Rubberface (TV Movie 1981) - Rubberface (TV Movie 1981) - User Reviews - IMDb
Rubberface (TV Movie 1981) Poster

(1981 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Jim should kick agent in Balls for this one.
huflungpu14 May 2000
I picked up this movie in the bargain bin of a video store because it had Jim Carreys mug on the cover and I'm a huge fan. Well the movie centers around a character named Janet who happens to be related to the screen writer in real life. 'Nuff said there. The production values are on par with those of an After School Special. The box title is "Rubberface" steer clear of it
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A waste
jmadden-315 December 2000
I bought this movie today. I should have read the reviews here first and I would have saved myself seven bucks. As I watched it I couldn't believe how bad it was and I don't mean Jim but all the others. The movie must have been made in an hour. Shame on Vidmark Entertainment for the grossly misleading box.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Reeks of "after school special" syndrome.
JJBrent12 March 1999
I bought this on laserdisc since it was only $4.00. Unfortunately, that was $4 too much. Jim Carrey is NOT the star of this film and it may never have seen the light of day were it not for Jim's success.

Judging by the time (under 50 minutes), this may have been a tv program. It stinks to high heaven ladies and gentlemen. From the music to the jokes to the acting on all levels (Carrey aside). It's plain to see why so few of the cast and crew have done anything beyond this program. The sound guys went on to work as did the cinematographer and of course, Jim Carrey.

The only service that this joke of a film provides is that it's a conversation starter for those who were involved. They get to say, "I worked with Jim Carrey when he was a nobody."

I don't know what anyone was thinking when taking the time to make this junk. If it was supposed to be funny, it failed on all levels. My only fear is that, given the plot, Rubberface may have been the inspiration for the much more recognized film, Punchline, with Sally Field and Tom Hanks. I say that it's a fear just because knowing that anyone else may have suffered the way I have been made to suffer makes my soul just a little bit darker each day.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Introducing...horrible movie
DamienHagen2 May 2003
It is true that Jim should be cut a little slack for the fact that this is one of his first movies (perhaps not his first as three other movies came out that he was in during 1983). However, the fact that this movie was downright crap is unavoidable. It's possible that this movie may have been funny if Jim Carrey had done some actual comedy in it, rather than help out some lame girl with her stage routine. And come on, Tony Moroni? Who the hell thought that would be a good name to put in this movie? It's safe to say that the only way this movie is worth what you pay for it, is if it is given to you. Do not rent this unless you are a(n) a) sado-masochist b) drawing evil power from crappy movies that you will use to destroy the world and life as we know it c) realllllllly freakin bored. So good luck with whichever one of those you go with. I went with b.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why is this even called Rubberface?
Zingbot_900010 June 2003
Yes, I agree with everyone on this site this movie is VERY VERY bad. To even call this a movie is an insult to all movies ever made. It's 40 minutes long.

Someone compares this movie to an after school special. B-I-N-G-O! That describes is perfectly.

The packaging for this movie intentionally is misleading. For example, the title of this movie should describe the movie. Rubberface??? That should be the first hint. It was retitled with a new package of some goofy face Jim probably made in his stand-up days. I was hoping for more stand-up from Jim. If you like Jim now as an actor. You would love him in his stand up days. Still trying to locate the Rodney Dangerfield Young Comedians Special from HBO that featured Jim in his early career days. It isn't even mentioned on this site. I'd love to find anything Jim did stand-up wise.

Also Jim Carrey is a supporting actor in this movie. The main character is VERY VERY annoying. She is some girl lacking self confidence but yet wants to be a stand up comedian. Jim is there to say lines like "That's Funny Janet" and "You really are talented". And honestly she is terrible really terrible.

And the movie is terrible. Beware of false advertising and a really bad movie.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Big head. Thin skin. Numb skull.
alexanderkominek23 October 2005
... is what the box for "Rubberface" promised. It looked interesting enough - A picture of Jim Carrey riding a bike with an aviation cap and goggles, and another of him making a ridiculous face. I didn't expect much , however, as the plot synopsis on the back made this film sound similar to the Adam Sandler flop "Overboard". If only this film were that good.

It turns out Jim Carrey is not the protagonist of this film. We don't even meet him until about 15 minutes into the story. Even then, he's not that funny (which is more of a script problem than an acting problem). I wasn't even able to laugh at how bad the film was. I was just angry and wanted my $1.95 back.

This movie reminds me of a project I had to do in junior high school. We had to make a five minute video about an issue that affects teens. It's too bad the creators of "Rubberface" didn't have the same sense of pacing, because this movie runs about 43 minutes too long.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Huge piece of filmic fu**ery
Cobra-106 November 2000
The cover for this movie is one of the biggest pieces of bull**it I've ever seen. I saw the cover, and figured, "Oh, it's got Jim Carrey, it must be at least marginally funny." Boy was I wrong. This is even more bull**it than the movie, "Going Overboard," in which Adam Sandler in his early days brings us a crappy movie that you wouldn't expect to come from him. "Rubberface", however, is 1000 times worse! Not only is Jim Carrey (or anyone else in this movie) not even remotely funny, but he's not even the main character. He's in the movie for a couple minutes!

Just to show you how execrable this movie is, I'm one of the few people that gave good reviews to movies such as "Meatballs III" and "It's Pat". I'm a pretty tolerable person when it comes to movies, even ones that the majority of people consider to be terrible. But "Rubberface" is sh*t. Pure, 100% sh*t. Actually, it's even worse than s**t. I can't explain to you how robbed I felt by this worthless entity beneath a pile of feces!
17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent short film featuring a young Jim Carrey
abbazabakyleman-9883421 December 2019
Many of the previous reviews for this film are given one star because of Jim Carrey's limited screen time in it. This short isn't bad for what it is, even if it does play out like an After School Special (the run time is the same as a regular episode). I do agree that it was foolish and misleading for Vidmark Entertainment to capitalize on Carrey's later success with Ace Ventura, The Mask, and even Dumb and Dumber by re-titling it Rubberface for its 1995 VHS debut (the original film's title was Introducing, Janet) and disguising it as a typical Jim Carrey comedy.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Give me a break!
Ry-45 December 1998
The only thing funny I found about this whole movie was reading the video box AFTER I watched the movie, and seeing how incredibly GOOD the box tried to make an incredibly BAD movie sound! This movie is an insult to future Jim Carrey movies!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
10,000 Rubberface haters can't be wrong.
charlesfrappier11 July 2001
I also picked up this movie by accident, I also bought it for, like, $2.00 in the bargain bin of my local video store. I love cheesy, bad movies and I figured I was in for a treat. Well, this had got to be one of the worst movies ever made. Ed Wood himself would refuse to claim responsibility for it. BE FOREWARNED: If you are also a lover of bad cinema, THIS IS NOT THE MOVIE FOR YOU. This movie is not even laughingly bad, it's just bad. There are absolutely no redeeming elements. My home/vacation movies have more substance... and THAT says a lot.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Greg's Face....I mean Rubberface!!!!
Matt_Layden24 August 2005
this movie is one of the worst ever, do not watch it, it is total crap. Nothing makes sense, it's only 48 minutes long!!!!!!!!!!!!

Carrey shows no talent in here and why does it say introducing Janet, that's stupid. The quality was bad and the audio was bad, we all just laughed during it, for shame!!!

I can't understand why someone would want to make this movie, or watch it. This is a slap in the face to anyone who is a Jim Carrey fan, his talent is absolutely no where to be seen here.

If I had a choice of watching crap float around in a toilet or sit through this, you can bet your ass that I pick the crap.

There is nothing in this movie that gives it any mark, Just as bad as BELLY, ENVY or House of the dead!!!!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Rubberfaced Lie !
Metaldude6114 September 2002
I don't even remember when or where I picked up this turkey, couldn't have been more than a buck. Thank goodness for that, because this finally beat Godzilla 1985 as my pick for the worst movie of ALL TIME ! Not only is it incredibly not funny, the plot is incredibly idiotic, and had to be made in one day tops. I don't know who wrote the material for this stench bomb, but it couldn't have made a 5 year old laugh, although I wouldn't dare subject any 5 year old to this. Jim Carrey is portrayed on the box as the star, but oh no, he is in it maybe 10 minutes of the 40, only to fake a throat ailment so it would force the worst actress of ALL TIME to get up and do some stand up. I am not sure if my life will ever be the same again. I can't even give this thing away, I might as well toss it in the trash.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Kinda touching, kinda sweet. Nothing like a "traditional" Jim Carrey Movie...
carlys217 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very sweet movie. I disliked reading all the bad comments about it, because they were from people who: - Expected a full length movie - Expected a traditional Jim Carrey goofy stand-up style movie

This is a made for TV movie. It is 40 min long (or 1 hour with commercials!).

It is about a girl with low self esteem and a bit of an eating disorder. She is mostly friendless. She tries to perform comedy, and fails, because it's not about what she knows. So, this nice guy (played by Jim) tries to give her a few pointers on how to act, as well as get her to write comedy for him to perform.

This is a very sweet movie, about friendship and self-esteem. It's not a typical Jim Carrey, look I can act like a moron and make silly faces kind of thing.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Introducing... Crap
Clint Ford9 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**ATTENTION: Bit of a spoiler below. Nothing too entrusive, but a basic outline is printed below.**

As I perused the other readers comments, I noticed the repetition of three specific things: "After-School Special", "misleading", and "BAD". Honestly, there's not any other words I myself can use to describe this steamy pile of entrails that would be better than these.

* - "After School Special": Absolutely. Girl tries something, Girl fails. Guy tries something, Guy succeeds. Girl gets depressed. Guy meets Girl, Guy encourages Girl. Girl tries again, Girl succeeds. The End. Yay.

* - "Misleading": As I added before, what we started with was a 1983 Made-For-Canadian-TV 40 minute After-School Special entitled "Introducing... Janet". For almost twenty years, this slab of vomitous dung went shelved, where it belonged. (as I can assure you, there was NO great uproar about THIS production in Canada in 1983. THEN... oh yes, "then"... along comes "In Living Color", "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective", and "Dumb & Dumber." James "Jim" Carrey is now a household name. So, what happens NOW? Oh, of course!! Vidmark... that fine, fine marketing company thinks, "Hmmm. Didn't we... a LONG-butt time ago... make something with this Carrey fellow in it?" Then, out from the ol' archives comes a dusty original print of "Introducing... Janet", starring a tubby, unfunny, unknown girl named Adah Glassbourg. Now that they've found it, what do you think our VidMark execs are thinking? "Oh, EUREKA!! It's a Jim Carrey GOLD Mine!! Let's re-release it... annnnnnnnnnnd.... ooh! We'll rename it "Rubberface"! Yeah!! --and we'll give JIM CARREY top-billing!! People will come from miles around to watch this movie that looks JUST as funny as "Ace Ventura!" Then what happens? Yep, people fell for it. But why shouldn't they? Look at the box on this page! What would YOU think? For crying out loud, even here on the IMDb, Jim Carrey has ELEVENTH billing!! ELEVENTH!! AAAGGHHH!!! C'mon, people!! Does this scream "Jim Carrey Movie" to you?? Oh wait, here! Let ME answer for you!! "NO!!"

* - BAD: The jokes aren't funny-- my grandmother's written better scripts in birthday cards-- and it's 40 boring minutes that leave the viewer wondering what the point was, and caring less about the prior 40 minutes of their lives.

In short, I would say that Jim Carrey's current success is probably a gift from God to recompensate him for having to be in such a disgustingly-wretched mini-show in 1983. It's almost as bad as Hulk Hogan's "Santa With Muscles". Pardon me, while I dry heave a couple more times.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't let Jim Carrey's presence fool you!
lee_eisenberg17 January 2007
In 1995, I rented "Introducing...Janet" (aka "Rubberface") because it showed Jim Carrey on the cover. It turned out to be a total zero, with no determinable plot (apparently there was one, but I couldn't figure it out). I can forgive Carrey for having starred in something so crappy early in his career. But really, if you come across it, don't get fooled; there is absolutely no reason to watch it. Even Carrey's atrocious "Man on the Moon" had some semblance of a reason to exist; this has none. It stinks.

So, you understand: this movie sucks. Avoid it. AVOID IT. AVOID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Teenage Jim Carrey
devonhester-4172611 February 2020
I saw this short 47 minute movie in 1981 and have not seen it since. It was originally titled "Introducing...Janet". I did not know until very recently that it was actually Jim Carrey who portrayed the role of Tony Moroni. A bad movie...but a chance to see a teenage Jim Carrey in one of his earliest roles.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not really sure what i just watched
shawshank8620 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
well, this isn't a good movie by any stretch of the imagination. i honestly think that they gave it the title of rubberface and put a picture of jim carrey on the cover with a distorted, rubber face to get people to buy it thinking it is a totally different movie. i admit, that is why i rented to movie; to see a movie about jim carrey having a funny face. but it is really about a troubled, heavy-set girl that lets people walk all over her, and has a mother that wants to help her. then she meets jim carrey's character: a failing comedian dish washer. she's a talented writer, so she helps him beef up his stand-up because he's just awful. then the climax. he fakes laryngitis so she has to take his place on stage and she kills. ooh, surprise Hollywood! yeah, not the greatest, but the cover of my box is funny.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Read before buying
italyboy7624 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie wasn't horrible. I read the reviews before buying it and decided to get it anyway because it's Jim Carrey.

The main character in this movie is a high school girl named Janet who puts on an act in front of the other girls at school to make them laugh...when really she's dieing inside. For a class assignment, she must write a paper on "Why people ____?". She chose "Why people laugh". I'm telling you this for a reason.

Jim Carrey doesn't appear until about 15 minutes into this 48 minute movie, but stays in it for the remainder. He plays a man named Tony Moroni, who works and performs at a comedy club. Needless to say, his material sucks. Janet goes to the club to do research for her paper when she meets Tony (I told you what I said had a purpose). From there, Janet helps Tony create better material for his bit. The storyline of the movie is how Tony gets Janet to come out of her shell.

It's not a really bad movie, especially for a low budget, independent Canadian film. You still get to see Jim Carrey do his quirky and funny impressions, so that's a plus. Also, the title 'Rubberface' makes no sense. At no point in the movie does anyone talk about making or having a funny looking face. 'Introducing... Janet' makes more sense because of what the story is about and the ending.

Hope you like it! -italyboy
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Cutting this movie a little slack....
elleighty15 September 2007
OK, so maybe not the best movie ever. But people are used to more modern standards today of what is funny. So, no, I didn't think this movie was funny, but it was OK in a sense. Based on the environment I correctly guessed when and where it was made. It was a Canadian made-for-TV movie from 1983. What would you expect? I didn't realize until I got it home that it was so short. And based on the cover art I assumed Jim Carrey was the star of this show. They were using his fame to sell an old TV movie that would have ended up in the toilet otherwise. Apparently the correct title of this movie was "Introducing.... Janet" which makes a lot more sense, however, nobody knows who Adah Glassbourg is. I have seen other old movies repackaged touting the now famous star who had a small role in an otherwise bad film. If you watch this movie expecting a hysterical lost treasure you will be very disappointed. Jim Carrey was still very much an unknown at the time this movie was made and wouldn't have been granted the leading role just yet. Adah Glassbourg came across as funnier than Jim Carrey, but then, she was the lead character. If you watch this movie with an open mind and expect nothing out of the ordinary, you won't feel this was a waste of 45 minutes. The only thing that isn't clear is why this movie is called "Rubberface". Probably figuring it will catch a person's eye at the store, then they see the name "Jim Carrey" and make assumptions about the movie. I don't believe they were talking about Jim Carrey's character when they titled this movie "Rubberface", but they knew very well what it would imply. However, I believe they were referring to Adah Glassbourg's character as the "rubberface". She bounced from personality to personality depending on who she was talking to. This movie reminds me of the same sort of style/era as the movie "Ben", which is, of course, a much earlier film.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Only for the true fans.
LebowskiT100027 June 2000
Some of the other reviewers of this movie would have you believe that this is a god awful movie, but it has it's good points. If they had done a little research (and I mean c'mon, your at the friggin' IMDB for crying out loud) they would know that this was Jim Carrey's first movie appearance...EVER!!! So of course this isn't going to be a hilarious movie. Granted, the writing was pretty bad, most of the other actors weren't the greatest and the filming wasn't very good at all. So, please when/if you watch the movie, appreciate it for being Jim's first film. Now, I will say this, if you are not a fan of Jim Carrey you are most likely going to HATE. If you think that Jim Carrey is an ok actor, you will probably also hate this movie. But, if you are a true Jim Carrey fan, you will probably like it. Till next time,

2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Rubberface" worth seeing for one reason...
mosskathryn12 December 2004
Actually, I finally broke down and watched this film the other night after passing it by for years on the rental shelf. I have to be honest and say the movie was pretty bad. Despite that, there was one good reason to see this movie. JIM CARREY. You really see what a sweet, soulful person he really must be. Rent this to see (in my opinion) another deeper side of the real Jim Carrey. But hold on to your remote. This movie will bore you to tears if you try to watch the whole thing (even though it's relatively's THAT bad). I recommend fast forwarding through most of it, excluding his scenes. The people who made this movie really missed out on using his talent more adeptly in their film. You can see only brief glimpses into the depth of his talent. Oh, random comment...renaming the movie Rubberface? Stick to your vision people! I give this flick two stars. I give Jim Carrey in this film 6 stars.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A developing process
chapmaneh25 June 2003
Come on here everybody you have to look at this movie for what it is. 1) its canadian. Now I'm a loyal canadian as much as the next guy but for some odd reason there is a weird thing about canadian films that really don't have that certain thing ( except for new waterford girl and last night ) 2. The guy who wrote and produced it put his sister as the main lead. For those of you who saw it you can see she wasn't very good. I know it's good to love your sister but don't get her hopes up. 3) The script was horrible One of the reasons Jim Carrey is so successful these days is because he rewrites and writes his own scripts.He even commented on this one as being Ghastly and that he would never write anything like that. 4) it was done in the the early eighties. (enough said) Jim Carrey was 21 when he made this he saw it as an opportunity to try new things and as a chance to show what a great actor he really is and that he can act. He shows honesty, humour and generosity in this film He also sings in it which if you look at most if not all his films he sings in them to. Introducing Janet or Rubberface was a film that was supposed to be cheesy because it had a message to get across everytime thers a message either there is bad music or a bad script. This one had both. Jim Carrey should not be blamed for this. If you were a 21 year old comic who had to be successful or crawl into a dumpster you would pick any role or job now wouldn't you. If you look closely enough He still has some of the same expressions as he does in hs other movies.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
very funny and poignant
Jasodomy6 September 1999
I don't know what the hell that Ryan Monahan was saying. It wasn't a bad film. It just wasn't wall-to-wall Jim Carrey like he's used to. I think a lot of kids will identify with Janet and Tony. Not bad for a rainy day.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
my notes
sstrunks-0524527 July 2019
Useless. pretty misleading to put jim carrey as the only name on the poster when he's barely in the movie. started skipping around to his parts but was barely worth it (1 viewing)
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bad movie, but awesome performance by Larry Horowitz
hipgravy4 November 2001
Actually, Larry Horowitz is my Stand-Up Comedy teacher, so I have to say he was awesome as "Freddy Goodman". This movie is one of those that are entertaining BECAUSE they are so bad. If you liked "Buford's Beach Bunnies" starring Jim Hanks, you may find "Rubberface" amusing. Although unlike "Buford's", this movie seriously lacks in the gratuitous nudity department.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed