Rubber (2010)

[StevePulaski]

By: Steve Pulaski
Rating: ★★½

I know what Rubber is trying to accomplish, and I can admit that it succeeds on some level. It tries to combine wit and obscurity, at the same time it is so proud of itself for coming up with the philosophy of "ask no questions, it's there for no reason" it runs on the same fuel for eighty-two minutes. On top of that, we get monotone dialog from people who took two weeks worth of acting school.

I will say that I would love to see more of Quentin Dupieux's work in the future. He seems to have a sort of oddball sense of filmmaking that could very well spawn several other films. I applaud him for coming up with his own idea, and not remaking a film or a formulaic horror film. The horror genre is near corrupted, so this is at least something people will go into with optimistically, and not just see it to say they saw it.

The plot: Several people go into the middle of the desert, for no reason, to watch an unexplainable tire move around the area killing anything in its path. Small objects like water bottles and scorpions it can run over. Other things like beer bottles, crows, and rabbits are killed by it's telepathic mind which causes its victim's head to rupture a few seconds later. Why? I think the film's philosophy said it best, no reason.

The aggravation among the other viewers of this mayhem is pretty funny to watch. They all become irritable as they slowly become hungrier and hungrier. We never know the names of anyone, their background, or anything. No reason to.

The tire has just a vacant history as the people. What vehicle did it once belong to? Is it a runaway spare? How did it develop such powers to make someone's head explode right before people's eyes? Most importantly, why are people sitting back and watching this unfold? No reason is given.

This is probably the only time I won't complain about lacking character/plot develop in a movie. Rubber is a satire on film's that lack information. So it doesn't bother to include any. Maybe to showcase some audience member's frustration in lacking information. When I watch a movie, I like some background information on the character's personalities or what got them here today. In Rubber, don't expect to discover too much.

After the forty-five minute mark, things become drab and begin to wear thin. Rubber begins to overstay its welcome, and find itself struggling to meet the bare minimum time limit for a film. The sheriff character who addresses the audience in the beginning of the film and introducing us to the "No Reason" philosophy is played by Stephen Spinella. Spinella does a great one man show, but if I were him I'd question why I'm playing second to a tire.

Some points in the film I found myself zoning out. Sometimes, like in the beginning, there is no music. Just the awkward silence, and the sounds of the outdoors. Even some of the monotone dialog was enough to make a person drift away.

For what it is worth, Rubber is an interesting look at the wonders of creative cinema and fancy new ideas that are more likely to come forth now that independent films are becoming bigger than ever. It almost works, despite its love affair with itself, and for some scenes going absolutely nowhere. When the tire is killing everything in sight reminds me of a teenager who gets a new cell phone. He wants to play with the phone, and figure out all it can do. Like the tire who is using his powers constantly. Maybe it didn't know it had them in the first place, and woke up to find out it did? Or maybe the joke is on us.

Starring: Stephen Spinella, Roxanne Mesquida, Jack Plotnick, Haley Ramm, Wings Hauser, Ethan Cohn, Charley Koontz, and Tara O'Brien. Directed by: Quentin Dupieux.

[nopersonality]

Okay... time to talk about something: the thumb-system. In my book, a thumbs-up would be anything over 2 stars, including 2.5 stars. Here's how that breaks down:

1 - 0 stars
2 - 0.5 stars
3 - 1 star
4 - 1.5 stars
5 - 2 stars

That's 5 different ratings that equal the same as a thumbs-down. Then, we have:

1 - 2.5 stars
2 - 3 stars
3 - 3.5 stars
4 - 4 stars

4 different ratings that equal the same as a thumbs-up. Sorta unfair, right? 5 on one side, 4 on the other. Except that we know how this sort of system is set-up. 0 stars is the same as being perfectly bad, 4 stars is the same as being perfectly good, and 2 stars is exactly half bad and half good. So, it's not an even scale- it's odd. Now, let's REALLY go math on this:

Other than the 0%, 100%, and 50% ratings, we have a perfect, even 6 options:

1 - 0.5 stars
2 - 1 star
3 - 1.5 stars

4 - 2.5 stars
5 - 3 stars
6 - 3.5 stars

But what tips an even scale is when you add an odd onto it:

1 - 0 stars
2 - 2 stars
3 - 4 stars

6 + 3 = 9. Totally Odd.

To bring back the % scale, it's worth pointing out that in a range from 1-10 (a microcosm of 1-100 anyway), a split into 2 of all the numbers sees an unfair rounding of 1 and 4 together and 5-10. That's 4 and 6, in favor of saying the average / middle is superior in scale to the lower half and naturally combines with the upper half. So, I'm assuming the thumb rounding scale you use follows the sort-of school grading scale. Which is that a greater % of 100 equals the bottom half. In that, even above average into where we'd find the 60-early 70% of 100 is only average.

So... now let's see if we can't play with %'s again and assign / equate a value with each star group or a couple together:

0 stars = forget about it
0.5 stars & 1 star = 5 - 25%
1.5 stars & 2 stars = 26 - 50%
2.5 stars & 3 stars = 51 - 75%
3.5 stars & 4 stars = 76 - 100%

Clearly the most flawed of the system guesstimates.

[StevePulaski]

I do thumbs up/thumbs down the way Ebert does it. Anything below 2.5, for me, is a thumbs down.