Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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

SnoopyStyle It's a small non-descript town. Martha (Debbie Doebereiner) is middle age, works with her best friend 20something Kyle (Dustin James Ashley) in a doll factory, and takes care of her father. They live boring unimpressive lives. Young Rose (Misty Wilkins) starts a new job at the factory, and is befriended by Kyle and Martha. Rose is a single mom to 2 year old Jesse and wants to leave this boring town. Rose hires Martha to babysit her daughter for a night. It turns out that Rose is going out with Kyle on a date. Rose steals Kyle's money. She goes home and Jesse's daddy Jake barges in accusing her of stealing his weed and money. Martha is shocked and Rose is angry. The next morning, Rose is dead strangled in her home. Detective Don Taylor investigates interviewing Jake, Kyle and Martha.This is basically an indie shot by an expert Steven Soderbergh. I guess he's trying to give this a feel of realism by using non-actors in the roles. The dialog is weak. It is very aimless for the first half. The acting is sometimes lifeless which is expected from these regular folks. Although Debbie Doebereiner has a good energy about her. She could be an interesting actress if she wants to. Dustin James Ashley mumbles way too much. This is an interesting exercise. At least, it showed me that acting matters. Also real people doesn't automatically make it realistic.

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.

rogermanning995 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?