What a waste of my time..sooo overrated.. - Bubble (2006) Discussion

[–] iko_tay 18 years ago

this is the worst movie ive ever seen.how can it be rated over 6???!!!!!what r people thinkin?do they really have brains????!

reply

[–] shadow911-2 18 years ago

This movie is not the best I have seen, but it's better then most crap that comes out of Hollywood. It's intellegent, dry humor that not eveyone can appreciate. If you like movies with car chases and explosions or mindless teen comedies, then I can see why you would not like this movie.

reply

[–] slyfusio 18 years ago

I think it's purposefully dry - life is often dry. These people aren't professional actors - they're supposed to have a degree of verisimilitude that professional actors can't really provide. Much of the dialogue is improvised, too. Real people stumble over words. Admittedly, it's not for everyone - some people would rather experience regular life than watch it, and that's ok. But for people who dig normality (and how ironically odd "normal" can be), it's really good for what it's trying to do.

reply

[–] BlueCypress 18 years ago

I've thought long and hard... and always come to the same conclusion. When anyone ever says, "this movie isn't for everyone", they're just saying "I get it, but you don't"... But in fact I do get it. And a lot of other people do get it as well. It's just that they can't relate to it.

It's hard when we get something out of a movie than others just can't seem to grasp. Are others less intelligent? No. They just can't relate to the subject material.

For instance, if you showed a documentary about the stressful life of an accountant, would non-accountants get it? No. But accountants would surely relate to it greatly.

But, there lies the key. Accountants will get it, but others won't. If you're gonna make a movie, especially main stream, you have to make sure that the material will relate to a lot of people. Not just one or two people, but ALOT of people.

This does not mean that if you're gonna make a movie about a serial killer, everyone who relates to the movie must be a serial killer. No, no. But everyone CAN relate to the victims or the killer's personal life. That's what makes a great movie.

reply

[–] federico_zamora 18 years ago

Maybe the first two posters need to spend less time trashing movies and more time taking English classes instead. Geesh! Learn how to form a cohesive sentence before you start spewing your contempt toward this GOOD movie!

"Well, I'd love to stay and chat, but you're a total bitch.!-Stewie Griffin

reply

[–] vraptor5 18 years ago

Very well put BlueCypress.

reply

[–] Vincent929 18 years ago

I watched it this weekend and I'm not a big fan. I can understand and also enjoy a good simple movie. How some movies may not have terrific professional actors or whatnot. But this wasn't one I enjoyed much. It was ok I guess, but the ending wasn't enough for me. I was expecting a twist or something. I can handle a simple ending, but there wasn't anything really good up until that point that made me think this was a special movie. It was ok in my book. That's about it.

reply

[–] slyfusio 17 years ago

'When anyone ever says, "this movie isn't for everyone", they're just saying "I get it, but you don't"...'

Actually, that's not what I meant at all. If you look at the context of what I wrote, I'm simply stating that the subject matter might not be appealing to everyone. That has nothing to do with "getting it" or not. For example, I "get" horror movies (most aren't too hard to "get" on a basic, instinctual level) - I just don't tend to like them very often myself due to personal psychological make-up.

reply

[–] beansaregood 16 years ago

So when people say "night at the museum" just...isn't for everyone - they must mean "you won't understand it", right?

Hrm. Generalizing is fun.

Turns out this film ISN'T mainstream - and who ever said you HAVE to relate to ANYONE in a film? -- You list things that 'make a great movie', yeah, for YOU. For me, and many others, this film is a breath of fresh air - I can't, off the top of my head, think of anything quite like it. Can't really say that for much these days.

reply

[–] jabberttp 13 years ago

verisimilitude<<snipped>>

Now that is a GREAT word you don't read every day. I actually rated it a 6 because I really like Steven Soderbergh, loved Sex, Lies, and Videotape from a long time ago.

I liked the atmosphere, the small town life, how it was depicted (how GD boring the lunch conversations were), the locales, the awkward date with Kyle and Rose, and the creepy setting of the doll factory - especially the ending credits.

The PROBLEM was the plot was just too weak and straight-forward. From reading other threads it seems there were some scenes left out that might've fleshed out the movie a bit better.

Disappointing as I know Mr. Soderbergh can spin a good yarn, and feel the non-professional actors could've handled it just fine.

Why was the movie only 1 hr 15 minutes (give or take, 73 minutes actually - I looked it up)? That's too short.

Surely Mr. Soderbergh's delected scenes, as well as some of the amusing and weird twists discussed here on this very message board (minus the juvenile insults of course) could've added much needed spice to the plot.

reply

[–] jah_warrior88 18 years ago

They were struggling for words? You shoud read your own grammer. Knob.

reply

[–] matthewbellamy16 18 years ago

Life is full of emotions, but emotions are hidden for vulnerability, as seen in the movie.

reply

[–] jabberttp 13 years ago

They were struggling for words? You shoud read your own grammer. Knob.

As should you. As it's 'grammar', not 'grammer'. Can't believe this post lasted almost 5 years without a correction.

Unless the correction was highly inflammatory and insulting - and it was removed.

reply

[–] stabiljka 11 years ago

Nhai. If it was removed, there would still be the "This message was removed by the administrator".

reply

[–] jabberttp 11 years ago

Thanks stabiljka (how do you pronounce that? ). Yeah, I guess I could see nearly 5 years passing as your post was over 2 years after mine.

My how time flies here in IMDb-land...

---
"Into every life a little coffee must spill."

reply

[–] rcooper-7 16 years ago

Mainly it was 3 actors? eating fast food and drinking from straws in large "to go" cups.

reply

[–] absurd_planet 16 years ago

This was a great film, I was suprised to finds who was behind the camera on this project, and the mood and simple atmosphere made for something unique.
I think the characters motives were clear and the bubble surrounded them and their actions.

reply

[–] tommiedavies46 16 years ago

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Such a shame.

This movie is so good and I'm gutted that I can't get it in the UK. What is the matter with you people???

reply

[–] crazygirlpunk 16 years ago

I personally liked the movie UNTIL the end.
It left something to be desired.

There's a giant beam of light, a similar shot to the one where she was at church, and then BAM! she remembers killing Rose. EL FIN.

If anyone feels that I am completely unjustified in my opinion, please feel free to respond to this and explain why it was an acceptable ending (without the typical snobbish undertone many movie fans on this site tend to use).

I just don't buy it.

reply

[–] sambogni61 16 years ago

I don't think you're unjustified in your opinion at all, but I can explain why it worked for me. She was struggling with her overwhelming guilt and making sense of what happened, then gets overwhelmed by the truth of what happened -- hence the light, then the conclusion, which Soderbergh chose to reveal in the stills that essentially ended the film.

On a separate note, one thing I really liked about this film was the hesitating dialogue; it sounded the way people actually talk. Most movie dialogue is so polished that it lacks any hint of authenticity; it sounds "written" (which, of course, it is -- but if it's written well, it shouldn't make you aware of that fact). This sounded like real conversation caught on film.

To the original posters: I don't think the film is overrated at all, and I'm getting really tired of the "waste of my time" comment. Fact: Your time isn't that precious. Consider how you've spent much of your time (if you're like most people), and you'll see you've wasted far more of your own time on pointless pursuits than any filmmaker ever has.

I thought this movie was a breath of fresh air, particularly since it's utterly devoid of the usual cliches Hollywood and indie films typically deploy in depicting small-town life. As someone who grew up in small towns, I thought this film did a wonderful job of capturing the sense of a small factory community.

reply

[–] Jakezen 13 years ago

Boy, so many things to say about this movie.

I think this movie received a much higher rating because this was a Steven Soderbergh film and people are more forgiving when a director with his resume 'goes off the reservation.' So many good pieces in this movie which were just not brought together as a cohesive whole.

The pace of the first 44 minutes was way too slow. I am assuming SS was trying to get us to feel the soul-killing boredom in the first 44 minutes so we would empathize with the characters. I appreciate you want to get to know characters in the first act but the the amount of time spent doing it, compared to the overall length of the movie, was not well balanced.

The rest of the movie had good pacing and is where the movie starts to get much more interesting. Considering the movie was only 73 minutes -- including intro/ending credits -- that is way too long into the movie to finally hit a stride.

For me, Martha is the protagonist. I would have liked to have seen more of her character developed. She had obvious mental issues where she went into trances and/or black outs but why. I thought the close-ups of her in the shining light were powerful.

I understand people's complaints about the very dry dialog but that was obviously a primary story telling device to present a very real, close-to-the-bone, organic type of experience.

Personally, I prefer witty dialog or dialog that is a bit stilted. There is a reason why only some earn a living as a writer -- there is an art and craft to it and when it is done well, it is very enjoyable. If there wasn't, we could all just dictate our everyday conversations into novels and screenplays.

I would not be surprised if there was no actual script for this movie but merely an outline and the actors were left to improvise it.

So, to summarize, I think I understand what they were trying to do and can appreciate the effort but not the whole. Many times I hear directors and editors expound on how the editing process can make or break a movie. I think this movie is an example of where the editing failed the movie.

P.S.

I am mostly disappointed in Netflix's description of the movie:

"... SS's offbeat film follows the antics of townsfolk turned detectives who try to unravel a murder mystery -- and end up discovering a bizarre love..."

WHAT THE HECK??? I will give you offbeat, which this was indeed. The word 'antics' implies a certain amount of playfulness or comedy, which there was none. 'townsfolk turned detectives' where was that in the movie?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] keepit_simple 13 years ago

I agree, Bubble was a complete waste of time and none of the characters had any chemistry with each other. It was just so dry and pointless.

Cellar Door

reply