Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Andres-Camara I know I've seen a movie, but I do not know what he wanted to tell me. The only thing that is clear to me is that it is directed by someone who does not want to make movies anymore and I say it because it seems to be made with so much reluctance that it is not only cold, but it does not understand anything.Spoiler:I think Steven Soderbergh, at the time of making this film was in a phase of his life, that he did not want to make movies, if not, not explain a movie like this and I explain. He does not have any kind of enthusiasm or feeling. You also do not know what genre it is, it starts out as a social movie, for almost an hour and then we go on to intrigue, thriller, to finish with a resolution of the movie that did not matter and shabby. He does not know how to finish it and finishes it with a loose plane of the two women that does not come to story. I do not know if the actors are wrong by misdirected, or if Steven wanted them like this, without any feeling. The proof is when they tell Marta that she is dead Rose: Rose is dead. For real? If the police told us. Are not you kidding? They have not come to tell us. It's okay. I have a gift for you. Thank you.The downside is that I do not think it's a black humor movie, which I might square, but that's not the case.Then we see the photograph, all made in post-production. In the coldest moments we see a photograph of the most warm, saturated, what do you want to have this picture?We know that Soderbergh is not characterized by being a great planner, his plans are between normal and bad, but is that in this case, do not reach that. In many cases, the planes are so general that you do not know who speaks, or who is on screen, especially because when we take an hour many new appear. And if not then we make plans cutting heads. The only good thing is makeup and hairdressing as well as art. But this is not complicated, just tell the actors to come normal.I do not really know what I've seen, it seemed that I was watching the typical social film, extremely slow, that repeats itself and repeats and suddenly we pass to a death that does not come to mind and you lose altogether. At that moment as he does not know how to follow and this would be a new film, because not clear, we have to finish soon, we settled in two sequences

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.

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.

richmof One of the worst movies I have seen in some time. I have liked Sodebergh, which is why I rented Bubble, but I feel like he has robbed 73 minutes of my life tonight. I can see what he was trying to do - setting a pretty depressing mood in nowheres-ville, no hope state - but the dialogue didn't have to be that bad and the acting didn't have to be so excruciating. Even the music was unbearable. The worst part is: it was all intentional. Don't get me wrong: I am all for a good downer of a movie. I enjoy directors trying to expose the reality of the lives of people just trying to scrape by but this is an insult to those people.