|Page 10 of 17:||            |
|Index||169 reviews in total|
I have a hard time with films like this. On the one hand, it explicitly
deals with concepts that attract me. It is very clever and well enough
But there is balance between art meant to affect you and essays about the process. Nearly all films are a mix if the two what I call 'folds.' I like these because I think many of them work to drive the film deeper into my mind. But what if they don't? What if all the elements are there, but they are not assembled for effect, but to attract rubberneckers to a prancing contest? It just seems like I am watching a precocious adolescent French student.
And gosh, this has the brave Roxane Mesquida in a role where clearly she is lost.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
There are plenty of ideas out there, some of them should be turned into films and some of those do, and some of them should stay ideas alone but still get turned into films. Thats the case with Rubber, an inspired concept with an interesting twist that burns out on pretentious japes and a misbegotten sense of superiority. Its a film about a tyre, a tyre called Robert. Robert comes alive and kills things with his mind. He rolls around, makes heads explode with mind power and falls in love. But Rubber is also a film about a film, this film about a tyre called Robert, who comes alive, etc. This film is viewed through binoculars, out in the desert by a disparate collection of cinephiles. Its an interesting development, the viewer and the film coexistent in the same cinematic world, and Rubber develops things further, having the film dependent upon the viewer. Unfortunately writer/director Quentin Dupieux has neither the appropriate insane sensibility nor the smarts to handle a mutant b movie/meta-cinematic jape, and the film ends up a little weak. There's good material here, but only really enough for a short, even at the trim runtime of some 75 minutes Rubber drags. And worse than that it insults, there's an opportunity in its notion of the relationship between viewer and movie for great uplift and charm but instead the viewer is treated as interruptor, as cynic and spoiler. In some cases its not an unfair insight, but it comes across as nothing more than film student posture, somewhat annoying. Its a shame as the central image of tyre on a mission is engaging, there are a few nifty head explosions and many nicely done after the fact corpses, there are some imaginative scenes and some pretty amusing ones, but things are repetitive and there's little momentum. The game performances come across as a little wasted as well, Stephen Spinella holds things together beautifully as the oddball sheriff at the heart of affairs, cheerfully unhinged and smiley, Wings Hauser is solid as an old timer with some smarts up his sleeve and Roxanne Mesquida cuts a compelling figure as the object of Robert's affections, lighting the screen with her stunning looks (though she is kinda embarrassing at the end when she talks). But for all this I can't bring myself to flunk the film. Openly flaunting weirdness and difference, out to divide and even annoy its a thing of laudable ambition even though ultimately it isn't that great. I was annoyed to be sure, but I was never really bored, it had me thinking, questioning and laughing and even mildly cheering at times. Its a tricky call, but I'd say this is worth investigating if it interests as it may just grab you and if it doesn't it'll surely have you fuming, and any film that can really make you fume is something of an achievement in itself. A cautionary 5/10 I think
When Robert, a tire, discovers his destructive telepathic powers, he
soon sets his sights on a desert town; in particular, a mysterious
woman becomes his obsession.
The film opens with some surreal imagery, some utter nonsense, and then the lines that explain everything you will see for the next hour: the "no reason" speech. Why do things happen in movies? As they say, sometimes for no reason (Why is ET brown?) This film takes that principle to the next level.
With a tire being the main character, not many actors get enough screen time to really develop their roles. I would have liked to see more of Haley Ramm. I did not know her, despite her lengthy resume (she was young Jean Grey, for example)... I would like to see her in more things, get more starring roles. Perhaps in "Red State"?
Pretentious bilge. Turned it off after 5 minutes. This is what happens when one spends too much time in film school. I know a kid at Chapman. I'll hold this up as a cautionary lesson. Far better to make infomercials for bogus MLM products than anything like this. Since IMDb requires a minimum of ten lines for a review I'll just pad this out until I reach the minimum. There's no cause to read any further. I am not wasting you're time. IMDb is. I have nothing more to say, which is more than I can say for the people who made this movie. But still I can wonder who is worse? The creators, or the financial backers who blew a wad on this tripe, when they could have been putting money into Habitat for Humanity, the Malibu 4H Club, or other worthier causes. 10 lines. Hooray!
RUBBER sounds much more interesting then it really is. Like many comments here, I agree that I expected to like it. Film is a great medium to just say "Screw it - let's shake things up." But aside from the tire being able to destroy things, there is nothing that unique about the movie. And the opening - which hits you over the head to set up the "no reason" theme of the script - just does not work. The actor is not very good who delivers his monologue to the camera and also - some of the examples he uses of other famous movies that have things happen for "no reason" fails miserably with the Pianist - he asks "why does he hide?" "No reason." Uh - no. Sorry. he's hiding from the Nazis who want to kill him. That is a damn good reason to hide. The film is well shot but that's about it. The concept, the script, it's all a mess. I think this French director had too many long lunches with too many glasses of wine as he conceived this. Maybe you do need to be drunk to like this. But I sure didn't.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In this overly silly film, with it's odd plot, twists & turns is bound
to be a cult classic some day. In it, a killer tire named Robert leaves
his desert home & runs over pop cans & water bottles & then makes beer
bottles & rabbits explode using his telekinetic powers. When he tires
(No pun intended) of this, he hits a small town where he spies on girls
taking showers, watches TV in a motel, takes a swim, takes a shower &
then causes peoples heads to explode all the while being watched by a
starving audience in the desert, who view his life through a pair of
binoculars. Sounds weird huh? & how is that for a plot? Highly
original, but at the same time down right too weird to be funny, RUBBER
contains no scares in order for it to be classified as a horror film.
But how many films can you name where the villain is a killer tire?
RUBBER has managed to make a name for itself for such a low budget
production. Fans have been talking on the internet about it's weird
plot, so I myself just had to see it & while I find the film has a
weird energy to it, I thought it was down right horrible, still it was
so weird that I couldn't help but be taken along for the ride. Some of
the acting is uneven, but the direction is surprisingly good & those
looking for a totally weird movie to sit & watch need not look any
further than this, love it or hate it, RUBBER is a film you will never
forget & every time you look at a tire, you'll think of this film, like
I said, it's terrible, but in a good way, it's enjoyable & not so bad
you can't stomach it. Definitely not for everyone, but if you're a fan
of the truly outrageous, I say rent this baby now, hit play, sit down &
enjoy the weird mayhem.
A good old fashioned Troma-esque horror, packed full of cheap gags, over the top comedy violence and a big dollop of t&a - these were my expectations for Quentin Depieux's "Rubber" a movie about a killer tyre named Robert roaming the desert blowing off human heads with its telekinetic powers. I mean what other possible expectations are there to be had with a synopsis like that? But how wrong was I? From the very first frame I could see this was not going to be the schlock horror exploitation flick that I had envisioned, instead I was presented with a movie that is as smart and witty as anything from the genre that I have seen in quite some time, featuring excellent performances from the principle actors (where did Quentin find that tyre?) and some beautiful cinematography that almost has the movie bordering more on art house than grind house! On the flip-side it does suffer with pacing problems at times and the long periods of no dialogue tend to drag a little but clocking in at a meagre 85 minutes this can be easily overlooked. For anyone looking for something a little bit different then I would definitely recommend Rubber, it probably is the best killer tyre movie you are likely to ever see!
Yeah i get the point, that there was no reason for the events that were
happening. So? Does it mean that they have to bore us with this?
There was no line to the movie, i hadn't gone anywhere during the whole time. I mean, HOW did someone approve it to see the light of day?
I do not think that in normal world there would be an audience for this movie, but i guess that we do not live in a normal world since there was not only the audience, but the makers too.
This movie was total boredom, something that kids at school would make. Not serious producers. They owe me 84 minutes of my life now.
Since this day i will not rely on IMDb ratings for movies. I thought this one was OK, but its rating should not go over 2.
This movie is so bad. The idea that this film was made boggles the
mind. There is no entertainment value at all. The trailer makes this
movie seem like it'll be good campy fun, but no, it is total rubbish.
The worst part is that a 12 year old with a camera and this premise
could turn around and at least produce a watchable movie, unlike this
I would honestly want to brutally harm the makers of this movie for what they put me through watching this garbage. I am getting madder the more I write about it.
The actors should hopefully never act again.
The writer/director hopefully will never do either of those again.
I'm sick just thinking about how something this truly terrible happened.
First, VERY glad I watched this as a 'New Release' rental. Several
months ago, it was 'premiered' on demand, and the price to watch it was
$9.99. Fortunately, with our low budget, I couldn't justify the expense
just because Rubber was featured in Fangoria magazine. I wish it had
been a .99 rental, because that's what it's worth, tops. If I *had*
paid that $10 to see this movie, I would have been enraged at myself
and my stupid mistake and trying to figure out a way to get the price
If I'd seen this for free, it wouldn't have been worth it. I've never said this in a review before, but I want the 90 minutes of my life back that I wasted watching this VERY over-rated flick. I got a bad feeling very early on when a character (the most irritating one in the entire movie, turns out) breaks the fourth wall within a minute tops of the start. Now, a decent script, or premise can pull this off. "Why is the alien in ET brown? No reason." Then with each example given ("Why do the two main characters in Love Story fall madly in love? No reason") I got increasingly worried we'd wasted a rental, but also started getting insulted. Then, in a very condescending way, he points out that all good movies must have an element of NO REASON (I am capitalizing that it due to the fact it got shoved down our throats over and over his whole monologue ...in less than 5 minutes I was sick of it). Uh, dude? I hate to break it to you, but you're not exactly Tarantino (who can come off as arrogant during interviews, but has also earned it) giving a lecture to film students. After he establishes the fact that we're all total morons he says this 'film' is an homage to that crucial element of NO REASON. Believe it or not, the film manages to become more insulting as it slooowly plays out. There's no need for me to give you examples--not because of spoilers (it's already spoiled rotten, trust me) but out of courtesy to anyone reading-it wasn't worth wasting paper to print the screenplay, definitely not worth repeating.
Here's an example, though. Did you get insulted by the appearance of the rat at the end of The Departed (like everyone else I've talked to, even the ones who are not big movie geeks)? Then BEWARE this movie. Imagine if the rest of The Departed that preceded the rat was NOT entertaining, well-acted, well-written, well-directed and cool enough that you let that insult to your intelligence go. The makers of Rubber might as well have flashed signs every five minutes or a non-stop teletype in huge letters reading LOOK HOW UNEXPECTED AND QUIRKY WE ARE! ARE YOU SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE GENIUS OF THIS? The only semblance of a plot in this movie is already given in whatever the sentence or two on the box pitching it to you: for no apparent reason, a tire with the ability to make things (mostly human heads) explode goes on a killing spree. By the way, that summary is much more interesting than the actual movie. They also have the nerve to brag in a DVD extra that Rubber is also homage to the grind house movies of the 70s. First, no. Second, I know what a good, fun grind house tribute looks like: Planet Terror, Machete are a couple. Good, fun-to-watch movies with unexplained elements, that are hard to second guess: Nowhere, Storytelling, and the original Feast are a few who do it MUCH better. Take 10 minutes of any of the above movies I named and watch-even the worst 10 minutes of these are still better than the entire running time of Rubber.
If 90% of the movie deliberately makes no sense, then whoever is responsible better make sure than the movie is very good, and worth seeing. By the end of the first act-- woop, wait, this movie doesn't have discernible acts, so I'll say 20 minutes tops--I said out loud, "OK, now you're not even f--king trying." If you're curious what the 3 stars I gave it are for (actually, while writing this review, I decided I was being too generous and wish I could knock it back to two stars) then here it is. One for supporting indie films (in general, not this one), another for some pretty well-done gore (no obvious CGI), then I break the third down into parts: cool title, good and occasionally amusing puppetry of Robert the killer tire, decent enough art direction, and...uh... I guess that's it, round it up to 3.
Just in case you're still tempted to watch Rubber (God knows why), here's seven reasons for the remaining seven stars I did NOT give it: 1. a half-decent premise that goes absolutely nowhere 2. trying to pass off sloppy writing as deliberate non-conformance and ultra-cool rule-breaking 3. deliberately random events (and dialog) to make the movie seem edgy 4. clumsy breaking of the fourth wall 5. not even pretending to attempt any semblance of characterization 6. a slow pace that never pays off 7. categorizing the movie under 'comedy' when it only offers a couple half-hearted chuckles. However, the condescending tone (hey, we're already renting a non-mainstream movie, independently released, so how about deciding we are all not necessarily virgins to a non-traditional format) ranging from mildly irritating to insulting time is still by far #1 on my sh-t list for Rubber, though.
I sat through the whole thing because I thought it might be worth taking a chance on. Please, learn from my mistake! Life's already short and there's too many GOOD indie movies (and mainstream too, now that I think of it) worth your time to watch instead.
|Page 10 of 17:||            |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|