Rubber (2010) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
219 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Why is this such a great film?
georgemcgilvray30 May 2015
No reason.

Why do people hate this film? No reason.

Why do people love this film? No reason.

Why did they make this film? No reason.

Why did we all watch this film? No reason.

Why do we want to watch this film again? No reason.

Why haven't they make a sequel? No reason.

Why would we watch that sequel if it was made? No reason.

Why is the tyre called Robert? Watch until the very end of the film to find out...
105 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Deep Tread Indeed in this Particular Tire
jd7myers-16 March 2011
It was a rainy Sunday and I went looking for cheese, but found a savory meal. Frankly, I was hoping to kill off a few brain cells in the mindless fun of watching a movie about a killer tire. Expecting something along the lines of Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, I wanted to drown myself in delicious B-movie goodness. This coming from the man that cannot change the channel when my remote calls up images of Joan Collins being eaten by giant ants in Empire of the Ants.

Yet soon I realized that this film was so much more than horror spoof or a silly gimmick film. The movie opens with a desert road randomly strewn with simple wooden parsonage chairs facing in all directions. Next a car appears and begins deliberately swerving into the chairs, breaking each one of them, until it comes to a halt. At that point, a sheriff emerges (from out of the trunk?!) and knocks on the driver door where he is handed a full glass of water. The sheriff breaks the fourth wall and begins addressing the audience by speaking of the "no reason" principle of famous movies like E.T., Love Story and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This narration immediately reminded me of the criminologist from Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I suddenly did not know what to expect from this movie.

I honestly think the less said about this film the better. Suffice it to say that Rubber is one part B-movie schlock, one part David Lynch, and one part Hitchcock. (Did I just actually go there?) On my first watching of the movie, I appreciated its style. The camera angles, the homage to Psycho, the riveting and unnerving sound track were somehow quite effective in producing suspense. Quite remarkable when the serial tire is a generic tire! Juxtaposed against this atmospheric cinematography was a very healthy dose of absurdity and dark humor. This makes for an extremely interesting viewing experience, where the audience switches abruptly from anticipation to laughter to abject confusion.

The sheriff tells us that there is "no reason" for this film. What a deceit! Because there is a reason for virtually everything – from the opening scene of the destruction of chairs, to the irony of a Nascar race, to the well placed remake of the song "Just Don't Want to be Lonely" to (yes!) the turkey. Irony abounds even as our in character heroine proclaims that she cannot read the lines of dialog because they are garbage.

The second time I watched this movie, I focused on its true theme. I realized with delight that the movie is about movies and their audiences. Pay very close attention to every scene with the bystanders on the road and you will realize that the killer tire story is not the actual plot at all. Also, on second viewing, you can revel in the brilliant personification of the killer tire (Robert). A tire that learns, sleeps, recreates, dreams, and even has flashbacks to his previous inanimate incarnation on an actual car. Observe the film structure and use of the reflecting glass and incineration scene as key catalysts. You will be amazed at all you missed when first watching this movie.

Astonishingly, this became my favorite movie of 2011 so far. Lovers of film should not miss this.
203 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I expected it to be more fun.
Matt_Layden29 January 2011
A movie about a killer tire sounds like the most ridiculous concept next to someone creating a human centipede. Yet, these two concepts did in fact make it onto film and both of them failed to meet their absurdly high expectations. The film is a homage to 'no reason', as we are told at the beginning and when a film is created for no reason, you know you are in trouble.

The film opens with a character talking directly to the viewer by breaking the fourth wall. He states the the film has no purpose, so he is actually preparing you for the most useless film you'll ever see. Unless of course you've been one of the special few who have seen The Room. As interesting as this may be, it's also a drawback. Why would someone think that to interest an audience, you need to tell them from the beginning that everything has no purpose what so ever. It makes the audience feel like they are wasting their time. Rubber wasted my time.

I don't know why the prospect of a killer tire that makes your head explode sounded good to me, but it did. I thought I was in for a ridiculously cheesy good time. I got something else entirely. A boring, redundant film that has no fun factor. The audience is actually a part of the film, represented by a few people who actually watch the events unfold and make comments. Again, an interesting concept that never materializes.

I give the film credit for looking great, it never felt like a cheap film to me. They get creative when shooting scenes with the tire, they make the killer tire really seem to have a mind of it's own. They actually give it a name in the credits, Robert. All this creativity is wasted though on a script that bores the hell out of the viewer. They were on a mission to make a film with no purpose, good job they achieved it.
127 out of 204 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A horror film about technique and style
Da-Ant21 January 2011
"The film you are about to see is an homage to 'no reason', that most powerful element of style." This is the manifesto that opens Rubber, delivered directly to the audience in a breaking of the fourth wall that is somewhat like taking a pound of dynamite to a pane of glass.

Rubber is a "horror" film about a black rubber car tyre that kills people by making their heads explode. With telepathy. And when I say "horror" I do of course mean "side-splittingly funny, pitch black, absurdist comedy." The opening scenes of Rubber are a deliberate assault on the separation between the audience and the film. Normally the opening sequence of a film seeks to bring you into the world of the film; the audience is encouraged to step through the silver screen and forget about the real world for the duration of the story. Rubber perverts these expectations. The film comes crashing through the screen, into the world of the audience. It reminds us at every turn that we are watching a film, and indeed that the very act of our watching is what makes the film happen.

There are actually two plot lines at work in Rubber. The first concerns a murderous inanimate object , an innocent but spirited young woman on the run from some troubled element of her past, and the county sheriff on the trail of the vulcanised psychopath. This is ostensibly the core thread of the movie, but we soon see that this action only serves as a literal distraction for the audience, who exist in the film, embodied as actual participants, though ones who remain clearly and distinctly removed from the action, watching events at a distance through field glasses. This distraction covers the real story, that of the sheriff, who is in fact the antagonist of the story, attempting to kill off the audience (through the manoeuvrings of his toady, The Accountant) so that the film can end and he can go home.

The movie within the movie begins with a sequence that could have come straight from Leone's scrapbook. A man lies face down in a desert. Slowly, he rises, and shakes himself off. He staggers along, and falls. He rises again, and continues to stagger on, through the endless desert. Except that the "man" in question is a rubber tyre (Roger, according to the credits). This is the brilliance of Rubber; that it can appropriate the cinematic language that we are so familiar with, and apply it to situations that cannot be anything but utterly absurd.

Other scenes lift from a variety of sources, including a sequence that takes place in what is clearly the Bates hotel from the original Psycho. For a film that claims to be dedicated to meaninglessness, it is ironic that not a single frame is without a clear purpose. Every shot serves to either ensconce us in the impossible world of a rubber tyre who murders people, or tear us forcibly out of it, as we return repeatedly to the plight of the poor audience, stranded in the desert with no food, and prey to depredations of a murderous cast member, or possibly character. It's never clear whether the antagonist is an actor who wants to stop playing his role, or a character in a story who wants the story itself to end; the latter appeals, if only for its deeply apocalyptic subtext. When the film ends, where does the character go?).

Even the choice of the supposed villain must have taken a great deal of thought. It's such an elegant choice; an object capable of locomotion, but without moving parts to cutely animate. Something that has an element of menace (after all, a tyre, attached to a vehicle, can do a lot of damage), but is also innately ridiculous. An object that can fulfill the emotive needs of the film yet has remarkably little capacity to emote. Consider that all this thing can do is roll forward, roll backwards, fall over, stand up, and vibrate its sides. That's a sum total of five things you can ask your star to do for you on screen. As a film-making challenge alone, that's a spectacular feat to undertake.

I could go on for days about the tiniest of "seemingly irrelevant but incredibly well thought out" details that litter the film. That Rubber invites such complex readings is a testament to the subtlety that underlies the simple brilliance of the film itself. Whatever you may think about the subtext and meaning of this supposedly meaningless film, it doesn't really matter if Rubber "means" anything or not, because whatever else it may be, the film is absolutely hilarious. We are talking literal "tears of laughter" funny here.

Quentin Dupieux provides us with excellent cinematography, full of lingering establishing shots and vivid, often deliberately off-frame close-ups, and the cast all turn in magnificent performances, especially Jack Plotnick, who demonstrates the ability to carry a scene from laugh out loud funny to deeply uncomfortable in a matter of seconds. The script is tightly written, and the humour builds on itself in layers, rising from the initial "WTF?" moments of nervous laughter to the farcical crescendo of the closing scenes, where every element of the film collides in a scene that, if nothing else, will mean that I'll never look at tricycles the same way again.

I could continue to pick at Rubber, pulling out detail after detail, examining each one in turn to find new facets, new thoughts and revelations. None of that really matters though; what you need to know is that Rubber is the strangest, funniest, and most dazzlingly original film you will see this year, and considering that Scott Pilgrim vs The World just came out, that's one hell of an achievement.

Originally from
103 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
too much in love with itself to be original
Radu_A11 March 2011
Sigh... I've been really looking forward for this one. And the premise makes 'Rubber' sound almost irresistible. But there are two ways of killing off a smart movie idea: 1.) Believe that the idea works so well with the audience that it won't notice inconsistencies and bad acting. 2.) Constantly remind the audience what a smart idea it is watching.

Unfortunately, 'Rubber' succeeds in both: the only saving grace in terms of acting is Wings Hauser, the other leads make you seriously ponder an early leave. And what's with the pompous speeches? To be sure, 'Rubber' is not about taking you out or into a moment. It's about constantly reminding you that this moment isn't really happening. For some, that might be a nice existentialist twist. For others, like me, such ambition is completely out of place in a film about a tire blowing people's heads up.

If you'd edit this down to five minutes, you'd get a seriously hilarious short, though.

As for more rewarding options in the 'weird French horror film with excellent cinematography' section, I suggest 'Amer' (2009). It's equally pointless but delightful eye-candy (in the literal sense of the word).
81 out of 140 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rollin' Rollin' Rollin
evanston_dad2 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"Rubber" may be many things, but one thing it probably isn't is something like anything you've seen before.

Whether that's good or bad will have to be decided by the individual viewer. What to make of a movie that opens with a man addressing the camera directly with a soliloquy about the unifying principle of life and movies being that everything happens for no reason, and then sitting down an audience in the middle of the desert to watch the movie within the movie that we're watching before poisoning them all to death? What to make of a movie about a tire that comes to life and uses its telekinetic powers to make people's heads explode? Is this movie a cautionary environmental tale, a sort of revenge-of-the-trash horror film? Is it a deconstruction of the slasher/splatter genre? There are enough references to classic movies (and the film's structure itself is already reflexive) to suggest that "Rubber" is a riff on or homage to something, but what that something is I'm not sure.

"Rubber" isn't quite good enough to rise above film-stunt status; you can too often practically hear the people behind the camera congratulating each other on their own cleverness. But it is often quite funny, mostly thanks to Stephen Spinella, as the police officer who serves as both our guide and the chief of police on the trail of the killer tire, and Jack Plotnik, as the chief's geeky right-hand man. If it left me somewhat baffled, it also left me thinking about it for a long time afterward, and even now I think back on certain moments in the film with a chuckle.

Grade: B+
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a review of Rubber
allenelswick197916 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Rubber is a collection of scenes on film, held together by duct tape and bubble gum. The idea may have seemed great on paper but falls flat. From the start it tries to be clever and fails. However, stupid people will find the film clever and they will take pride in discovering the "cleverness" of it. When I say stupid people I'm not talking about high school drop outs or the guy working at the Shell station that has to count out forty cents to make change. I mean college educated adults that think they are cinema rebels. The kind of guy who screams about Michael Bay on a forum but stills pays to go see Transformers 2 three times. I will not call the movie stupid or horrible because its not. This movie is nothing, I mean it N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Could it be something, maybe, it could be a waste of time, it could be a "cult-hit" but in three years no one will even give it a second thought. Why I am writing this review, I can't really say other than I don't have a reason...
64 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I am Rubber, you are Glue. I'll blow up your head and roll over it, too!
Coventry15 February 2011
Which two words would you, and hopefully any other reasonable human being, use to describe a movie with a plot synopsis like this: an ordinary rubber tire comes to life in the middle of the Californian desert, quickly discovers that he disposes of dangerous telepathic powers and goes on a murderous stroll. The tire violently blows up people's heads left, right and center while a cinematic audience follows his joyful escapades from a safe distance through binoculars. Well, most likely but completely justified you will use the words "absurd" and "random". The most clever gimmick about this film, however, is that it actually points out the randomness before you even have the opportunity to ponder about it. "Rubber" opens with an extended spoken monologue by one of the characters and he repeatedly emphasizes the fact that everything in this film happens for absolutely no reason at all. Even more so, "Rubber" is an hour and a half long homage to randomness. Robert the tire comes to life for no reason. He can make small animals and human heads explode for no reason. He chases a cute brunette girl around for no reason. A group of bizarre people observe him like it's a real life movie for no reason. You get the picture.

One could claim, of course, that writer/director Quintin Dupieux' approach is innovative, courageous and humorous. This is true, in fact, but sadly just for a very brief period. The first few images of a seemingly half-drunken tire rolling through the sand and causing cute little bunny rabbits to explode are undeniably hilarious (if you share the same twisted sense of humor, that is) but it becomes dull and derivative enormously fast. The "no reason" gimmick quickly loses its panache and general fun-factor. Okay, so there's a psychopathic tire on a rampage and it doesn't make any sense. We would have understand that after five exploding heads instead of fifty as well. If "Rubber" had been a short feature, it would have been equally effective. Perhaps even more. Also, and this might be a purely personal opinion, I don't really like it when director hide themselves behind the randomness excuse. Everyone can think up a story that makes absolutely no sense. It's too easy like that. Obviously I think there are several good things to enjoy about "Rubber" as well, otherwise I wouldn't have given the average rating. The desolate filming locations and complementary references towards older movies are fun to spot. It was also tremendously cool to see former B-movie star Wings Hauser ("Night Shadows", "Vice Squad") in a prominent role again after so long. The special effects and make-up art look adorably cheesy and the electro/experimental soundtrack is quite awesome. The latter quality shouldn't come too much as a surprise, since writer/director Quintin Dupieux is primarily known as a musician and scored a humongous hit in the late 1990's as Mr. Oizo with "Flat Beat".
39 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
iwantyourjob8 May 2011
This movie is not for everyone. I understand some people will watch this Hitchcockian masterpiece, and walk away perplexed. As is the case with any work of art. This film will take you on a journey through an unimaginable, inexplicable, but fantastic life of a tire that goes by the name of Robert. This film is a tribute to classics like ... like ...I don't know, I was just joking anyway. This movie is TERRIBLE. If you could say it's about anything, it's about an "ANIMATE" tire, not an inanimate one as is described in the summary, but no reason to be a douche about it. It shakes, and rattles, and makes things blow up. And on top of that there's nothing on top of that. Personally, I can watch anything. I make watching bad movies my biznass. So I know bad movies. This movie falls into the category of, "Directors who want to see how long it will take before you walk out the theater in disgust." I need to work on my category titles but you get the idea.

Anyway, in this movie you're accompanied by a group of observers. There each handed a pair of binoculars so they can watch as the events unfold from a distance. They become the equivalent of some random jackass talking throughout a movie. As the observers observe even they get bored, and actually fall asleep while watching the same thing that your watching. That's when I knew the writers, and director of this film were laughing at my expense.

Now it's time for my mandatory negative review smart ass metaphor. If you want to experience this film, save your self the time, and money. Go find a spare tire, roll it down a hill, and then shoot yourself in the face.
104 out of 196 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
DEFINITELY not a film for everyone!
nixskits11 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
After seeing this peculiar, but compelling little picture, I really wonder more than before what the motives are that any of us have for making a pilgrimage to a theatre to watch a film! I found Rubber to be downright hilarious at times and very disturbing at others. Quentin Dupieux's oddball spectacle was 1 of the early sellouts at this past Fantasia festival and hearing so many people talking about the story's development made me want to check out the weirdness now that smaller venues are booking the flick for exhibition. This will alienate as many, if not many more, as it charms.

A mixed crowd of society's cross sections, not too much unlike the basic groups and eccentric individuals in a typical movie audience (slightly older know it all guys, obnoxious teens, thoughtful pre-teen, elderly folks overwhelmed by it all, video camera toting bootlegger, non-conformist cynic, etc.) are witnessing a spectacle many real people would go into the desert to see. A vulcanized utilitarian item which usually ends up as a child's toy tied to a tree or in a nightmarish inferno is coming to "life" and wreaking havoc on the animate and inanimate objects in it's path. Kind of like a spree murderer who gains instant notoriety and with each subsequent act of "violence", bringing more police and news attention to their progress.

You'll have to see the film yourself and make a determination of your own, because this in a strange way is like being 1 of many witnesses to an hypothetical crime spree. And we know that much eyewitness testimony is not entirely credible when under the scrutiny of trained interrogators & cold hard science like DNA, analogous to critics' dissections & box office gross! I'm glad I saw Rubber, but am not naive enough to think the majority of non-film buffs will agree. A challenging, intentionally frustrating piece of 21st century entertainment!
47 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why watch this film? No reason.
freestylewalkn216 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Rubber sure is different. It sure is unique. But you take a pile of dung and customize it with some glitter and ribbons, and although unique and different... it's still dung. I am surprised to see so many 7+ star reviews. They must be friends of the writer/director. Either that or some message board for rubber enthusiasts committed to building up this film. It's boring. The first half of the movie is a whole lot of "what the heck, what is this?". I waited patiently remembering all the positive reviews. Why? No reason. It's one of those movies where the only satisfaction you get out of finishing the movie is ending your curiosity, soon overcome by disappointment and frustration. And the entire film could be reduced to an eight minute short with no loss of effect. But let me save you the 80 minutes I wasted. Just don't. Why not? No reason (running theme in movie).

Spoilers to follow - but you should read anyways to save you wasted time of watching this pet project that I've never heard of. Why? HEY! There's a reason! It's bad.

There's this tire, it's possessed or alive or whatever. It moves and blows people up. It doesn't talk. It has no origin. It goes to a hotel and kills a bunch of people. Fake cops (don't worry about it) try to destroy it and it reincarnates as a tricycle. Then it goes to Hollywood with other tires following. End. Credits. Question marks. Disappointment. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not special. Why make this film? No reason. Just waste a whole lot of people's time. I wrote this review to save you 80 minutes of yours.

You're welcome.

You want something unique? Watch Teeth.
46 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The fact that the movie has no reason is alright, but it just didn't have enough to keep me entertained
KineticSeoul28 July 2011
Just because a movie has a low budget and is unique doesn't make it a good movie. My favorite part about this movie is basically the intro since it sort of pumps you up, it seemed like a excuse later on for the movie for not making any sense. Not only does the movie not make any sense the characters are very awkward, but that is what somewhat makes this movie interesting since the characters aren't super serious. The plot is basically about a serial killer tire that goes around blowing stuff and people up using psychokinetic powers. the awkwardness of the situations is what make this movie remotely intriguing. Also trying to figure out exactly what is going on is what drives this movie as well. I don't know if some scenes were intended to be funny, but it was sort of humorous at times which is a plus. The flaw is that the movie just wasn't all that fun to watch and was repetitive with lot of the time taking up with a tire rolling around. Just because it has a unique idea that hasn't really been done before just doesn't make a movie good sometimes and that applies to this movie. I was expecting at least a crazy final scene but that didn't really happen either.

16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Doesn't deserve all the talk/hype about it
white_fire420 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Much like anyone else who has seen this, or plans to see it, I was lured in by the trailers, in particular the "funny" one, which makes it seems like a seriously campy B movie, about a homicidal tire that goes around and blows things up, for apparently no reason other than it can.

Unfortunately, any/all humour is located in that trailer.

The movie opens, weirdly enough, with shots of many chairs, and a man holding too many binoculars. What occurs after seems to really have no reason, as a car starts driving down the road, knocking over all of these chairs (and in no way tries to hide the fact, they were made to crumble at the slightest tap) The car pulls in next to binocular man, a "sheriff" of sorts gets out of the trunk, taps on the window, is handed a glass of water, and proceeds to seemingly break the fourth wall, talking to the audience about movies that contained elements of no reason, such as why ET was brown. Somehow I don't think people were really scratching their heads about that back in the day, or even today, and the rest of the list he rambles off just made me think, this is going to be a preachy movie. And sure enough, because after the "sheriff" is done his spiel, the camera pans back to a crowd of people, the ones he was actually talking to, they are handed the binoculars, and begin to "watch" the movie with us *groan* From this point on, while the movie is occurring, (which in all truth, if you consider the parts about the tire and it's journey the real movie, is maybe 20 or 30 minutes in total), we are constantly reminded that this is all happening, because these people, and us, are watching. I'm sure to a select few, this is great art. And that's fine. But it also shows why this was never released en masse (at least until DVD/blu ray) to the public and in theaters. There would have been no point, as word would have spread like wild fire about the horrendous nature of this film.

Much like the opening monologue, explaining no reason, there is no reason to this film, and that's apparently the whole point. It's an homage to no reason. Absolutely nothing must make sense, and nothing must be explained.

So essentially, they took the most annoying, idiotic thing about movies (the things that are never explained) and packed that into a full movie, in a constant state of moving. The minute you realize this, you're dreading watching the rest, morbid curiosity or not. Had they decided not to be so god damn preachy and constantly reminding you, that this is not real, this is a movie, actually gone the dark humor/b movie horror route, it would have been much better.

There is gore in this movie, heads/animals explode, in true enough B movie fashion. That, and the scene where people shoot at the "sheriff" because he tells them to, to prove it's not real, are really the only interesting parts, in this entire movie.

And be fore warned, at least 20 minutes of this debacle is artsy shots, shots of the drab, desert landscape, shots of the tire rolling around aimlessly, shots of plants, shots of the tire drowning in a pool, just laying there *sighs* The ending, as well, will have you smacking yourself in the head, wondering why you watched this POS.

Also, do not be fooled by the description of the movie. There is no town. There is the desert spot where the people are watching....and there is a gas station, and a very crappy looking motel. Which is somewhere near Hollywood *rolls eyes* People claim that it does give you the unexpected, that it is clever in it's own right, that it is ingenious!! Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I think a lot of people are starting to get really blind to blatant stupidity, smacking them right in the face, and kicking them square in their ass. Watch, if you dare, because this is not a movie that is so bad, it's good. This is not Troll 2. This is a movie that a lot of money was put into, and there are no quirky catch phrases, or absurd plot devices aside from the sheriff shooting scene. There is just mind numbing, dragging you through mental hell torture.
31 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Inventive, stupid and completely unnecessary…yet offering something completely different
Scannain_com3 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
When I first heard that there was a new movie out about a tire that becomes a serial killer I was intrigued. When I learned that it is the work of French director Quentin Dupieux, I decided it was bound to be rubbish…until I discovered that Quentin Dupieux is better known as Mr. Oizo, the electro house musician who brought us the infectious 1999 hit single Flat Beat. Then I had to see it!

Rubber is the story of a tire. The tire's name is Robert. One day Robert becomes sentient and decides to venture out into the world. It's a moving scene as Robert takes his first halting rolls and discovers the joy of squashing a plastic bottle and then a scorpion, until he is stopped by a glass bottle. frustrated Robert soon discovers his true power…he can make things blow-up with his mind. Pretty soon he's on the road and heading straight for the local population and a mysterious girl who he sets his sights on. Meanwhile on a remote hillside the audience have gathered to watch his apparent path of wanton destruction, with intrigue, apathy, joy and sadness. Standing between them and their viewing pleasure is a cranky sheriff who really wants to go home, and the lack of food and basic resources, which sets the crowd on edge.

If that all sounds a bit weird then believe me that's not even the half of it. Rubber is a deeply strange movie. Robert is almost a sympathetic character. The way he is framed and the audience's investment in his "birth" and journey give him a Wall-E type of existence. He almost wish that he succeeds in his apparent mission of getting the girl. Roxane Mesquida plays the girl. Unfortunately she's given little else to do than be the token female. Aside from a brief scene were she's forced to try lure Robert into a trap she doesn't even say much. The real star of the show is Stephen Spinella as Lieutenant Chad, the world weary law-man who is convinced it's all a show and that the movie would be over if the audience just went away. He's opening monologue, direct to camera, is a work of twisted genius.

Spinella's opening monologue in fact sets the tone for the whole movie. Right off the bat you know that this is not a straight-forward horror, it's actually more satire or comedy than horror truth be told, with Spinella announcing that the movie exists "for no particular reason". Dupieux has managed to make a film that harks back to Kentucky Fried Movie and Airplane, without being a spoof, and has a cinematic quality that would be totally at home in a western. His framing of Robert is such as to make a viable character from an inanimate object. The decision to ignore the fourth wall, by placing the audience in the movie itself is a brave one, and mostly it works. It provides an aside to the central story, which is sadly lacking in legs, and imbues the entire movie with it's sense of oddness.

Inventive, stupid and completely unnecessary…yet offering something completely different Rubber is one that will confound and titillate in equal measures.
29 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absurdist comedy at its worst
pushfrog_20005 July 2012
Everything about this movie said it was going to be a delightfully trashy b-rated flick; a kitschy trip down the horror-comedy path starring a sentient, super-powered tire. Unfortunately, though, the heart of the film is lost within the folds of its uninspired meta-plagued script, indie-inspired filmography, and dry absurd jokes.

Although the film got a few laughs out of me, this movie is an acquired taste. Self-aware scripts should be like dollhouses, where you can break them open and see the differences from real life, but still get lost in the story. This one tried the route of pointing to the fourth walls, breaking them, and then telling you about it. While some people may enjoy it, the truth is that it is a style better suited for ministers with silly walks, and not a Woody Allen knock-off.

The acting was flat, save for our unreliable narrator, who was a delight. The jokes were predictable, the pacing was slow, and the director seemed far too pleased acting more intelligent than his audience.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretentious and cynical
chuchoter19 June 2011
This struck me as a film people were pained to sit through, but say they enjoyed to make themselves look cool. Outside of some nice camera-work and a good soundtrack, this was an hour and a half of pointless,cynical faffing around that would have done better as a short film.

The premise of Rubber is interesting, but does not carry the whole film. There are only so many times I can watch a tire roll around from different angles and explode heads, after which point it becomes excessive, gory and just plain boring. Films of course should convey a message, but they are at their heart entertainment. If you can't engage your audience (why are we watching a film based on no reason?) and we have no characters to become invested in, the film isn't good.

If we take Rubber as a discussion of Hollywood movies and mass media in general, how they are mindless, violent for no reason and feed on their audiences, continuing as long someone is watching (reality TV/blockbusters) and as time goes on becomes destructive and inane, that is an incredibly interesting topic to deal with and thats the worst part. Rubber could have been an incredibly interesting film, but instead it relied on poor acting, poor dialogue and constantly shoving metaphor and absurdity in our face. There is no subtlety at all. We are constantly told the film is pointless, not real etc etc. So why are we watching? The film hates movies, hates its audience which it poisons for being interested. Its so cynical you are left wondering, if cinema is so bad, instead of complaining about it, why don't they just make a good film?
26 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
How Do You Ruin a Movie About a Tire That Explodes Peoples' Heads?
aeryk-pierson14 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
You allow pretentious French DJ who has an ax to grind to write and direct it.

I don't know what happened in Quentin Dupieux's childhood to make him hate the world, but between cutting and pasting samples in his computer to create insipid techno music and his film Rubber, his contempt for his audience, regardless of medium, is clear.

This film is marketed as a throwback to grindhouse films, and it would have succeed beautifully if it were edited down to about 5 minutes. To keep others from befalling it's completely false advertising, here's what the movie actually is:

Eighty two minutes of "I'm-so-clever, huh?" diarrhea that causes a nasty diaper rash that no amount of soap, hot water and zinc oxide can clear. Thank you, so very, very much, Quentin Dupieux. You're a dear.

The actual plot involves some poor saps that have been forced to watch "the movie" from a nearby area in the desert, with binoculars. Luckily for them, some twerp comes along and poisons them, putting most out of their misery. Unfortunately for the actual audience, one person refuses to eat, and as a result does not die and therefore "the show" must go on.

The plot jumps back and forth between the movie (Robert, the tire, on a killing spree) and the "I'm-so-clever, huh?" trots, with most of the screen time, naturally, going to the trots. We're supposed to be OK with all this thanks to a Rent-a-Center Quentin Tarantino monologue at the beginning about things happening in films "for no reason," but even the village idiot can see through this pseudo-philosophical garbage.

For the love of all things good, please, please, please, stop Dupieux before he is allowed to gain that mysterious status that M. Night Shyamalan and Kevin Cosner have attained allowing them to continue to make films despite how blatantly incompetent they are.
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Novel concept, terrible execution
scott_thompson74541 May 2011
I wanted to like this movie. I really did. It is, after all, about a killer tire called Robert who discovers he has destructive telepathic powers and so goes on a killing rampage. What's not to like there? Unfortunately, the director is the most pretentious man on the planet and overloads the film with postmodern flourishes that don't work and serve merely to remind you of the far superior directors he is ripping off - e.g. David Lynch and Tobe Hooper. What could have been a fun low budget horror comedy ends up a tedious mish mash of genres and ideas. For instance, the audience is a part of the film, represented by a group of people watching the events unfold and commenting upon them. An interesting idea but the director doesn't know where to go with it and it ends up sidetracking the film. Rubber should have been fun but it's far from that - slow, not remotely amusing or nearly as clever as it thinks it is, badly acted and written, bog standard direction. When the best thing in your movie is Wings Hauser, you know you're in trouble. To (sort of) quote Homer Simpson, this movie was more boring than church.
39 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Tries to be too clever for its own good
pcwaterton24 April 2011
I had hoped for a mindless, easy watching film about a tyre which makes people's heads explode. If your expectations are similar, the tyre does make people's head explode, but beyond that it won't really be what you are looking for.

The film states that it is a 'homage to no reason', after a tedious opening monologue where one of the characters 'breaks the fourth wall' by regaling us (the audience - who are actually portrayed as watching the events of the film within the film) with a list of things in films which don't have any particular reason. Once he has tired of pointing these things out he then goes on list other things without reason ('Why can't we see the air? No reason.').

Apart from there being is a very good reason for why we can't see air, my main objection to this is that the film makers seem to think they are making a deep philosophical point, whereas the fact that things happen for no discernible reason has probably occurred to a lot of people. This sort of bullshit philosophy that spoils this film a bit for me; the film tells you it is trying to make a point, but its an 'emperors new clothes' situation with a serious point only being made if you really want to believe it is there.

Breaking the fourth wall is a common theme in the film, and the inclusion of an audience watching from afar within the film is a sort of cool idea, which sadly isn't used as well as it could be later on in the film.

The film is generally well shot, with a good soundtrack, but in the opening scenes this is relied upon too heavily. Watching the tyre learn and explore is interesting for a bit, and it is surprising how expressive a tyre can be, but the camera lingers a bit too much and the beginning of the film does drag.

Heads do explode (in quite a funny way), but this film is definitely not a gorefest. Instead the plot just sort of toddles along (a bit like the tyre) before grinding out a bit of an anticlimax.

In trying to make a film that is a homage to no reason, this film probably succeeds, though lacking any sort of drive or direction there isn't a hell of a lot of reason to watch it.
30 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rubber doesn't take itself seriously
AshkelontheDog2 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Rubber doesn't take itself seriously ! That is a good thing! I think that other viewers misunderstand the mocking of the "high art" sentimentality displayed. Moreover, Rubber has a seemly accusatory tone that thumbs it's nose at the live action spectators. Anyone who didn't have their "I'm pretentious hat" on should be able to recognize. The death of the spectators should give away that the movie isn't pandering to the intelligentsia.

I enjoyed watching Rubber, but I personally found Rubber slightly uncomfortable. The story line made me question how far I would be willing to go in pursuit of artistic observation. So if your looking for a movie that will solely entertain you...Watch Fast and Furious volume 9 million. If your looking for something that offers less escapism watch Rubber.

I will tell you that I would be far more willing to give my hard earned dollars to director Quentin Dupieux to make something interesting than to supply the Hollywood remake factory with one thin dime to destroy old movies with a plot.

Take a chance on Rubber!
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
LET THERE BE TIRE AND THERE WAS TIRE!...for absolutely NO REASON if I may add...
gabriel-gibin26 July 2014
Wow, where to start? Silliness? Nonsense? Idiocy? YES! But don't get me wrong, by no means is it just a silly movie. It starts off from the silliness of the premise but it, in my understanding, is pure existential joy. The opening speech (and entrance) by the cop, who introduces the whole concept is one of the greatest gems I have ever encountered - running over the chairs and, if you look closely, his gestures, the glass of water- oh my god! The glass of water lol! Priceless really!

I believe fans of brit humor like Monty Python or Fry and Laurie will enjoy this the most.

Probably most people don't get the point of this movie as it is not structured like a typical movie but I found it really amazing and quite enjoyable - I really missed movies like this one, GREAT but not for everyone.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you hate good movies, avoid at all costs.
SomethingPart216 July 2011
This movie has been getting a lot of really bad backlash and I really can't understand why, other than the people watching it are exactly the people who should not be. This film is entirely original, technically impressive, funny, amazingly shot, and just long enough to not overstay it's welcome. A lot of focus of reviewers relies too much on the fact that this is basically a movie about a tire that comes to life and starts to blow stuff up with it's mind. It's a lot more than that. This is more along the lines of Synecdoche, New York. It's very meta as we're introduced to a group of people in a desert that are watching the movie unfold with binoculars. They ask a lot of stupid questions and try to figure out what's going on until they're poisoned to death leaving one "audience member" alive to watch the rest of the film. All of the actors know they're actors and it just gets weirder from there. We watch "Robert" the tire slowly discover his power and what he's capable of starting with a plastic bottle and then going on a full on murdering spree after seeing something that makes him want to destroy humanity. There'a lot more going on here and it really is a lot of fun to watch. The shots look amazing, the music is great and the filmmakers even make it so you can understand what the tire is thinking and where it's coming from in the decisions it makes. It's ridiculous in all the right ways. If you're a fan of off center films that say a lot more than they seem you could watch a lot worse than Rubber. A hell of a lot. If you hate it, maybe you should wait for Scream 4 because bull crap is probably more up your alley. It's not for everyone but it certainly needs to be seen more than it is and it deserves more credit than it's getting.
21 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I Love this Movie!!!
jbwithjc20 May 2015
This movie is so great, is so many different ways. It's the type of film that's 'original' and 'rubbish' at the same time. In a way as if the director wrote the idea and then said to himself, 'this ideas rubbish, how will I get people to like it', and then pretty much says that at the beginning of the film. The film is a 'homage to the 'no reason'' in movies, like saying, OK, we know it's rubbish, but more taking the mickey out of rubbish films just like it, rather than being actually rubbish itself. Thought the film was complete genius, and would happily watch it again, several times. I mean, come on, the films about a telekinetic serial killer Tyre, that kills animals, bottles and makes human heads explode, what more could you want from a comedy / horror film, and the violence in it isn't too over the top, so is even a film that you can watch with your mum and enjoy and laugh at together.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The film bounced off me and stuck to my garbage can
giygas739 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film was completely terrible. From previous reviews, I expected a clever "B"-type flick. The film itself was not at all what I expected, and turned out to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The characters are completely dull, and have little to no actual personalities at all, or even real "roles" for that matter. The personification of the tire is a weak concept that is never really explained, and even at the beginning of the film we have a man explain to us that the movie essentially has no point/plot at all. The whole concept of people watching the "film" through binoculars was very confusing, and somehow was never really explained at all unless you just imagine the main cop character as being completely and utterly insane (or something of this general nature). I also found a lot of the sound effects/clips in the movie to be very annoying and overdone (like when the tire is using it's "telekinetic powers"). I really did not understand the premise of this film at all, and I seriously doubt that I missed anything important in this regard. The only remotely cool thing in this film is when people's heads explode, and even that was nothing special in terms of special effects.

Overall this film stinks like burning rubber shoved directly up my nostrils. This is a film better left unwatched, and I really hope that no one else wastes their time on it. I do not recommend it at all, and to be honest, I am surprised I even managed to keep my eyes open throughout the whole thing. My advice is to avoid this film. Do not waste your time, money, or bandwidth on such a pointless piece of garbage.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
mark-fraunhofer6 May 2012
What do you get when you have some extra money you don't need and a simple mechanical device hidden in a tire to make it roll on fairly flat surface? You get rubber. The funny thing is it doesn't fit any of the categories it is listed under here on IMDb. It was funny for a few moments so I guess comedy categorization would fit, other than that it doesn't evoke anything whatsoever. Interestingly enough all the things listed at the start of film as having no reason, each and every one of them has good reasons, maybe except for the E.T. being brown, so I guess I'm curious why would they list it with all the other examples? It is a festival of pointlessness but it fails as that as well, viewers are actually inclined to look for the meaning in this garbage, so the creators failed in creating garbage, is that sad or what? It blows my mind that anyone would try to look for hidden meanings in this piece, there are none by design, but in execution it fails, it creates room for thought and invites interpretation which it can't support. Please give me a fraction of their budget and we can save this whole planet...
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed