Rating: 
Summary: It's a bit out there, yet still entertaining.
Review: Ever since I saw `Traffic', I have been catching up on what I have been missing of the brilliance of Stephen Soderbergh. Full Frontal, though extremely stripped down and roughed out, is still interesting and entertaining enough inspire repeat viewings; and each viewing became more entertaining than the last. If you enjoy a mixed bag of interpersonal relationships with a bit of satire and improvisation that doesn't take itself too seriously, this is the film for you.
Rating:
Summary: ER, WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN?
Review: From a quiet little picture called "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" to big punches like "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic", Steve Soderbergh has charted quite a route. He even made possibly one of the most enjoyable big-name movies of 2001, Ocean's Eleven.Full Frontal was where he probably got his kicks doing something offbeat. Not many directors can, or would want to, knock off a quick, small-budget movie between major projects. But perhaps that's what makes Steven Soderbergh such an intriguing director. To put it simply, Full Frontal confused me. Its look at Los Angeles movie-industry culture has a way of telescoping further and further outwards. Using the visual technique for which he won the Oscar for Best Director on Traffic (he again operates as his own director of photography on this movie under the alias of Peter Andrews), he separates the different storylines and worlds with different visual looks. Much of the film is shot on digital video, giving it a harsh, washed-out look. The movie-within-the-movie is on standard 35mm. And there are two move levels even beyond that, one featuring David Fincher and Brad Pitt. I had trouble gaining full acceptance for Full Frontal. It covers its emotional resonance with layer upon layer of stylization and apathy. He holds the characters at arms length, never really showing any sympathy for their situations. Part of this is his visual style, which, while helpful in understanding the way the movie operates, tends to lend more of a documentary feel to the proceedings. Its wild tonal shifts can throw the viewer off ..., and Catherine Keener's behavior through the first two acts make it difficult to connect with her breakdown in the third. Perhaps die-hard film geeks will rave about Full Frontal for its cleverness and its "offbeat"ness. But that cleverness comes at the expense of the emotion that lies at the heart of this story. All style and no substance, which is probably what Soderbergh was going for. And for that, it works. But it's difficult to care.
Rating: 
Summary: Small Gem From Soderbergh
Review: Full Frontal is a difficult movie to watch and to fully understand on its first viewing. With patience and careful listening this movie opens outward like an onion as layer upon layer begins to emerge. This is the movie quotes Soderbergh that Woody Allen would have made if he moved west and dropped a lot of acid. That may or may not be the case. What Full Frontal is is a carefully crafted exploration of Hollywood relationships. In its format it reminded me a little of Robert Altman's Short Cuts in that we have multiple storylines with the same characters. Also we have a movie within a movie within yet another movie. If this all sounds confusing it is. But go along with the premise and it becomes enjoyable. This is a fine ensemble piece with some of Hollywood's biggest stars: Julia Roberts, Blair Underwood, David Hyde Pierce,Catherine Keener, and Mary McCormack. The film , or rather multiple films chronicle the relationships between the characters leading up to the 40th birthday of movie producer, Gus Delario (David Duchovny). The film shot both in 35mm and grainy DV presents challenges to its viewers and may be one of the more intelligent films of last year and is well worth a viewing or two. The DVD presents the film and a large group of extras tht really add to the presentation. There are the usual director and screenwriter commentaries, on camera in character interviews with the cast, deleted scenes, spy cam shots and an interview ith Soderbergh. Check this one out its worth it.
Rating: 
Summary: please pass the no-dozz
Review: Has to be the worst movie i have ever bought on DVD, and i own over 400 titles. I kept waiting for it to get better, but it just got worse. Why these stars would waste their time and ours is beyond me. I wish I could go back in time and never purchase and therefore not watch this poor excuse for a movie, I would. You would think with the star line-up, it would be better, but it's not. Please don't buy this unless you need a gift for someone you hate! Trust me, it is soooo bad!
Rating: 
Summary: Underrated
Review: I can't believe how underrated this movie is. I thot it was the best Soderbergh movie since "The Limey".
Rating: 
Summary: Full Confusion
Review: I expected more from this highly touted film by Steven Soderbergh but sadly I felt lost and unaffected throughout the entire experience.
I know this film is supposed to be artsy and creative, something profound that only a few really dedicated souls can figure out. I understand the movie within a movie concept and I get the need for all the grainy, jittery camera shots but I think this film went too far into the ozone layer for the average person to comprehend its full meaning.
David Hyde Pierce, Julia Roberts, Blair Underwood, and a few other notables did good acting jobs but their characters were never really explained and then when they were things changed anyway so the theories once held were quickly swept away. David Duchovny is the "frontal" that caused all the uproar when this film originally opened, but if you blink you will miss what you came to see and it's dead anyway!
I hoped for more from Soderbergh but the interesting writing found on a few of the stories never seemed to tie all together in the end. I walked away completely confused and unsatisfied; it just wasn't a picture for me.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Parts Dampered By Whole
Review: I know of a guy who, when he hit forty, went through a divorce. His response was to go back to college, literally. He walked away from the big bank job and everything else and started living as a 21-year-old all over again. Steven Soderbergh reminds me of that guy. Having made "Traffic" and "Erin Brockovich," it's like he decided to go back to college and make an edgy--and what student does not want edgy?--film on a film student's budget. I don't know what happened to the banker, but I know what happened to Soderbergh: he made "Full Frontal," and it succeeds more than half but not entirely. The effort has a lot of fine parts but the whole does not do them justice. This is a "day in the life of" dash between interrelated lives and the daisy chain of events that connects them; mostly they are held together by the shared experience of living in LA and working either in one of the media or in the fringes. David Hyde Pierce is extraordinary as a writer faced with an array of serious losses in this single day, unaware of one more that hangs in the balance. He is the moral touchstone in a town and film where soul is an endangered species. David Duchovny is the dark angel, a producer turning 40 in a town where that is a risky move. Julia Roberts and Blair Underwood come off as rather plastic, kind of slumming it with the indie crowd, but appropriately their story line is that of characters who are revealed to be in a film within a film about an actor in a television show, etc., etc. Catherine Keener careens throughout like a pinball spiked by the worst essences of LA., and as grating as she is at first, much comes to depend on how she will make it through the day. Nicky Katt's storyline is barely tacked on, but he makes the most of it as a small-time stage actor who has wisely not quit his day job. The biggest problem in this project is the smugness in which Soderbergh revels as he deploys indie conventions that are no longer that special: grainy, choppy film; jumpy hand-held cameras; zoom shots that are engaged like someone hitting the accelerator instead of the brakes; location shots in all low-ceiling spaces; and the assumption that regular people use words that can't be said on television as routine discourse. It's kind of like he went out and bought jeans that were already worn and had rips in them, somebody else's jeans.
Rating:
Summary: Back to basics moving making
Review: I love this type of movie. It's unpretentious and makes you work to follow all the nuances. This doesn't appeal to everyone, but I loved the little twists and turns. The 'central' character of Gus the producer was wonderfully played by David Duchovny. He is beautifully cast and has real talent for 'tongue-in-cheek' and comedic roles, as well as a flair the dramatic. David is often misjudged as an actor, but the increasing diversity of the roles he is playing now that he is able to concentrate on movies again is showing just how versatile and talented he is. David Hyde-Pierce's character, I thought, cemented the whole movie together. He was a far cry from his Frazier character and this movie shows that he is a fabulous actor. I thought that Julia Roberts and Blair Underwood were adquate and played their roles well, but did not shine. The rest of the supporting cast were well suited to their characters and the overall effect was great. Well done, Mr. Soderbergh.
Rating:
Summary: OK....
Review: I thought this movie would be a lot better than it was, but I guess it wasnt all bad. The cinemitogorphy was wretched and some of the actors like Julia Roberts, David D, etc...didn't play their charcters well and were very boring. The only role that kept me in the theater was Nicky Katt playing Hitler. He was very funny, great at improv, and did a great job. He is also hot! Anyway...I wouldn't reccommend seeing this movie, unless you're a Katt fan.
Rating:
Summary: Watching paint dry
Review: If this movie has any redeeming value it's in curing me of any desire to see another Hollywood expose again. I should have remembered it from my days as a Theatre major but for the record - actors are boring, directors are boring, most movie people sit around doing nothing in order to get ten minutes of footage put together. Even if these people aren't boring, they aren't nearly as interesting as their characters on screen. And Soderbergh really captures the dullness of Hollywood living as these characters go about their lives, reading their scenes, making the adjustments to their personal lives that personal trainers and therapy allows for. There are about 5 different storylines going through this movie but they have one thing in common - they are all forgettable. In fact I remember snippets like feeding the dog marijuana brownies or the divorce letter that never gets sent. I find myself realizing why David Duchovny wasn't a major star before <b>The X-Files</b>. He might be hilarious on the talk shows, but his understated droll delivery only works if he's talking about alien conspiracies. If he's talking about anything else you just want to nod off and take a nap. Buy this movie only if you want to torture your friends. Ten minutes into this thing I was feeling the slow weight of ennui creep over me. I couldn't move. I didn't want anything but a nap. If there are people that watched this thing all at once they are better folks than me. This movie makes Merchant Ivory movies look like action movies in comparison.
| 
