|Page 9 of 17:||             |
|Index||170 reviews in total|
You know how we are sometimes exposed to a monkey that slings paint on
a canvass and be expected to call it genius? That is how this movie
goes. It tries way too hard to be something it most certainly isn't.
The chick in room 15 was cute though.
Not a single performer in this movie seemed to have any credible acting experience. The plot was a joke. The "chorus" of observers never added anything insightful (to me).
I hope that the rest of this guy's movies are not on the same par or else his career will end before it ever had a chance to take off.
Save your time and skip this one.
The thing is, I looked at some of the other reviews and I could see one
common thing. You watch this movie with your mind set to: "Hollywood
next!" This is'nt one of those films! This film should be watched with
the mind set to: "Artistic and strange!"
Call it an homage to "No reason". You can look for a more stupid film and never find it, because this film lack everything. All you see unfolding before your eyes happens with no reason! At the end nothing can be answerd, you wont be smarter, you wont now where to put it in your collection and you don't really now how to describe it. Just because it's an artistic movie. It's not supposed to be brilliant and fun, not there to join Transformers at the top of the billboard. It's there to be different, and therefor you only should wathc it with that in mind. Because thats the only way you will be able to appriciete it!
Great movie that gave me a lot of laughs and a lot of "no reasons": "Why did he nock over those chairs?" "Why did he travel in the trunk?" "Why did he pour out that glass of water?" "Why did he jump into the pool?" "Why did he destroy that bottle?" "Why why why..."
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So you think you've seen it all; wait just a moment and put your peepers on Quentin Dupieux's homage to low-budget revenge films. The plot may sound ridiculous and qualify as a piece of schlock with embedded absurdity. But on the other hand writer/director Dupieux has an interesting perspective, and even old clichés are humorous in this subtle lampoon that stars a passenger car tire(named Robert). About a dozen film buffs are gathered in a Southwest desert and are given binoculars to watch the tire roll around, fall down, and then begin to use its psychic powers to dole out some revenge just for the sake of it. He blows up bunnies, birds, rolls over bottles...and blows the heads off of people. When Robert gets up on the highway he spies a beautiful girl(Roxane Mesquida) that he will follow and stalk in the hopes of a love connection...as if every hot chick craves a telekinetic car tire. You have to have the right mindset to really enjoy this whimsical comedy. FX are super causing you to ponder the movement of Robert. In the cast: Stephen Spinella, Jack Plotnick, Ethan Cohn, Hayley Holmes, Charley Koontz and Wings Hauser.
This film started out excellent (first 20 minutes). I had to pause to
go to work, and I was telling co-workers about it. The idea of those
1970's suspense films brought to today using a tire as the antagonist
seemed to be pretty brilliant, and the film maker started down the
I just had the chance to finish it, and what a let down. The film has a great premise, but the plot just seemed to vanish and it turned into a series of "breaking form" gimmicks.
The acting was marginal, and the way the film ends is such a let down. There are a few funny scenes, so it's worth a watch after all the 7+ films on IMDb have been watched...
Seems like "B-" final project from a film student...
People who have seen the previews for this film can be forgiven for thinking that this is just another goofy horror-comedy, the type usually made by Troma Entertainment inc. The previews are a bit misleading. Even though you will see some heads explode, rubber is not really a horror film. You will chuckle watching some of the scenes in this film but it is not really a dark comedy either. It is not an art-house film, nor is it a experimental film nor and auteur film. Interestingly, it blends a little bit of all the aforementioned genres of films together with amazingly beautiful cinematography. yes that's right, one of the strongest feature of this film is it's photography; shot in the desert at sunset. If you're about to watch this film thinking that you are about to see a goofy, gory, crazy, funny horror film you will surely be disappointed but if, on the other hand, you want to watch this film thinking that you are about to watch a BEAUTIFULLY SHOT ABSURD film (and I want to stress the absurd) then you may find it worth your while. Like I said before the previews for this film are very misleading.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I first came across the basic premise of this film in a short piece in
a magazine that I do not recall the name of last year. The basic idea
of the film is simple: A car tyre (named Robert - go figure!)finds
pleasure in killing, and so goes on a rampage in the desert. Sold! Of
course I had no high expectations of such a silly idea, and was just
expecting a run of the mill genre piece in the vein of something like,
insert silly killer-thing movie here (that's right, I can't think of
any at this point). However, this is not such a genre piece, and is in
fact a movie with pseudo-art-house pretensions. This next sentence does
come from me, who revels in the silly, obscure, and utterly bizarre
side of cinema: but this film is f*****g odd. I have no deep analytical
ideas of what the writer/director (Quenten Dupieux) is exactly trying
to achieve. Only that I believe it is an observation/criticism of
cinematic spectatorship as it stands today. The only way I can
represent this film is by simply describing what happens; something I
generally try to avoid when writing about cinema. So here it goes.
The film opens in a desert. The police lieutenant of a small town (played by Stephen Spinella) approaches a group of people positioned below the camera. He then begins his address, which is also directed at us as an almost latecomer to the 'audience'. (Now, all of this is ad libed as I saw this about a month or so ago and will not remember word for word.) The Brectian distanciation that follows describes a few Hollywood movies where things that happen in them 'for no reason'. The one that sticks in my mind is that in Oliver Stones JFK, a man assassinates the president of the United States 'for no reason'. (I remember this one for its absurdity). Lieutenant Chad (as he is called) completes the monologue by essentially stating that in this film, things happen for no reason. Don't question, just enjoy the movie. The camera then directs us onto the on screen audience who are all handed binoculars and advised to enjoy the movie, and they are left alone to wait, and wait for 'something' to happen.
This is where that basic premise kicks in and Robert, the car tyre, awakens from the sand to make its first steps (sic) into his new consciousness. After a tricky few attempts at keeping up right, Robert runs over a plastic bottle. He does this delicately as you can almost sense the pleasure he gets from the act of crushing the object. Suffice to say, he moves up to animals. Firstly a scorpion. However, he runs over a metal can which he discovers is not so easy to crush. So, he rewinds and 'looks' at the object from a slight distance. A noise of distortion and high-pitched screeching develops and he begins to throb. Then, the can explodes. So we discover that Robert has some kind of telekenetic powers of destruction of the type seen in David Cronenberg's Scanners. Pretty ordinary comedy-horror right? Wrong.
OK so Robert does eventually, and obviously, moves onto humans, by which time he has honed his powers so that he only blows up the heads of humans. However, this is not the odd and interesting part of the film. As the desert audience of people are commenting and observing the 'movie' they watch through binoculars, the 'organisers' of this event wheel in a rack of meat, which the spectators devour very quickly (except for one redneck type who continues viewing from the comfort of his deck chair). Shortly after this the audience all die from food poisoning. Part of the way through a scene being acted out in the town the audience watch, Chad (the Lieutenant) calls all together, advises that they have all done a good job, and they no longer need to continue as the audience are all dead. Then the same organiser that presented the meat to the audience, approaches Chad to tell him the news that there is still an audience member watching. He then orders all back, and then tells them the news, and that they all have to carry on with the film till the end (an end we later discover has never even been written).
OK, so this is enough description of 'what happens'. It really is a film that defies what you expect from it. I genuinely did not expect any of this, and really thought it would be simply about a killer tyre. So, this is why I'm writing about it. Its something that I have never seen before. In fact, it has been one of those films that has stuck with me. When I first finished watching it, I was not even sure if I enjoyed or liked it. However, the narrative as a whole played over in me through the proceeding days and I just about told everyone that would listen about it (to be fair, none of them have watched it). I don't know why, cause I talked about it with such passion, that I only really usually have for films that have touched me on an emotional or intellectual level. But this touched me on a level that I can only guess at as bemusement. As I've played the concept over in my head, I can only assume that what Quenton Depieux wants to illustrate is that audiences will watch any old rubbish. not much of an analysis, but people do watch rubbish to death (in this film literally). It defies categorisation, and is certainly on my list of films that I recommend to people just for its shear originality. Unless there is anyone out there that can suggest any film comparisons (I'd very much like to hear from them). Enjoy!
This movie is straight forward and meaningless, yet with a lot of meaning. Consider it a satire! It mocks the movie industry and all of it's cliché's. It criticizes the movie industry in a subtle way, claiming that all movies have predictable and outdated concepts and plots. The makers of this movie intended for it to be very subtle, so if you can't see it, than this movie would be a very pointless waste of time; redundancy on purpose. If you're curious and really want to see the satire of it, don't over-think what you are watching, and notice how each scene connects to all movies in general. It's on Netflix if you are interested in watching.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am not well versed in the world of moviesI haven't even seen Pulp
Fiction but after watching Quentin Dupieux's Rubber, I feel Im within
my rights to say that it is one of a kind. No longer does it seem that
movies are required to make any sense at all, as Rubber is a baffling
conglomeration of confusion, feigned sophistication and gore. It is an
insane, not to say sane, story about a homicidal car tire named Robert
who possesses the inexplicable and incredible telekinetic power to blow
things up, mainly people's heads. Couple this with a plethora of shoddy
acting and cheesy lines and you get the perfect storm of crappy movies.
Are you kidding me? A car tire roams the desert wasteland blowing
people's heads up for shits and giggles? What a joke.
The movie begins with actor Stephen Spinella emerging from the trunk of a police cruiser, giving a speech on how all movies contain an ample amount of "No reason." While I think that Quentin Dupieux is correct in stating this, the amount of "No reason" in this film is more disproportionate than a homunculus. If you ask me, there is "No reason" that Quentin should have made this movie. Throughout the movie, bizarre things with no relevance to the plot, if there even is one, occur randomly. In one scene, a car going down a road swerves wildly back and forth knocking over a series of chairs. In another, Robert creepily, if a tire even can be creepy, watches as actress Roxanne Mesquita takes a shower. These scenes exemplify what rubber is all about; confusing the viewer to no end.
Throughout the movie we gain glimpses of a group of spectators who are watching a movie within the movie unfold through binoculars. They are watching Robert and his actions, live from a nearby hill, while we are watching both the spectators and Robert. This film within a film concept is Quentin's attempt at making a subtle commentary on the relationship between film viewers and the director. However, this falls short, as the horrid acting and poorly written script inspired nothing more than a case of inexorable boredom. After having these viewers stupidly banter about nothing of importance for a several minutes, Quentin decides to kill almost all of them when a movie attendant brings them poisoned food. If Quentin was trying to say that he wants to kill his spectators of boredom, then he hit the nail on the head.
If you are the kind of person who cannot stand watching a movie that makes no sense, then rubber is not for you. There is absolutely no plot, the concepts Quentin tries to employ are poorly executed and make little sense, and much of the acting is rather poor. You will just wind up pulling out your hair and wondering if you will ever get that hour and a half of your life back. However, if you want to watch a wacky film just for the fun of it and laugh at the ridiculousness that is Rubber, then by all means watch it. The gory scenes of head explosions and dismembered limbs are shocking and at times amusing, and the acting is not entirely bad. Stephen Spinella's performance, in my opinion, is actually quite impressive. The cinematography in this movie is also very impressive. The images are crisp and sharp, and the camera angles and lighting were well suited to the individual scenes. In short, Rubber reaches for more than it realistically was ever going to achieve. Had Quentin made with movie just to be crazy and amusing, instead of sophisticated and insightful, it would be much more enjoyable.
Rising from the dirt of the desert, we see Robert. He, or it, is a
tire. We are not quite sure where Robert is headed and what he wants as
he strolls through desolate and barren lands. Our view of Robert as an
innocent and lost tire completely changes when he bumps into a bunny,
which he blows up. (A bunny!) How does Robert do it? Through his
supernatural telekinetic powers. Of course. I'm pretty sure Robert is
the most evil and violent tire in the history of the movies.
When watched as it is, "Rubber" is basically a horror comedy about a killer tire on the loose. Look closer, and it's an 82-minute wink to Hollywood and its appalling habit of repeatedly abusing the worn-out outlines and formulas that make up most of the movies today. I think writer and director Quentin Dupieux is on to something here. 2011 will showcase 27 sequels. One of them will mark the return of Alvin and those darn chipmunks, which I hope would one day bump into evil and violent Robert.
Official review here: http://localmoviereview.com/rubber-quick-review/
A lot of questions can be raised by this film; they all have the same answer... no reason. Why does the girl leave her motel room door open while taking a shower with the door open behind a sheer curtain? No reason. Why is the tire's shower curtain not opaque? No reason. This movie puts a disclaimer on the violation of any conventions, does what it wants and knows what it is from the beginning, daring anyone to question it. So, what else can we say about it? It is the pot calling itself black. Believe me, as you browse the shelves at Family Video or the online archives, you could do much worse that 'Rubber' (and I have... numerous times). In the end though, there's no real redeeming value. So why watch it? Still, no reason.
|Page 9 of 17:||             |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|