Critics’ reviews

Bubble (2006)

8 reviews from 8 publications. We need six from publications we count before we show a critics’ score; there are 3 so far.

Back to our review of Bubble

3 of 6
Positive
1
Mixed
2
Negative
0

With only 3 reviews in so far, the early word on Bubble is respectful rather than warm. The praise clusters around Soderbergh’s non-professional local cast, which critics find brings an awkward, convincing realism to the story of jealousy and murder in a depressed doll-factory town, and around the high-definition video, which The New Yorker credits with sharp, deep-focus images that give weight to the characters’ trapped lives. The reservations are about temperature: Film Comment finds the mix of neorealism and tabloid sensationalism disconcerting, and Variety, reviewing from a festival, calls the tale likeable but unexciting. The spread is narrow, with nobody yet dismissing it.

The New Yorker
6 February 2006 · David Denby
70*

The film is strange and off-putting but far from nothing, offering a crabby, unyielding vision of an America suffocating in banality through its story of work, jealousy, and murder in a depressed factory town. It impresses with its use of high-definition digital video for sharp, deep-focus imagery that gives weight to the characters' trapped lives.

Read the full review →
Film Comment
· Amy Taubin
65*

The film is a disconcerting mix of neo-neorealism and tabloid sensationalism rather than the expected quickie genre exercise. Soderbergh's use of non-professional local actors brings verisimilitude and emotional blockages that refresh the familiar narrative.

Read the full review →
Variety
3 September 2005 · festival review · Deborah Young
60*

Soderbergh uses a non-pro cast to deftly sketch the dullness of a mid-American burg, where an unmotivated murder unveils a frightening moral vacuum amid the empty-pocket atmosphere of doll factory workers. The likeable if unexciting little tale has sly humor and commentary, with the three principals well cast and the understated direction complemented by low-key realism.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
7 September 2005 · festival review

The critic praises the strong storyline, dramatic structure, and the eccentric DV camerawork and non-professional performances in this low-budget tragic love triangle set in small-town Ohio.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
20 September 2005 · Keith Uhlich

The critic finds the film an empty, contemptuous exercise in Soderbergh's post-Limey mode, essentially a backwoods remake of Vera Drake that renders its working-class characters vague and its dialogue stilted. He singles out the artificial, affected rhythms of the non-professional cast and the soulless doll-factory setting as emblematic of its failures.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
26 October 2005 · festival review

The critic finds the film completely gripping in its unassuming ordinariness, a leftfield psychological drama shot on HD video with non-professional actors that offers a ringside seat to a real story from real life.

Read the full review →
The Times
28 October 2005 · festival review · Howard Swains

The reviewer notes that the measured portrayal of blue-collar routines recalls fine European cinema but finds the film not especially good overall, as the non-professional cast and video approach ultimately fail to make the fictional story sing despite some reluctant applause for confounding expectations.

Read the full review →
Time Out
21 October 2005 · GA

The critic hails it as one of the finest American films of the year, commending Soderbergh's dispassionate yet compassionate gaze and the film's fresh realism.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate