|
Upcoming Release Calendar
63
11th Hour, The Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.
|
Bubble
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
||||||||||||
MPAA RATING: R for some language
Starring Debbie Doebereiner, Dustin James Ashley, Misty Dawn Wilkins, Omar Cowan, Laurie Lee, David Hubbard, Kyle Smith, and Decker Moody
In this unique cinematic experiment from acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh, an unlikely love triangle is born at a doll factory in a small midwestern town fallen on hard times. (Magnolia Pictures)
| GENRE(S): | Drama |
| WRITTEN BY: | Coleman Hough |
| DIRECTED BY: | Steven Soderbergh |
| RELEASE DATE: |
DVD: January 31, 2006 Theatrical: January 27, 2006 |
| RUNNING TIME: | 90 minutes, Color |
| ORIGIN: | USA |
All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...
The average user rating for this movie is 6.5 (out of 10) based on 16 User Votes
Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.
Edward V. gave it a1:
I am disabled and have watched a lot of movies over the last 15 years. I have registered over 1,000 reviews on the netflix site in the last 3 years alone, and i have to say that Bubble is the most boring, dull, piece of crap I've ever seen.I am very angry at having wasted my time watching this exercise in futility. I rented it because Roger Ebert called it a masterpiece. Comparing this movie to a masterpiece is like comparing grass growing to the Super Bowl. I don't know where his head was on this one, but I don't know if I'll ever trust his opinion again. I've been reading movie reviews for many years on many sites, but I've never seen one miss it this bad! If life isn't hard enough!
Mary W. gave it a1:
this is one of the most boring movies i have ever seen - including my in-laws' vacsation videos!
Kevin G. gave it a10:
“Bubble” is a brilliant little film from Steven Soderbergh (whose been slumming with those “Ocean’s” movies). Here he takes a painfully earnest look at life at a small town factory where two coworkers named Martha and Kyle have become friends (more to the liking of Martha than Kyle). There’s tangible pain as poor Martha asks to take Kyle’s picture. “You’re my best friend” she tells him and that’s only barely enough to make him willing to pose momentarily for her photo. The thin friendship gets further squandered when Rose, a more attractive and age appropriate friend for Kyle comes along and the two end up dating. What follows is a sad and tragic account of what the mundane routine of these people’s lives can drive a person to do. It’s startling, heartbreaking, and awkward in a way that makes everything feel all too real.
Jeff J. gave it a4:
One critic said that this movie is "Easier to admire than love", and I think that sums it up nicely. This is a film school exercise, not a movie that could ever appeal to general audiences. I agree that the technique is interesting, particularly the factory sequences, but even a well-made movie about a boring subject is still boring. I would only recommend this film to hard-core cinemaphiles. And finally, can someone explain why it's called "Bubble"? Deliberately obscure crap like that annoys me.
George R. gave it a7:
I’m a Soderbergh fan (in general). I return to OUT OF SIGHT, THE LIMEY, and SEX, LIES & VIDEOTAPE routinely. If Soderbergh hadn't directed this picture, I’d say -- because it was so crudely made, acted, conceived -- it belonged to that canon of 3rd World-y AMERICAN films such as THE DELTA, GO FISH, THE STRAIGHT STORY, ELEPHANT, HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER; movies made by super substandard tho thoroughly American filmmakers from the real heartland of ignored working class. Instead it was an incredible facsimile. But why? It’s a mystery. Clearly, filmmakers have been emulating documentary-like craftsmanship for years (shaky-cam, surveillance-like long lens shooting, jump cuts), but this was purposeful fly-on-the-wall-ness filmmaking to the -nth degree as if made by someone who didn't know and couldn't do better. It’s a very strange new genre, I must say. What should it be called? Retro-crude? It reeked of Exercise, but it must have had another purpose stylistically and deconstructively. I’d love to hear his explanation. In the mean time, I’m without a clue. Otherwise, it was a simple -- and excruciatingly tense at times -- drama that calculatedly shuffled all the way to the edge of the proverbial cliff and then at that defining crucial moment seemed only to spit off the side. Definitely see it, and since it's already come out on video, that should be as simple as the filmmaking itself.
Alex F. gave it a9:
BUBBLE may lapse into psychodrama, but it is also a remarkably accurate picture of how many people live in Middle America. Sophisticated city audiences may snicker at these "hicks," but the majority of ordinary Americans will recognize themselves and hoiw they live. Whether they will welcome what they see is problematical, but BUBBLE is well worth seeing, if only for the fact that the characters (mostly non-professionals, in dead-on if flat and prosaic portrayals) actually WORK for a living. How often do we see that in an American movie lately?
Ben K gave it a7:
A flim for the head more than for the heart. Perhaps one of the most authentic American films in its depictions of rural, working-class life but everything about the movie felt so pre-ordained I had litte emotional connection to what was happening on screen.

| Return to top of page |
