First of all, let met very strongly advise to see the movie yourself and to not overvalue the opinions given here as the director very strongly polarizes its audiences. Albeit it might seem not totally unfair to summarize the movie experience you are likely going to have by: the more you enjoy conventional film making, not necessarily Hollywood style, the less likely it is you will get much out of this film. Unfortunately the opposite does not hold much truth as the movie is very clearly absolutely no Haneke. Even the intelligent, open-minded, educated human being that tends to question values in general and American values in particular will still be able to find many reasons to detest at least certain aspects of the film. Now here comes the tragedy, the director is apparently enormously talented and it shows in many facets, even in this movie, but then again as is often in life, talent alone is not enough. Still there is some good dialog in the movie, the style fits the statement (even though one wonders at times about the statement), many aspects of depicted human behaviour seem very well captured. If only the director had put in marginal effort to make a movie his fellow human beings could at least like a little.

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.

Just finished this.....movie? I'm not sure what else to call it. It's 2 hours of watching 2 people, fight, drive, eat, f**k, swim, fight, f**k, drive, eat, pee, f**k, and ON and ON and ON!!!!!!! Eventually, they are raped and killed. All this happens in the mystical beauty of the American Southwestern Desert. So, was it good? I have no idea. Was it art? Sure, why not. One thing I will say is that every time I wanted to shut this film off, I didn't, and I'm not sure why. Maybe it was because the lead actress was smoking hot and couldn't seem to keep her clothes on for more than 15 minutes. Maybe it was because I really wanted to see the main guy if this film get hit by a bus. Why does every guy in this movie scream when they have an orgasm like somebody just dumped boiling water on their genitals? Ugh?!?! Would I watch it again? Probably not. 29 Palms will undoubtedly haunt my mind for a few days. If this is what the director was going for, then bravo. I've also received the same effect after seeing a 300 pound women in a bikini. That incident didn't take 2 hours of my life away. For what its worth, the two lead actors did a damn good job acting like a dysfunctional couple on a road trip. I've been there, only nobody raped or killed me because of it.

sorry people: no amount of pseudo-intellectual drivel can justify the dog's breakfast. a horror movie with no actual horror? that's not experimental, that's crap. whoever said movies about images and not story is totally, completely, wrong. Paintings are about images. Movies are about story, plot, characterisation...these things a movie make. if images are your thing, go to a gallery. don't try and excuse self-indulgent cinematic vomit. this film takes an hour and a half for nothing to happen; when it does, it's out of the blue, out of context and out of proportion. the preceding ninety minutes do nothing to build suspense, they are merely boring. nothing about the characters is explained, no back-story is given, and when the inevitable violence occurs, it's relief to know that these two examples of human excrement will not disgrace our screens further. i want my two hours back. rapid painful death to those who drive hummers.