IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

SnoopyStyle It's a small non-descript town. Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) is middle age, works with her best friend 20something Kyle (Dustin James Ashley) in a doll factory, and takes care of her father. They live boring unimpressive lives. Young Rose (Misty Wilkins) starts a new job at the factory, and is befriended by Kyle and Martha. Rose is a single mom to 2 year old Jesse and wants to leave this boring town. Rose hires Martha to babysit her daughter for a night. It turns out that Rose is going out with Kyle on a date. Rose steals Kyle's money. She goes home and Jesse's daddy Jake barges in accusing her of stealing his weed and money. Martha is shocked and Rose is angry. The next morning, Rose is dead strangled in her home. Detective Don Taylor investigates interviewing Jake, Kyle and Martha.This is basically an indie shot by an expert Steven Soderbergh. I guess he's trying to give this a feel of realism by using non-actors in the roles. The dialog is weak. It is very aimless for the first half. The acting is sometimes lifeless which is expected from these regular folks. Although Debbie Doebereiner has a good energy about her. She could be an interesting actress if she wants to. Dustin James Ashley mumbles way too much. This is an interesting exercise. At least, it showed me that acting matters. Also real people doesn't automatically make it realistic.

tedg Soderbergh is a fine man. I can live without him. Nothing he is likely to do will change my life. But he thinks about film and spends time on noteworthy projects.This is one such.It is not important nor particularly effective. It is interesting in the conceptual art sense when you think about what matters in the medium when watching it.In terms of the production process, it is somewhat interesting, and most consider that it "statement." Shot on a prosumer camera operated by the director, edited on a stock Mac and delivered to simultaneous distribution as a digital file. It uses found actors and sets, shot in sequence so the ending was a surprise to them. Much has been made of how this was made.More interesting to me is how that affects the narrative. For most folks, the "point" will be the aimless trivial lives shown here a sort of trailer park rubbernecking.The story itself fights its own medium. Nothing happens in the lives of these people, even when a murder occurs. Here's what I think Soderbergh has in mind: its the opposite of what is generally written about this movie. The prevailing notion is that this is a sort of "Straight Story," where a presumably dense filmmaker relaxes, and we have a sort of Zen openness. But its not. This is the guy who remade "Solaris," a long quite journey that leads to about 90 seconds of puzzle at the end.Its a mystery. A woman is killed. We have only a few suspects: her date for that evening from whom she stole unknown things; her estranged husband who violently encountered her about similar thefts; a competitor for the date's affections; the date's mother who seems strangely in the background. There is an even more absent homeowner whose house the victim his violated.One of these is proved the killer by fingerprints on the strangled neck. (Does such a thing happen?) But this same suspect honestly denies guilt.Meanwhile, we have been introduced to the doll factory. We know it more intimately than the characters, actually. We see the making of molded plastic faces and hands. We see sophisticated painting and related apparatus. All the main suspects work at this factory. Could one of them have faked the fingerprints? Soderbergh presents us with a solution, but is he fooling us too? After all, the supposed impression is that this is a real as you can get. But it is still a script, still a manufactured narrative. Still fakery imposed on life.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

todbrowning2000 A really good movie makes you think. However, while BUBBLE certainly made me think, I'm not sure if it's good or not. The story is simple, direct, and void of shock or surprise. The strength of the film lies in the believability of the actors, the atmosphere (creepy doll factory...'nuff said), and the simplicity of the cinematography. I suppose the fact that I still have it on my mind several days after watching it should be a vote in it's favor, but what bothers me is that it didn't make me question anything nor did it present a challenge to me as a viewer. Instead, the indecision over the movie was simply...did I like it?I just don't know. Hence my middle-of-the-road vote.

highway020 I don't know what to think of this movie. I really don't.When people mention the characters and their lives being so 'real' in the movie, or on the other hand commenting on it being not realistic: forget it. It's a movie! It's directed, edited, lit, there's a cinematographer, there's a script: it's not real! Believable it is, for sure, and that's what counts. But it's not a documentary, although the use of video (not film) and lighting make it feel like one every now and then. I believe this is a movie that should be appreciated for what it is. It's just not the kind of movie that impresses with grand acting or surprising plot twists. And I believe that the most commented very kept down acting, 'dull' dialogs, simple plot in a slow pace, 'bad lighting', etc. are conscious choices of the director. But the score is puzzling and truly annoying at times. It's a small, humble mood film, with nice cinematography and an interesting story line and ditto direction, editing and acting. I doubt, however, this is a groundbreaking film. Many more movies like this - common people with ordinary lives and a not so ordinary event/action - have been made and this one doesn't stick out.All in all: I don't really know what to make of this film. It's not the worst movie ever - that will be Glitter for yet another century or so - and I moderately enjoyed it, but it's not groundbreaking nor impressive either. After seeing the movie I was left with the impression that Soderbergh wanted to make a art-house movie like he was a starting director on a tight budget or a die-hard independent film maker that works 'from reality'. The problem is, he isn't. And that leaves the movie lingering between a whodunit, a portrait, interesting, pretentiously artsy, humble and trivial.