Bubble (I) (2005) User Reviews

Very thought-provoking if you keep an open mind

[pennyplant · 8/10 · 28 January 2006]

My husband and I saw Bubble at the Little Theatre in Rochester, NY on January 27. We went in expecting to enjoy it since we enjoy all kinds of films, and the subject matter resonates with us as working class people in our 40s. Most of the audience appeared to be upper middle-class people in their 50s and 60s. I sensed by the end of the showing that they did not like it. They probably also would not have liked Gummo, the film this one most reminded us of. People coming out of the earlier showing made comments like, "Well, what was THAT all about?" I hope that responses like that don't keep Soderburgh from making all the rest of the films in his planned series. More people need to think about the issues raised in Bubble.

Notable issues: Repressed emotions, due to constant care-taking of others, spending most of your time and energy just getting by, working in monotonous jobs, working all the time, not working at all, just surviving, just getting by. What is the definition of "friend"? What is art?

Notable images: The artistry involved in actually manufacturing the dolls, resemblance of Martha's face to the dolls' faces, actually seeing the emotions on the actors' faces when Rose is introduced to the other workers, Jake's apartment walls, still shots of the doll parts (especially the ones with the patent leather shoes on the feet), Kyle shoveling sawdust at the shovel factory.

The ending: It is simple and jarring. But it was enough.

The performances: Dignified and confident. I can't imagine myself doing as well as they did. They should feel proud of their accomplishment.

beautifully done

[anna-jones-2 · 8/10 · 27 September 2005]

I was lucky enough to see this movie followed by a Q&A with the screen writer. I thought this was one of the most amazing movies i have ever seen. They used all non-actors who actually lived in the town. The acting was so true, Rose's daughter was her real daughter and the reactions that they got from the child were so genuine that they could only come from true relationship. They kept the "actors" in the dark about how the story would unfold and shot in sequence. this could not be more clear when you watch the film. The reactions were true in a way only the best actors could pull off. They were not acting, they were being themselves in these contrived situations. They used the actors real houses, clothes and life experiences. I thought it was one of the most brilliant and unconventional films of our time.

a beautiful, unconventional film

[gscheyd · 8/10 · 14 June 2006]

Minimalist film-making at its finest. A glimpse into the lives of ordinary people, Appalachian blue-collar factory workers, going about their lives – waking up, going to work, doing their jobs, chatting in the break room, having a sandwich, having a cigarette, getting back to work, going home at the end of the day and watching television. The set-up to the defining moment of the film is as realistic a portrayal of regular old boring life as I have ever seen on film, and the set-up is most of the movie. Going into this, I hadn't heard or read anything about the film, and so had no idea what to expect. "But this is from the director of Traffic," I thought. "It'll have to be pretty exciting." Well, exciting is hardly the word. Well-crafted is more like it. I spent the first half hour waiting for something to happen before it finally sunk in that the whole point was to show us what most people's lives, at least outside of the city, are really like. The dialogue could not be more perfect, and the casting director did a remarkable job finding talented but unknown actors. And this is important because, had the acting been awkward, it would have completely undermined the feeling that we are viewing a true story. It doesn't have the feel of a documentary exactly, more like surveillance camera footage shot with high quality movie cameras. It is very convincing. I also found it oddly relaxing. The key event that takes place in the second half of the film is not shown. We see its set-up and aftermath and are left to imagine the details for ourselves. There is an element of mystery, but the revelation, as with everything else in this movie, is subtle.

Oddly restrained to the point of irrelevance?

[secondtake · 6/10 · 17 February 2013]

Bubble (2005)

I think any movie by Steven Soderbergh was at least worth looking at if only because he takes what you might call safe chances. But they are chances. Some are brilliant or at least very successful, such as "Erin Brockovich" or "Traffic," and others are well done and worthy side trips like "Che" or even the recent "Contagion." But then there are clunkers like the well-intentioned "The Good German" shot using vintage equipment and trying hard to be the real deal 50 years late.

So "Bubble" looks like something straight from the Indie world--a small unknown cast, a simple kind of location shooting, modest production values, and full of decent sincere acting. And a decent idea, at least enough to draw you in: a group of people work in a struggling doll factory in an Ohio town and a new employee gets murdered. In a very believable almost documentary way the local detective looks for answers. And the murderer is found.

Well folks, that's it. There's a very long build up to the crime, setting up in fifty minutes what a good noir would do in five. We get to know the small cast of very ordinary folk. They are mostly likable, but all a bit quirky. (They live in West Virginia, actually, across the river from the factor.) There is no real suspense or curiosity required during this time, just patience.

Then there is the murder (not shown, just told). And the detective makes his rounds interviewing each of these people we now know as viewers. And we know kind of who might have done it or why. And then the crime is solved (and the perp is no surprise, and is intentionally not meant to be). And then the movie ends.

I don't know if there's some kind of surreal intention here, or if it really is about how mundane life is in Middle America even when a killing is involved. But it's not enough. The movie is short (75 minutes) so it's not the end of the world (as "Tree of Life" was for a lot of people, or "Barry Lyndon" depending on your taste). So try it out. The doll factory scenes are briefly interesting. The side characters are subdued and fine. The cop is wonderful and a bit drab.

You might decide this is a film about relationships since that ends up being the core of the movie, or about personality types (since these get dissected by the cop interviews) but if so, there are a million ways to make this more moving or interesting or odd or anything.

Focused mediocrity?

Really enjoyed this DVD

[Dudley-4 · 7/10 · 27 July 2006]

I really enjoyed this DVD. Especially after seeing Pirates II the day before. complete opposite in terms of overall complexity. But actually more engaging than Pirates. Johnny, Keira and Orlando as the main 3 actors in Bubble? Wouldn't work. Low key actors is the key to this film. The sets and scenery are genuine too. The plot is the classic intrigue. The alternate ending would have detracted from that. The ambiguity of certain scenes adds to the interest. The DVD extras are enjoyable as well. Soderbergh's commentary was interesting. The interviews of the main actors, also good. The alternate ending is worth checking out. The "making of" segment, also enlightening.

Small Town Life

[nycritic · 10/10 · 26 May 2006]

The lives of small-town workers, as insular as the title suggests, and the way they interact with one another unaware of these ties, real or imagined or wished for, is dissected in Steven Soderbergh's de-glamorized little experiment of a movie. It probably won't cause a big splash -- it's not meant to -- but to anyone aware of its existence, it should be seen, even when the experience may not be the most satisfactory.

Martha and Kyle work dead-end jobs in a doll factory. Nothing important happens to them, at least, not as envisioned by us, who may -- whether we're aware of it or not -- have better lives than they do. Martha dreams of going to Aruba for a vacation one day, Kyle wants to save money for a car. The exchange of small talk is a big part of these people's lives, a way of them to have someone who is there, who will listen, even when they may not respond back, or even care.

While I know it's been done before, I was surprised at how authentic the ad hoc dialog was: I felt myself thinking, I've had these exchanges of thoughts, dreams, experiences, even over coffee and fast food. I may not live in a small town like the nameless place in Ohio but I'm not that different from these people, and after all, aren't we all looking for something better? Context doesn't change things, it just places them in a different locale.

Martha and Kyle may not know it, but they have a lot more shared history together but because it's so mundane it looks irrelevant. How many times have we gone to lunch with co-workers every day on the clock at 1:00 PM, spoken the same small words while ordering the same food and beverages, and one day, when this doesn't happen, we feel lost? It's what happens to Martha at the arrival of the monkey-wrench that Rose represents.

Rose has a murky past that gets hinted at throughout her brief participation, and her sole presence is enough to cause the subtlest of shifts within Martha who continually watches her, maybe even without knowing it. I know people like Martha. They don't know you and they don't want to get to know you since you are the implied enemy, and they hint at only a veiled animosity while going through these practiced motions of social politeness and a willingness to "help". Rose, too, knows she is not liked by Martha and is also concealing it all under a Mona Lisa smile.

After all, Rose is the new girl, the one who is different, the one who -- in Martha's words -- scares her. But why? Because Rose will, in Martha's world, become a distraction to her perfectly organized world of small actions and repetitive complacency. Rose is restless, and that kind of people attract others who may have been sleepwalking through life and give them a possibility of change. Kyle is attracted to change and drops hints here and there. Now, whether they involve Rose or not is for his character to disclose to us, and even then, it doesn't matter if he does that or not: the story of BUBBLE isn't dependent on a fixed outcome because it's a story about real people, and their stories are less drama-heavy, less swooning, and entirely dependent on personal choice.

Had this been a Hollywood version, Martha would not have been the moon-faced woman we see here (which we've seen in any Walgreen's) but Kathy Bates. Kyle's and Rose's date would have had more interaction, sensual flirtation, the inevitable exchange of a romanticized kiss instead of this bland, awkward chit-chat in a sad bar. And even when it would have ended in non-chemistry as it does, there would have been more glitz and glamor. Here, it's again, just two people who have little in common past the initial spark, again sharing their hopes and dreams with some alcohol.

I know this type of movie has been done before, but BUBBLE impressed me and is still growing on me. These are relationships that are closer than the characters involved would like to admit to, and the actions or presence of one will dictate how the other will react. Martha is at the center of this triangle and is probably the most aware of the three: she's not quite there, but maybe a little too there at the same time. And that makes her story, and that of BUBBLE, so resonant.

Could Have Been A Masterpiece

[Zen Bones · 16 December 2006]

In one of my favorite movies, "My Dinner With Andre", Andre says, "if people could see what life was like it in the cigar store next door, it would blow their mind". I've always thought that that was the impetus for Wayne Wang's, "Smoke; a fantastic movie featuring some of Hollywood's greatest talent. This movie also grabs that theme - real people living realistic, working class lives - and takes it all the way to 'Anywhere USA'. Soderbergh found real working class people in a real small town and put them in a doll factory: a place that indeed did blow my mind. The theme of people living lives of quiet desperation has never been more palpable in any movie that I've ever seen. At least until about 50 minutes or so into the movie.

Spoilers ----- to defend Soderbergh a little, he stated in the commentary that his intention was to make a little film about a triangle of real people and toss a murder plot in. Indeed, around fifty minutes into the film, the person who was quietly living the most desperately upsetting life unravels the Hollywood way and the 'if it bleeds it leads" network news way: she commits murder. Certainly, real people do occasionally unravel in such ways but seriously, Hollywood has already made what, about 50,000 such movies? The overwhelming majority of people like this character Martha do not commit murder, they simply survive in a fog of mental anguish saved by meal breaks and dreams of summering on the shores of Aruba. They are not exceptional people, even exceptional enough to commit murder. They are working class heroes (heroes because they accept the limitations that their lives offer rather than succumbing to acts of crime or violence). Unfortunately, their truth is betrayed by the strings of a Hollywood that is not brave enough to just allow us to witness the drab reality of many small town, working class lives. This betrayal is exceptionally bitter since the film was just beginning to show us how most 'unexceptional' people constantly swallow the onslaught of a life filled with nothing but disappointment. This was illustrated most deftly when we saw Martha sitting alone in a diner at midnight, getting what comfort she could from food after having been viciously berated by the 'friend' she'd just babysat for. That's what 99% of most women like Martha would do; they wouldn't strangle the woman who'd berated them any more than you or I would! But this film sold the very tangible reality of these people out for cheap, unoriginal sensationalism. Think about it: how many movies have you seen about unexceptional working class people? Now… how many of those movies starred real people instead of movie stars who - because of their incredible looks and/or amazing talent - landed into the most glamorous career in the world?

I'm still highly recommending the film because the cast - particularly the two leads - are so refreshingly 'normal' and engaging (all of their inarticulate banter throughout the movie is their own) that I feel it's worth following them anywhere. Even through Soderbergh's and Hollywood's somewhat limited imaginations.

Feels Like a Bit of an Exercise

[mcnally · 7/10 · 28 January 2006]

I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Not quite sure how to write about this one. Bubble feels like a bit of an exercise for Soderbergh. First of all, it was shot in HD (high-definition) digital video, and this makes the visuals incredibly crisp. Secondly, it was filmed on location in a small Ohio town with a completely amateur cast. The script felt mostly improvised or situational, and actual dialogue is quite sparse.

This is a small and quiet film in which large themes play out over 90 minutes. The pace is very deliberate, and the atmosphere incredibly claustrophobic. The overriding theme for me seemed to be isolation and it was almost physically painful watching some of the characters go about their daily routines or listening to them try to connect with each other. These are people who seem completely inarticulate and unable to express their feelings. There is a sort of love triangle, and a murder, but that's about all I can say.

Though the mannered acting and slow pace threw me off at first, once I got used to it, I appreciated the film a lot more. This is one of Soderbergh's more experimental films, and he admitted after the screening that it would be "polarizing" for audiences. While the film is not entirely successful, I'm glad a director of his stature is still taking risks.

Soderbergh's minimalist view on a Gothic small-town 'love triangle': Well worth a glimpse

[collinrk · 8/10 · 26 September 2005]

Lisa Swartzbaum of Entertainment Weekly opened the New York Film Festival screening of "Bubble" by introducing the writer Coleman Hough (a woman, to my minor shock). She said about 10 words and the screening began.

Upon the first scene, any film guru would note that it's amazingly captured on HD. Some scenes I couldn't believe weren't 35mm.

"Bubble" doesn't belittle the simple people it depicts, as many Hollywood-takes-on-small-town-USA films do, but really gives them great depth and complexity. Coming from a small town myself, I felt like I knew the people that were on the screen.

The neurotic "love" triangle that emerges in the film is wonderfully dark and comedic, as is the film entirely. From the assembly of the dolls in the factory to the simple lunch break conversations, everything has a seeded, underlying element of humanity that is both jocular and haunting.

Without giving away anything damaging to the story, "Bubble" is a great escape from Hollywood for both Soderbergh and the public alike with amazing performances by the non-professional leads and supporting cast and an ending that will make you say "Huh?"

8/10 (and for as much as I paid for tickets to the NYFF, Soderbergh should've been there dammit!)

Ending scene

[adept1-2 · 7/10 · 26 February 2006]

I've replayed the last scene of this movie a dozen times and can't figure it out. Can someone please enlighten me? And Parkersburg is spelled wrong in the movie description (I've been there many times, not by choice...I was a small child traveling with my family). Anyway, I found the movie somewhat interesting but I agree that the dolls had more depth than some of the characters. If I rent it again and watch the extras on the DVD, will I be enlightened or should I not waste my time? I just joined this group and don't quite understand why I must ramble on for at least ten lines--is there no credit being given for brevity these days?

Maybe It's Because I Didn't Enroll In Film School, but....

[[e-mail] · 5/10 · 30 January 2006]

I found the film to be very lifeless and dull. I was intrigued by the multi-channel distribution and, of course, the name attached to this film (even though I was not a fan of "Traffic" either). But what is so groundbreaking about filming what many of us have witnessed ourselves? I went through my college summers being a "short-timer" at various factory or other low-paying, fairly mindless jobs. I know just as you do probably, the people we saw here - the numbing drudgery of their lives, the monotony, the colorless conversations. That these "non-actors" could play these roles (which probably mirrored their own real-life existences) is just evidence to me that acting isn't really a hard thing to do. The story? Very uncomplicated - how is that ground-breaking? There was no murder mystery - just...a murder. Done by someone who never tried to cover their tracks and was promptly charged by the physical evidence she left behind.

I get perplexed when everyday-life, genuine, simple things are put on the screen and the reaction is amazement. The dialogue here was mind-numbingly dull - and, to be fair, quite accurate of these types of people in these situations. I've been in those lunch rooms. Listening to a conversation of, "So...how you doing?"...(pause)..."OK I guess" is not ground-breaking, no matter how 'genuine' the portrayal is. I've known all these characters; they are very commonplace. The overly-helpful person who gives out nurturing and perhaps dearly wishes some of it would be returned, the teenage dropout with no motivation, seeing their life unfolding as decades of mind-numbingly dull work and a personal life devoid of anything but beer and pot. The "player" who comes in and disrupts the status quo. OK, accurately portrayed to be sure, but....so? All I'm saying is that evidence abounds in films like this one and other examples ("Clerks", "Napolean Dynamite", "Blair Witch") that acting need not be hard and making a film is not altogether complicated. What is needed is the desire to work through the project, dedication (which is needed in any big undertaking, whether it be producing a film or finishing a dissertation or building a house) and hard work. And I'm not saying either anybody or everybody could do this. What I am saying is that I'm perplexed how a mundane, dialogue-free, event-free cut-and-dry simple film like this, with very little in the way of story or script, can garner such praise. Maybe the next "ground-breaking" film will be two-hours of uncut and unedited footage from a convenience store security camera. Brilliant!!

This movie came out brilliantly.

[rogermanning995 · 9/10 · 29 March 2007]

Bubble is a shockingly brilliant record of our time. I voted it a nine. How could it get an R rating for "language" though? There's little harsh language. I'm thinking that the ratings people were shocked and upset with the harshly real portrait of the banal life so many Americans are forced to lead due to the double edged sword of an economic system/culture that exploits so many workers while inundating them with consumerist mentality. People holding down multiple jobs without any hope of ever "getting ahead." All work, little play - with little else to do other than watch television if there is free time. This is a harsh movie because it is such a clear depiction of the hopelessness that many youth are headed for. Imagine the consequences if they are allowed to see it?

A Simple Tale of Losers

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 12 July 2008]

In a small North American town, the middle age Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) and the twenty and something years old Kyle (Dustin Ashley) work in a doll factory. Martha nurses her old father and usually gives a lift to Kyle, who works also in the night-shift cleaning a shovel factory. When the young single mother Rose (Misty Wilkins) is hired to work with airbrush and stencils in the factory, she is befriended by Kyle and Martha. In a Friday night, Rose hires Martha to work as babysitter of her two year old daughter Jesse and Martha finds that she is dating Kyle. Rose returns back home early after stealing Kyle's savings, and Martha witnesses Jesse's father Jake (K.Smith) accusing Rose of stealing weed and money from his house. On the next morning, Rose is found strangled in her house and Detective Don Taylor (Decker Moody) interviews Jake, Kyle and Martha along his investigation.

"Bubble" is an extremely simple low-budget movie disclosing a tale of losers. The three lead characters have basic education only and spend their hopeless lonely lives in a small town without any perspective. Their greatest ambitions are traveling on vacation to Aruba (Martha) or buy a car (Kyle). The good point in this flick is the acting of unknown débutant actors and actresses, all of them with great and credible performances. The camera work is very simple, the identity of the killer is easily predictable and there is nothing special in this film but the mentioned top-notch performances. The shameful DVD released by Brazilian distributor Paris Filmes does not allow the viewer to access the Menu unless after watching advertisements and a trailer. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Bubble"

strange, but short

[gordenes · 4/10 · 5 September 2005]

I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.

I went to the premier; Soderburgh and Hough were there

[stevemaggie · 26 January 2006]

I went to the premier in Parkersburg, WV, a small city along the Ohio River; Belpre, OH (a typical midwestern small town)is across the river. Scenes were shot in both locations. The doll factory is in one of two in Belpre.

Soderburgh, Hough and the main actors were there for a Q&A.

The casting person Soderburgh sent here to find actors says she was going through a KFC drive-thru and heard a supervisor instructing some kids. She went in and asked the supervisor to audition. She wound up being the lead.

Hough wrote an outline; for each scene the actors were told where to start, main points to hit, and where to end.

BTW, for the reviewer that said above that this shows you don't need a million dollars to make a good film -- Soderburgh said that the budget was $1.6 million.

Nice,nice,nice...

[burak1515 · 7/10 · 9 April 2006]

I've just seen this movie on Istanbul Film Festival. I think the film clearly shows how unbearable the life of American labour class is. The characters were waking up before sunrise and returning home just before sleeping and there were no time for their privacy and social life. Moreover , even with their heavy working conditions , they are not earning enough money to live easily. At one point , one tiny unimportant event provokes them and makes them to express what they really feel about their life , jobs and relations which is the main event of the movie... I think the movie is an aggressive and fair criticism about American labour life.

a story of ordinary people on "automatic"

[annkengate · 7/10 · 18 February 2006]

This film is almost too close to the mundane lives so many people live on the surface with no depth or feeling. These characters are unfortunately almost too real with conversations, jobs and lives that go nowhere. The plot goes nowhere as well which simply underlines the quiet resignation of these characters who exist in a "bubble". The characters are not actors. As most people do, the players simply eke out an existence based on circumstances presented to them each day. Though "Bubble" will have limited appeal to the masses about which it is written, the brilliance of Steven Soderberg (director) and Coleman Hough (writer) undergirds this offbeat film.

Simple and Unexpected

[cc-chriscasey · 8/10 · 21 January 2007]

I had been meaning to see Bubble for a really long time. The DVD always popped up on my "recommended films" list on NetFlix and the cover looked really compelling. When I finally saw it I have to admit I was totally surprised. Steven Soderbergh has such a range, from high budget, high profile films that feature every star in Hollywood to something like Bubble, which was shot in a small town in Ohio using non-actors from the area and a mostly improvised script. All of his films are interesting and all of them, in my opinion, are good.

Bubble is a slice of life film which goes very dark very quickly with very little explanation. The non-actors that make up this perfectly awkward ensemble cast do a spectacular job integrating their own personalities and experiences with the plot of the film. The performances in this film are wonderful and could not have been achieved with big name actors.

Bubble was also shot on DV which doesn't show at all. I have always said, if a filmmaker has truly mastered DV then the audience will never know it's not film. Granted some shots in Bubble couldn't pass for 35 mm but it's pretty damn close.

Bubble is complex in it's simplicity. This is the fist of Soderbergh's 6 low budget picture deal with HD Net. The other 5 will follow the same formula: choose a subject, choose a town, choose local actors. If you feel like seeing something way outside the mainstream but oddly close to home Bubble is a good choice. Just don't watch it expecting any of the characteristics of modern Hollywood.

Realism gone wild?

[bandw · 7/10 · 20 September 2012]

Kyle is a young man who works at a repetitious job in a doll factory in a small mid-western town. He works most closely with Martha, an overweight and less than attractive middle-aged woman whom Kyle depends on for rides to work. Martha's social life outside of work consists of taking care of her aging father. Rose, an attractive young woman, is hired and joins Martha and Kyle on their daily breaks. The conversations in the lunch room are perhaps the most mundane ever put in a commercial film.

I began to wonder what direction this could take that could possibly hold my attention, but Rose's entering the picture began to change the personal dynamics in way that kept my attention. Rose presented a challenge to Martha's maternal feelings for Kyle (in fact there is a suggestion that there may be more than maternal instincts involved). As the movie moves toward its final resolution we get to know the three characters: Kyle is a study in passivity, Rose knows she wants more and will do what it takes to get it, and Martha is seen to have strong emotions under her plain exterior.

The inside of the doll factory makes for a suitable backdrop for this downbeat tale among the working poor. I was surprised that making the dolls had not been more automated than is pictured, since many of the tasks are robotic. There is a lot of manual work involved, for example, one of Martha's jobs is to affix eyelashes to the dolls, and Kyle works on forming the doll legs.

The plot develops very subtly; this movie is not one that will set you back on your heels. The use of non-professional actors in all roles works here. I doubt that any director could have gotten this level of authenticity from professionals.

There are rewards here for the patient viewer.

Expertly crafted gem

[toni-kurkimaki · 8/10 · 25 September 2005]

Bubble was a pleasant experience with a solid script, great performances and sharp direction. With echoes from Aki Kaurismäki's work, Soderbergh gives us a intimate movie which borderlines between a tragicomedy and a mystery tale.

I expected the low budget to show, but this movie was absolutely beautifully shot and I still don't believe that the equipment fit in one van... The actors were very good, and it's hard to believe they weren't professionals.

All in all, a very good film which I plan to view several times. I am left eagerly awaiting the next movie in Steven Soderbergh's series of low-budget movies shot in America.

Recommend watching the bonus features

[ThurstonHunger · 7/10 · 1 September 2019]

The movie was watchable in its own right, a very slight sideways take on work wives. The HDV and lo-fi acting provide a complimentary clash.

I suppose the bubble deformity on the product line, is meant to connect to the bubble deformity on the product line worker. The notion of a neurological damage creating a sort of Jeckyl/Hyde was tacked on, but really the slow-study of characters was what the focus of the film for me.

What I liked about the DVD extras was 1) Soderbergh describing the steps he took to maximize the first takes for non-actors (the casting was pretty fantastic, kudos to the non-actors and the casting director and perhaps the writer too, she mentioned meeting the cast and incorporating some of their stories). 2) Even better than that, I found myself mulling over the depiction of the drab, soul-sucking job and those portraying it but talking about their own lives pizza parlor, soon-to-retire KFC manager, and hair stylist! They were a lot more vivacious than their mere roles, which I think does say something about small towns, small jobs, but bigger lives than Hollywood may want to portray. Granted the stylist did have some small-town claustrophobia, but she had the juggling of four kids and a job that are tough to pull off anywhere.

Anyways, maybe I'm overreaching, and if not all jobs, then 90% have their soul-sucking powers no doubt, but at least for me, when the non-actors were just being, they seemed pretty admirable....and I liked that this film and formed a friendship of sorts for all three. I hope that sticks through to today, 14 years later....and through whatever jobs they may have had.

Again the film is fine, and the format of the footage to me worked quite well, even though surely seen as a step down at the time. Some of the factory footage was weirdly wonderful.

Real to the point of boredom.

[woodry-1 · 5/10 · 28 January 2006]

The simultaneous release of this film at theaters and on cable, with the DVD available a few days later was an interesting experiment in marketing. Sadly, it's not much of a product with which to conduct such a test. Ebert and Roeper babbled about the "real" feel of the characters, dialogue, and settings. Well, reality is often dull and so is this film. I recorded it on my dvr for convenient viewing and found myself fast-forwarding to fight through the tedium of the longer scenes. Some of the dialogue apparently is ad-libbed and, coupled with flat delivery, is tough to sit through. Even with a murder tossed in, the feel of the film is flat, flat, flat. Consider a nap instead.

Bold simplicity

[butl-2 · 10/10 · 14 September 2005]

I saw Bubble in Venice and i thought how brave Steven is to direct a movie with ordinary people and little budget , showing how it a movie can be made without big money and big stars.....hmmmm Hollywood should tremble ...as Steven proved with Bubble that one doesn't have to have a million dollars to make a nice movie.

It is a nice simple tale ,,,about simple , ordinary people that live their ordinary every day life when a young beautiful, unpredictable women comes into town and change their life for ever,,,,,,and end up dead....Congratulations i loved the movie....Soderberg is the master

Maja from Slovenija

Reality on display

[mesaxi · 6/10 · 7 March 2023]

I enjoyed Bubble. It feels like a slow movie, but ultimately it gets right to the point. The biggest problem most people will have is likely the amateur acting, but I found it interesting. While the dialogue was very clumsy and unsure, the physical presence of real people is something Hollywood actors can't simulate. Their mannerisms, their reactions, their posture, it's all far more real, though far less dramatic. At times I felt like I was watching a Netflix documentary or something. The story was ultimately nothing special. This is a movie you watch for the artistry of it, not for a masterfully written mystery.

Flat fizz

[hundredacrefilms · 4/10 · 18 January 2006]

When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.

An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.

It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.