tsuobachi Reviews

Rubber (2010)

IQ Test that most of you failed

[9/10 · 30 May 2024]

Some directors make movies for smart people to enjoy, like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, and some directors make movies for stupid people to enjoy, like Marvel and DC films. The directors who make the most money are the ones that make movies that make stupid people feel smart, like Inception.

"No, you don't get it. It's a dream within a dream WITHIN a dream."

Oh, so very very clever, Mr. Nolan. You made the stupid people think they're smart; they're going to love that.

The directors that fare the worst are the ones that make movies which make stupid people feel stupid, like Rubber.

If you're not stupid, you may have disliked this movie because it's just not your sense of humor, or any number of other reasons. That's totally understandable; humor and art are subjective and everyone's going to have different taste. But if you rated this movie less than a 5, it's safe to assume you're stupid because the technical merits alone are worthy of a 5 regardless of personal opinion.

I saw a lot of reasonable reviews from people that didn't really enjoy Rubber and gave it a 5-6. That makes sense. It's well-shot, well directed, and different. It has a point to it, albeit one that is lost on most people because they're stupid, but it does have one.

Then there are the people that gave it low reviews because they were so emotional they ignored the technical aspects of the film. This is what happens when you make stupid people feel stupid. It never ends well. Their emotional response to feeling stupid makes them blot out the technical aspects of the film and just default to a 1 star rating. A 1 star rating is for movies with no merit of any kind. This is not one of those. Even movies I truly hate are mostly not 1 star movies. A 1 star rating is reserved for movies where there is nothing good about it at all, such as The Room.

Luckily, Quentin never set out to get rich via a movie career, as is VERY clear from this and Wrong Cops as well. He's making movies for a relatively small subset of moviegoers, and that's fine.

But if you're stupid, don't expect to be gratified by a movie for smart people. Stay in your lane and you'll be fine. The world is populated mostly by cud chewers who take up space and serve no real purpose. Which might sound like a familiar concept if you understood the movie Rubber, but you don't. Mostly because you're stupid. I know you hate being reminded of the fact that you're stupid, but that's not really Quentin's fault. It's not anyone's fault. Some people are smart, some average, and some stupid. And if you gave this movie less than 5 stars, you're stupid. It's ok, it's not an insult, just a statement of fact.

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

One of the biggest pieces of garbage you'll ever see

[2/10 · 1 November 2023]

This has been billed as "five interwoven stories." That's a false claim for two reasons: 1) There are no stories, just 5 sections of the movie with no characters, no plot, no reason to exist, no entertainment value, and no story, and 2) None of it is interwoven. There are a couple of frames in each section that are from another of the sections. Those tiny little overlaps of 2-3 seconds are the bare minimum to claim in a court of law that the different parts of the film are related. They aren't. There are just a couple seconds that connect the parts. Nothing could be more lazy.

The fans of this disaster couldn't at gunpoint describe a single character, the plot, the story, the motivation of anyone, the reason for anything to be happening or a reason for the audience to care about any of it. Any other movie I've seen I could describe, even really bizarre movies without traditional narrative like Koyaanisqatsi, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring, or Tetsuo the Iron Man. They all had a point to them, a cohesive driving force, and at minimum some visual narrative tying everything together. No such thing exists in Trick 'r Treat.

The tone is all over the place. First it's deadly serious, then it's lighthearted, then somewhere in-between. In all cases, it misses the intended mark. It feels like a made for tv kids movie, but it's too graphic for that. But it's clearly written by/for 10-11 year olds, so adults will be bored to tears or rolling their eyes at the sheer stupidity and pointlessness of it.

Here are some questions that the writers, director, and everyone who has seen the movie couldn't answer if their life depended on it: Who is a character in this section of the movie? What are they trying to do? Why do we care? How does this further the plot? What is the plot? What is the name of anyone in the entire movie? What is one thing you've learned about anyone in the movie by the end? How have the people changed from the beginning of their time onscreen to the end?

Absolutely none of those questions have answers because this isn't a story and there aren't characters. If it was moody and atmospheric, or highly stylized and cool, or breathtaking in the visual department, or had an epic score...then maybe the lack of every single aspect of storytelling could be forgiven. But it has none of those.

I can't believe that someone put money into a script without a single character, no plot, no story, and not even a memorable or engaging atmosphere.

Think of any movie at random; it's better than this. I've watched a lot of movies in my life: some I've enjoyed, some I've detested, and many were in-between. This is the first time I've had the displeasure of watching something that isn't even a movie, it just pretends to be one. It is generic Hollywood product, a commodity of "content" that could be replaced by absolutely anything and it would be an upgrade.