Come on... I watched Flandres before and thought it was pretty pretentious and halfhearted in his artsy approach but I could watch it... quite the opposite to Twentynine Palms which I could hardly watch without staring at the fast forward button of my remote control. This artsy production by Bruno Dumont is a joke of a movie and I can't believe anyone nominates stuff like this.... I get it, its not entertainment... its art, its a giant metaphor of lives endless repetitions, right? Thats why the movie is so damn boring in its 2 hours of nothingness, thats why the couple starring this movie is regularly fighting and having make up sex. Thats why EVERYTHING in this movie is depicted in atrocious repetitions or slow motions of random acts... the totally unerotic sex scenes with mechanistic thrusting and overacted orgasms that border between joy and pain? Is the sex a metaphor for the relationship of the 2 thats about as borderline? Or is it all just a metaphor for life itself? Or does it mean absolutely nothing and all those interpretations (I liked the one about Anti-americanism... thats even more insane than this idiotic movie that makes me ashamed of being European) are based on the great nothing that this movie is? And does Dumont have any problem with sex to paint such a bleak, boring, repetitive and at times rather disgusting picture? Is the knifing in its receptiveness and phallic metaphor with the ridiculous screaming that equals that of Davids orgasms not as cheap as the ridiculous and random rape scene? How often do you have to make a point that even the rape looks like it hurts the rapist more than ole David with his pants down?<br /><br />Sorry, if you subject the audience to 120 Minutes of nothingness and then pound them with repetitive metaphors, pack all this with the same repetitive music (so what does it mean they listen to the same song throughout the movie when driving in their hummer ... ah, the same as the rest of this repetitive metaphor??) and a cinematography that couldn't make me care less... if these pictures are beautiful like some state everyone can feast on beautiful mountainscapes... besides the landscape this movie is ugly and lacking any beauty whatsoever. This is torture and the kind of self absorbed pseudo-elitism that makes me hate the word art. I guess Dumont sees himself as an artist and thats why it all feels so wrong, so fake and drenched in the reek of someone desperately trying to be different... and failing. I think this movie can be summed up with the endless train scene in the beginning... its repetitive, its without any beauty, its not entertaining and everyone can put in his own interpretations since an endless shot of a train+windmills must have a meaning, doesn't it? Or does it take endless shots of bored faces to be meaningful... or ugly sex on the border of rape? I don't care... watch irreversible, since that movie is shocking and has stunning cinematography and visuals and keeps your interest and massages your mind (although I think Noe has as little to say as Dumont, but he made a f***n MOVIE!). Avoid this by any means ...