0 stars I would. The movie is mostly just the main two actors driving around not talking and just showing the landscape. The very little that actually does take place happens in the last 5 minutes of the film and even then makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.