Waste of time

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

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.

In 2005, widely prolific director Steven Soderbergh announced that he would be taking a drastic change in direction after directing several mainstream films, two of which were the Ocean's Eleven remake and its sequel, respectively. Soderbergh dropped everything to make Bubble, a deeply enigmatic independent piece setting its sights on a quiet, crippling Ohio town with characters who seem to be functioning in a meaningless life.The Ohio town is located along the Ohio River, and the three characters in the film are kept fed and vaguely satisfied by working at a doll factory. Two of them are Martha (Debbie Doebereiner), a pudgy, middle-aged woman taking care of her elderly father and Kyle (Dustin James Ashley), a dead-eyed, uninvolved man of younger years who rides with Martha every day to work. Their friendship is kept alive by the mutual understanding of each others' hell and torment. They both work at the same job, and for that reason, they know what it's like to work at some place that is so mundane, meaningless, and void of purpose that it almost compliments their own lives.One day, a new worker named Rose (Misty Dawn Wilkins) joins the doll-force, and is currently manning the fort with her two-year-old daughter and her distant, immature boyfriend. Rose connects with Martha and Kyle, but more so Kyle, being that he is closer to her age. They go out for a date and Rose gives Martha the job of watching her daughter. From there on out, it's a twisty, windy road that ends with a loud and deafening bang.The actors in the film are all unknown and, to my knowledge, live around the Ohio River area. Doebereiner was discovered and recruited at a KFC drive-through in Parkersburg, West Virgina and had no acting roles prior to this film. This, along with Coleman Hough's screenplay, give the film a very naturalistic presence, one of sheer realism and depth. It isn't quite impressionistic, although it does bare a resemblance to Gus Van Sant's electric Elephant with its serene, natural filmmaking, because it lets us know a bit too much for the genre. I would say it falls more along the lines of creative expressionism, with a marginal hint of impressionism.Bubble can also be lauded for being a possible breakthrough for independent cinema as well. The film was released in theaters in January of 2006, and was aired on the Television network HDNet for a brief time, before being released four days later on DVD. This is Soderbergh's subtle nudge to the audience that this film can't wait "x" amount of months to be seen. It is such a modest work, one that would surely get lost in all the camaraderie of the film world if not reminded about periodically. The idea to release a film to small art house theaters, a network, and a DVD release just days later is, in my eyes, a very smart tactic, and would prove to be successful since we live in a world where attention spans are shorter than a commercial lineup. And thankfully, we have video on demand services to cater to our indie desires.Going back to the naturalistic filmmaking, the actors do a great job at squeezing into their roles. Their performances are much more enticing than what many mainstream actors choose for roles today. Soderbergh does so much with his cast and makes their characters raw and believable so as to provide them with comfort for their first outing. He also knows how to craft a warm style of texture to his shots, and creatively add a muted color pallet to his works. Bubble is a work of indie delight, showcasing a variety of new talents, an underused medium of expressionism (let's keep it that way), and art in its screenplay.NOTE: There is an alternate ending to the film on the DVD, which I believe should've been the real ending. Without it, the conclusion of the film feels like we, as audience members, were deprived of information, which possibly would've led to a more surprising and satisfying finale. The ending we're left with is acceptable, but not entirely great or fulfilling. It does end with surprise, I'll give it that.Starring: Debbie Doebereiner, Dustin James Ashley, and Misty Dawn Wilkins. Directed by: Steven Soderbergh.

A really good movie makes you think. However, while BUBBLE certainly made me think, I'm not sure if it's good or not. The story is simple, direct, and void of shock or surprise. The strength of the film lies in the believability of the actors, the atmosphere (creepy doll factory...'nuff said), and the simplicity of the cinematography. I suppose the fact that I still have it on my mind several days after watching it should be a vote in it's favor, but what bothers me is that it didn't make me question anything nor did it present a challenge to me as a viewer. Instead, the indecision over the movie was simply...did I like it?I just don't know. Hence my middle-of-the-road vote.

I hate to be the one that breaks it to you...but your film sucks ***. But you are a smart guy, you already know that. It might find a home on you tube, maybe, but you will be competing with a thousand middle school and high school students who went out and bought a DV cam to shoot some self serving verite footage of their uber banal youth. But then again, you better not post it, you don't want to find that 'my day working at the vending machine factory' gets 5X more views than your piece. That might explode the bubble masquerading as your head. (I know, you already beat us to the 'exploding the bubble' pun in your special features, but I though you might be able to use my extended metaphor somewhere else. Feel free to use it; think of it as a sort of public domain thing.)