Rubber (2010) User Reviews

I expected it to be more fun.

[Matt_Layden · 5/10 · 29 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.

too much in love with itself to be original

[Radu_A · 5/10 · 11 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).

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 2 September 2011]

"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+

The fact that the movie has no reason is alright, but it just didn't have enough to keep me entertained

[KineticSeoul · 28 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.

4.5/10

Inventive, stupid and completely unnecessary yet offering something completely different

[Scannain_com · 7/10 · 3 March 2011]

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.

How Do You Ruin a Movie About a Tire That Explodes Peoples' Heads?

[aeryk-pierson · 1/10 · 14 June 2011]

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.

I wanted to love it, but instead remain baffled by this wildly unique experiment

[DonFishies · 6/10 · 17 March 2011]

How does one succinctly describe Rubber to another person, without sounding like a lunatic? Is it even possible to try and theorize, or try and explain the story of an inanimate tire named Robert, who has the simultaneous abilities of being able to move on its own and use telekinetic powers to destroy anything and anyone that comes in its way? I am beginning to think I sound a little off just as I write this, but baffled expressions and thoughts aside, Rubber is one of the most original and unique films anyone is bound to see. But there is a price for being so exceptionally different than other films.

For one, Rubber is more of an experiment than it is a film. Yes, the idea of the tire rolling around and killing people (mostly by making their heads explode in violent messes) is joyfully and bewilderingly hilarious at first. But once you get past the initial shock value of something so simple yet so ridiculous, you need to begin to wonder what writer/director Quentin Dupieux's intentions were with making this film. Did he want to create something so out of this world crazy, that the sheer idea of a killer tire becomes the film's main selling point? I was immediately intrigued when I first heard the idea, but as the film moved along, I found myself more dumbfounded than anything into thinking it was a good idea to make a whole movie revolving around a melancholic tire.

Dupieux adds in a bit of self-awareness, by adding an audience into the picture, who watch Robert's actions from a far via binoculars. Their addition to the film is never explained, nor are their actions or what happens to them as the film goes on. They simply exist to watch what Robert does (his actions acting almost as a film within a film), offer their opinions (which are oddly similar to that of the real audience) and help Dupieux break the fourth wall. The opening of the film has Stephen Spinella's Lieutenant Chad rhyme off to the audience (both within the film, and watching the actual film) how a good chunk of Hollywood films have elements within them that exist for no reason. And the audience within the film seems to have only been added to help move along this theory and agenda. It is a baffling and odd choice, one that left me confused after I first became aware of what was going on. It offers a few laughs here and there, but much like the idea that drives the film, it is just weird and absurd.

Except that seems to be the point of the whole project behind Rubber: to create a silly film, based on a silly idea, and try to alienate the audience watching it. It takes itself deadly serious, but deep down, it does know it is silly. But it also knows it is otherworldly too. It does what few films do, and engages the audience's thinking and relative scope of reality. It bends the schematics of the filmmaking medium, and what we do and do not know about it, and alters and modifies it to its own liking. Of course, since the film was made in France, it could be deemed an offshoot or a film made in the image of its brethren of the French New Wave. But at the same time, it may just simply exist to play with what we know, and give us something wild and unlike anything we have ever really seen before.

But being unique is a bit of a double edged sword in the case of Rubber. For all the wacky and odd choices it makes in its attempt to be unique, it also ends up being incredibly boring and inane. As hinted at before, after you get past the idea of what Robert can do, there really is nowhere else for the film to go. A synopsis suggests he is obsessed and fascinated by a mysterious woman named Sheila (Roxane Mesquida). But she only appears sparingly in the 80-minute film, and she never really has a chance to make an impact at all. Perhaps Robert is seeing something we as an audience have missed? For such a short running time, Rubber runs out of a lot of ideas a bit too fast, and by the time the deranged ending takes place, it stops making any sense at all, either in our reality or the reality the film sets up for itself.

While I cannot say that I was anything but disappointed in the film, I also have to contend that its power lies in the unexpected. There is no proper way to prepare yourself for what you will see, and watching the trailers will only confuse you further. There really could have been any number of extensive things Dupieux could have added to the film to make it better, but listing them off would be just as silly as attempting to fully explain what he was trying to say.

There will be some people who will say I just did not understand Rubber, but after carefully considering the elements that make up the film, there really is no way to explain or even attempt to decipher what it all means. Dupieux put this enigmatic movie together for fun, to toy with the audience and with film conventions. It is an experiment first, and a film second. Some may find it brilliant, some just baffling. I will stick with being confused and disappointed. But at least the film managed to maintain being entertaining, even if its inanity and silliness became a bit much.

6/10.

(This review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).

Doesn't deserve all the talk/hype about it

[white_fire4 · 1/10 · 20 March 2011]

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.

Why is this such a great film?

[georgemcgilvray · 8/10 · 30 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...

Good idea, but too self-aware to be great

[last_cheese · 7/10 · 21 May 2013]

This movie starts off with a monologue about movies and the things in the movies that happen, or in some cases don't happen, for no particular reason. We are then "introduced" to the audience, representing the viewer. They start looking through the desert with binoculars, until a tire pops up and starts rolling. It blows up a bunny, and we learn that this tire has the ability to blow up stuff using psychokinetic powers. It falls in love with a girl, and follows her into a hotel. It starts killing off people at the hotel. "Police" (although not really police) chase it down, until it stops at a small house. They corner it, as it's watching racing, and devise a trap for it. They rig a mannequin with dynamite, while the lady from earlier reads off lines. The tire blows it up, but doesn't die. The "sheriff" goes in with a shotgun, "kills" the tire; however, the tire comes out as a tricycle. It kills the sheriff and rolls off, a gang of tires following it as it reaches Hollywood.

This would be a pretty good plot for a movie, but the problem with the movie comes with little segments of the audience. The movie gets too self aware during these parts, as well as some other parts during the main story arch, that only serve to please the person making it, and pretentious movie snobs. It takes the viewer out of what is happening, reassuring them that, yes they are watching a movie, and no they do not have any interaction with the movie itself. It seems so mindlessly indulgent; the only people who could possibly enjoy these segments are those who call themselves "intellectuals" while they sit around at Starbucks. What could have been a decently campy "horror" film, is turned into a pretentious art-house film.

This leads to the biggest setback of the movie, it doesn't know what it wants to be. It's too schlocky to be a art-house, too intelligent to be a campy b-horror, and not funny enough to be a comedy. It just kind melds into something that really has no true identity. Sure people throw "unique" around, but that doesn't really benefit this movie in any way. It's attempt at being different is its major drawback, it alienates too much of its audience by trying to be some many different things, while not truly being any.

I could only recommend this to those looking for something different, or those who like looking too deep into a movie, thinking it makes them smarter. It would only appeal to a small demographic of horror/comedy/or art films. Rubber just tries too hard to be unique, but it ends up suffering because of it.

I am Rubber, you are Glue. I'll blow up your head and roll over it, too!

[Coventry · 5/10 · 15 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".

Deep Tread Indeed in this Particular Tire

[jd7myers-1 · 10/10 · 6 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.

I love 'RUBBER's originality, it's quirkiness and it's enormous balls!

[Hellmant · 7/10 · 19 April 2011]

'RUBBER': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

This is the type of film that the USA Network used to run on it's 'USA UP ALL NIGHT' weekend movie show in the 80's and 90's. It's totally irreverent and almost mind bogglingly bad (but in an intentional way). Even so it's actually pretty well made and has strong production values (unlike most of USA's old weekend programing). It's written and directed by French filmmaker (and techno musician) Quentin Dupieux, who's previous two films ('STEAK' and 'NONFILM') sound like they were made in the same vein as this (although I haven't seen them). This film tells the story of a tire who comes to life, gains telepathic abilities and then goes on a killing spree. It's about as strange and crazy as it sounds.

The film stars Stephen Spinella as Lieutenant Chad, a police officer who appears to be in on the joke (that the movie is all a joke). Chad believes in the concept that all movies are filled with 'no reason', no matter how good or bad they are. He explains this concept to an audience of people, as the film opens, in order to prepare them for the events that follow. An Accountant (Jack Plotnick) then directs the audience's attention to an abandoned tire in a desert, which they watch through binoculars. The tire comes to life and begins finding joy in smashing inanimate objects and killing small animals. When it comes across a bottle it cant break it develops telepathic powers and blows it up. It then comes to a road and becomes fascinated with a beautiful woman passing by (Roxane Mesquida) and begins following her, killing anything that comes in it's path (as the audience continues to watch).

The film is sort of a cross between 'B' movie horror and meta comedy. It's not very frightening or very funny for that matter but it's definitely amusing. There are some funny jokes but they're definitely few and far between, most of the joy one can get from watching this movie is just pure bewilderment and curiosity. The film is without a doubt original and unique, whether it's a good film or not is completely debatable. Like I said it's a surprisingly well made film; it looks and sounds great and the acting is all decent. There of course will be a lot of people that utterly hate this movie, there will also be a fair amount that love it. Most will be one or the other. I'm the rare type of person that has split feelings on movies like this. I love it's originality, it's quirkiness and it's enormous balls; a filmmaker has to be pretty brave to attempt something like this. I don't think the movie is extremely funny or entirely effective on what it sets out to do but it's definitely amusing and admirable in a way.

Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqvCRlRn7qY

Absurdist comedy at its worst

[pushfrog_2000 · 1/10 · 5 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.

Possibly My Favorite Film of the Year

[gavin6942 · 18 August 2011]

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"?

No Reason

[carloisntcrazy · 7/10 · 6 June 2016]

From the opening scene of the sheriff explaining to the audience that there are things in this world that happen for no reason (most of his explanation is either factually incorrect or highly idiotic), this movie however proves surprisingly that it does have reason to exist. As easily as this movie could have been written off as a movie about a tire on a killing spree. Rubber's underlying message about how independent filmmakers struggle with the big box office studios and audiences who are only fascinated with big explosions, provides a quirky and twisted movie about how a tire (indie filmmaker) would use their newly acquired psychokinetic powers.

Why watch this film? No reason.

[freestylewalkn2 · 2/10 · 16 March 2011]

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.

Don't tread on me.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 17 May 2013]

"Rubber" is a deliberately offbeat concoction, one in which we're always reminded that we're watching a movie, that none of this is real. It was described to me as a feature length exercise in the breaking of the fourth wall. Writer / director Quentin Dupieux is clearly having a ball with his outrageous premise, while making commentary on the very aspect of movie watching. At the very least, he delivers a fairly fresh variation on the standard "monster on the loose" theme.

After being addressed directly by a sheriff (Stephen Spinella) who climbs out of a car trunk to lecture us on the idea of things happening "for no reason", we're taken into the story proper - one that seemingly has no reason to exist - about an abandoned tire that's become a sentient being, embarking on an odyssey across the American South, blowing up stuff REAL good, and fixating on a mystery woman (Roxane Mesquida). And while all of this good stuff happens, an eager audience gazing through binoculars gets to witness everything.

This is the kind of film that could generate very personal reactions, and either charm or annoy the viewer. Admittedly, its pace is on the slow side, but it's got enough amusing bits and doses of gore to keep it a decent diversion. One good thing: it's not predictable. One won't know where it's going from scene to scene. It's just too surreal to see this tire barge its way into hotel rooms and watch TV. A fair bit of the acting is underwhelming, but what is truly awesome is seeing veteran movie bad guy Wings Hauser in one of the biggest roles that he's had in a while. The scenery and cinematography are beautiful, and the score by Dupieux and Gaspard Auge perfectly fits the off kilter tone of the picture. The special effects are impressive, especially the way that the filmmakers get the tire to keep moving.

All in all, this is just weird enough and ambitious enough to make for interesting viewing. Cinema lovers looking for any movie to do something different with old formulas just might find it to their liking. After all, we don't exactly see tales about killer tires every day.

Seven out of 10.

a review of Rubber

[allenelswick1979 · 1/10 · 16 March 2011]

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...

A horror film about technique and style

[Da-Ant · 8/10 · 21 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 http://www.rgbfilter.com/?p=9032

Rubber (Quick Review) - 3 Stars

[austin-takahashi · 6/10 · 15 June 2012]

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/

Quentin Dupeiux...you're no Charlie Kaufman.

[MBunge · 2/10 · 2 March 2012]

I never thought I would type these words, but I have a new appreciation for Synecdoche, New York. Yes, that film is an uber-pretentious piece of masturbatory tripe that crawls so far up its own ass it disappears into a parallel universe. But at least it tries hard and puts a lot of brain power into its willful oddity. Rubber is like Synecdoche, New York's lazy, mentally challenged half-cousin. It's just as pretentious and masturbatory but doesn't have the energy or intelligence to scratch its own ass, let alone venture up in there. Here's what I actually thought while watching this movie.

10 minutes in - "Oh, good lord."

20 minutes in - "This was a mistake."

30 minutes in - "Am I missing something?"

40 minutes in - "I don't care if I'm missing something."

50 minutes in - "Nope. There's nothing in here to miss."

60 minutes in - "This is like one of those films they would show during Sprockets on Saturday Night Live."

70 minutes in - "Well…at least Wings Hauser got a paycheck out of this. I've always kind of liked him."

80 minutes in - "This is almost over, right?"

82 minutes in - "Yes, it's over and I'm 82 minutes closer to death."

Rubber is about two things. There's a tire that comes to life and rolls through the desert landscape, blowing up things with its psychokinetic power and developing a taste for television and this dark haired girl (Roxane Mesquida). There's also a group of spectators in the desert watching the tire's antics through binoculars like they're the audience viewing a test screening in a movie theater. All but one of them is killed off by a guy with a bad haircut and a bicycle (Jack Plotnick) while Stephen Spinella gives a remarkable performance of an actor stuck in an insipid production that will not end, which is perhaps the greatest instance of art imitating life, simultaneously intentionally and unintentionally, in all cinema.

The more unconventional your storytelling, the smarter you have to be to pull it off. Writer/director Charlie Kaufman is very smart and it's reflected in Synecdoche, New York. Even though that movie is pointless, meaningless, self-indulgent blather, it's complex and detailed blather that occupies your time. "Writer"/"director" Quentin Dupieux is not smart at all and Rubber is pointless, meaningless and self-indulgent, but in an adolescently shallow and simplistic way. I'd bet the folks who are impressed with this film are the same ones whose minds were blown by that philosophy class they took freshman year in college and wouldn't shut up about for 6 months afterward.

I mean, outside of Spinella, none of the cast get a chance to do anymore acting than they would in a commercial for chewing gum or switching to a new wireless provider. The best dialog in the film all belongs to the tire, which is completely mute the whole time. The direction looks like it belongs in 30 second promo spots for some 5th tier cable movie channel that only shows Mexican wrestling flicks and film school projects. And I hope Dupieux sent a royalty check to the guys who made Scanners.

If you've ever wondered why Hollywood beats the Euro film industry at the box office like a rented mule, watching Rubber will explain it to you. If you've ever wondered why the immensely more successful Hollywood continues to look to Euro douches like Quentin Dupieux for artistic validation…well, Rick James said it best. "Cocaine is a hell of a drug."

DEFINITELY not a film for everyone!

[nixskits · 8/10 · 11 September 2010]

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!

Great movie. Though Half the story is confusing.

[theenigma129 · 7/10 · 13 April 2021]

Finished watching the movie over an hour ago, it was a great movie. Though part of the story was confusing. Why were there spectators watching Robert (the tire) on a terrorizing rampage, as if it was a live stage show? And why did the so called sheriff and the guy in the suit killed them off with the poisoned turkey?!. They got some explaining to do!.

Rest of the movie was spectacular. Great directing, editing, cinematography & music. The writing, well more then half of it was marvelous, unpredictable, unexpected & outside of the box. Robert the tire was the best actor of the whole movie & one of the ultimate villains in movie history.

One more thing, rubber inspired & influenced me on my movies now. Love it!!! I give it 7/10.

Brilliant!

[iwantyourjob · 1/10 · 8 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.