criterionforum.org

ha, 4 people, 3 names.

*CG* wrote:ha, 4 people, 3 names.

I think you're forgetting Peter Travers, a guy who saw the movie.

swo17 wrote:

*CG* wrote:ha, 4 people, 3 names.

I think you're forgetting Peter Travers, a guy who saw the movie.

His name is more important. When the public picks up a movie that has Matt Damon and Jeff Bridges on the cover, they don't say "Hey, who is that no-name girl?", but rather "What does Rolling Stone Mag have to say about this flick?".

Chinese release of Jackass 3D.

You made a mistake, that belongs in the awesome cover thread.

You know that's actually true to the film, right?

I was only in this thread to get directions on how to get away from this thread to the awesome covers thread.

I do love how it's all decapitations though. Were they just lying down or did the tire jump up to kill them?

And there's a straight track, so the bodies, after lying down with their heads lined up, managed to crawl a few feet decapitated before giving out. If anything that would be a disturbing scene.

How many "killer TYRE" films are there to be the best?

The tire has psychic abilities and makes their heads explode Scanners-style. No, really

is this something I need to see? I still haven't even bothered to watch Snakes on a Plane. The only thing significant, to me, about Rubber is that it was shot entirely on a Canon 5DMarkII.

Here's the Rubber trailer. Not that it answers any of the perplexing issues that have been raised so far.

Rubber, for better or worse, is an art film masquerading as a ridiculous high-concept exploitation movie - plenty of half-baked film theory and self-reflexive conceits waiting in the wings. That cover is part of the joke. It's relatively amusing, but it's basically a short film that overstays its welcome and hasn't figured out how to pad itself out to feature length.

Yes I have even seen Rubber

"Into the car of your eyes" is rather poetic.
And many sentences would be improved by adding "and zinc" at the end.
At least I think so, and zinc.

And if you didn't know, Quentin Dupieux is also known as Mr. Oizo

Zedz has it right. It's fun for a while, but by the time it reaches the half-hour mark Rubber seems to lose interest in its own opening thesis statement and becomes about as conventional as a killer tire movie could be. It does start off pretty strong, though.

aox wrote:is this something I need to see? I still haven't even bothered to watch Snakes on a Plane. The only thing significant, to me, about Rubber is that it was shot entirely on a Canon 5DMarkII.

It was interesting to see it in a theatre projected on 35mm and observing that, aside from peculiarities about the way it was shot, the DSLR footage held up really well to the conversion. But those peculiarities get kind of annoying after a while, as nearly every shot has hair's-breadth focus and most of the handheld work succumbs to some of the worst rolling-shutter wobble I've seen (which is especially annoying on a huge movie screen). This all may have been intentional for all I know*, but I don't think it worked either way. So, if the 5D element interests you, I'd say it might be worth it if you're sure you're going to see it on 35mm and you're interested in how that will look. But if you're just going to watch it on Blu-ray at home and you're not really interested in the content of the movie itself, you're probably better off renting last year's season finale of "House."

(*In fact, it had to be intentional on some level. Since most of the movie takes place in bright sunlight, they could have easily shot around f16 and achieved greater depth. Instead, it looks like they shot at the widest aperture possible, probably with an ND filter, and then cranked up the shutter speed, which also emphasizes the wobble. Maybe the image is supposed to look "rubbery"? In any case, I think Rubber actually exemplifies some of the worst working methods for DSLR cinema, especially for the 5D, which already has shallower depth of field than any of its siblings.)

Where are they, exactly?

Those look like actual women, albeit not too attractive, to me rather than two men dressed as women.

Monroe's left arm looks like it's been amputated.

I can't tell if this is the source for all three faces or just Marilyn's. Ghastly photoshop either way, obviously.

Olive Films is a repeat offender