User reviews

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.

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).

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

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).

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...

'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

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".

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.

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"?

"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.

"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

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.

A good old fashioned Troma-esque horror, packed full of cheap gags, over the top comedy violence and a big dollop of t&a - these were my expectations for Quentin Depieux's "Rubber" a movie about a killer tyre named Robert roaming the desert blowing off human heads with its telekinetic powers. I mean what other possible expectations are there to be had with a synopsis like that? But how wrong was I? From the very first frame I could see this was not going to be the schlock horror exploitation flick that I had envisioned, instead I was presented with a movie that is as smart and witty as anything from the genre that I have seen in quite some time, featuring excellent performances from the principle actors (where did Quentin find that tyre?) and some beautiful cinematography that almost has the movie bordering more on art house than grind house! On the flip-side it does suffer with pacing problems at times and the long periods of no dialogue tend to drag a little but clocking in at a meagre 85 minutes this can be easily overlooked. For anyone looking for something a little bit different then I would definitely recommend Rubber, it probably is the best killer tyre movie you are likely to ever see!