Rating: 
Summary: Yes, I love movies about people who love movies...
Review: If you want to see stripped-down (no pun intended) performances fro m some of today's best actors, this is the movie. Soderbergh gets out of the way and lets the actors shine. Don't try to sort out the plot, just sit back for a peek at the truly bizarre underbelly of what everyone outside of Hollywood assumes is a glamourous profession.
Rating: 
Summary: Has a lot of labels but just ajoke with our money!!!!
Review: Im just a computer programmer but im able to make movies better than this poor no funny plastic thing called full frontal. Who smiles for this movie never will understand whats smart and funny, just will have commanders and read labels and get a opinion. Who like this are dummies. Yes dummies, adults from new generation... Very bad...
Rating:
Summary: boring
Review: Interesting ideas regarding the movie's structure, some good acting, but ultimately - very VERY boring. The fact that the actors had to apply their make up themselves just doesnt make it worth seeing (unless you need some sleep). The actors seem to enjoy this, I guess because they had complete freedom . If you want to see a movie that was actually 'written' and 'directed' go somewhere else. Finally, to quote Barton Fink : this movie "...regresses to empty formalism".
Rating: 
Summary: COOL MOVIE
Review: Mum's the word on the plot of this Steven Soderbergh comedy. Julia Roberts stars as a reporter who interviews a successful actor, played by Blair Underwood. Billed as the unofficial sequel to "sex, lies, and videotape." the film stars Catherine Keener, Brade Rowe and David Alan Basche.
Rating:
Summary: Unremarkable and confusing
Review: Okay, if you like this movie, don't read this review and remember it is my opinion.Some really high powered actors are found in this movie. It is a movie within a movie. You see an interview taking place that is really part of the movie and then you see the character's real lives. The line from movie to "reality" gets blurred. However the use of video quality scenes versus the kind generally used in Hollywood movies helps provide the definition of which is which. There are several characters. Focal to this movie in primarily name only is Gus. All the players are planning (except for one) to go to a birthday party in his honor in the near future. A young black actor, who in the movie plays second fiddle to a well known actor.
An actress who plays a reporter.
A VP of Human resources that is nearly a basket case.
The sister of the VP of Human resources, who is also massage therapist, who has a unique connection to the birthday boy. She also plans on meeting a blind date from the internet soon.
A director of the movie, who's life is falling apart. It is pretty obvious why, with his victim mentality.
The director's partner, who does off Hollywood plays as well as producing this movie and hopes to meet a blind date on the internet. All these characters are played by well-known actors in this self-obsessed movie. The only point is our moods and actions are so dependent on our sense of safety. I can't say I found this movie entertaining, but only mildly diverting and for the most part pointless. Maybe that is the point.
Rating:
Summary: something creative, new, insightful
Review: So far, I have only read negative reviews, but after viewing the film, I have only positive words for it. I believe that many will not like it b/c it does not feed them the same mindless pap that studios are offering this summer, i.e. Austin Powers, XXX, and Mr. Deeds. This film, thus, is not for everyone. What it has to say about reality is very important, and many will not like its postmodern aura b/c it so closely resembles our lives, and it is true. The film was insightful, funny, and moving to the point that it made me feel uncomfortable about my presuppositions, my philosophy, and the way I live my life. And if 1hr45 of videotape can do that, then Full Frontal is worthy of 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: A Noble Failure
Review: Steven Soderbergh's "Full Frontal" attempts to confront the real from the imaginary, the true from the false. The movie is billed, as the true successor to "Sex, Lies and Videotape" but is it really?
Soderbergh has done some amazing things since SLV: "Traffic," "Erin Brockavich," "Out of Sight" and "The Limey." His mastery of the screen cannot be denied but unfortunately "Full Frontal" comes off only as weak and insipid...not as a companion piece to the milestone achievement that was "SLV." "Full Frontal" is a story about what it is to deal with and in the Hollywood of the year 2002. There is a film being made starring Julia Roberts and Blair Underwood and then there is purportedly the back-story starring a who's who of Hollywood...even a cameo by Brad Pitt.
The most interesting things about this film have to do with the physical production: the very grainy texture of the film, the story-within-a-story-within-a-story, the nouvelle vague-ish filming on the run quality. But Soderbergh pays so much attention to the physical production and the problems inherent therein that he fails to notice that the basic plot of the film is lacking in dramatic weight and therefore even the best actors have little of which to take a hold.
Chalk "Full Frontal" as a failure per se but a noble failure coming from one of our truly great contemporary directors.
Rating:
Summary: Full Frontal - **** Stars
Review: Success might nearly have spoiled Rock Hunter but it surely won't spoil Steven Soderbergh. On the heels of his three most commercially successful efforts to date--Oscar winners "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic" along with "Ocean's Eleven"--Soderbergh has returned to his independent roots, roughing it with a low-budget comedy-drama shot mostly on digital video and edited on an Apple Macintosh with Final Cut Pro software. The resulting movie, which Soderbergh has called "A movie about movies for people who love movies," is precisely that--a very "inside" look at the Hollyweird lifestyle, adapted by Coleman Hough from her own play and laced by Soderbergh with cameos and inside references to all manner of films old and new...including his own. There's even a beautifully shameless jab at the very executive whose company is releasing the picture that's sure to elicit uncontrollable guffaws among showbizites. In simplest terms, it's a delight. Trapped somewhere between Altman's "The Player" and Godard's "Contempt," "Full Frontal's" ensemble narrative at first appears to be a seemingly disjointed series of stories about the usual Hollywood types with all the usual Hollywood neuroses. There's the unhappily-married loser journalist (David Hyde Pierce) and his sexually unsatisfied mid-level executive wife (Catherine Keener), the blissfully cynical movie star (Julia Roberts) and her libidinous upstart co-star (Blair Underwood), the self-absorbed no-name stage actor (Nicky Katt) determined to put his own unmistakable imprint on Adolf Hitler and, at the center of it all, an enigmatic producer named Gus (David Duchovny) around whom this small solar system of minor planets form their wobbly orbits. As the stories connect and diverge, the movie takes on a variety of shapes, a trajectory that allows it to come to a climax without coming to a point. But that's hardly a bad thing. The point of the film seems to be that nothing ever really comes to a point. Life goes on. People change. Things evolve. In a certain sense, it's an embracing of the avant-garde filmmakers' mantra--the idea that it's more about the process than the result, that experimentation is its own justification, independent of the results. About the only thing that makes the movie look more substantive than it is in terms production value is the presence of Julia Roberts. But Roberts, like the rest of the film's cast, received no special treatment, forfeited her usual amenities and worked for scale. Shot for little more than $2 million over the course of a whirlwind 18 days, resorting to actual film only for the "movie-within-the-movie," "Full Frontal" was nothing if not a labor of love. Film history is littered, of course, with such efforts, most of which never see their love reciprocated by the audience. But "Full Frontal" should change that. It's a liberating experience for both the makers and the audience, though audiences might not come to this realization quite so easily or willingly. It's a picture that can, at times, be uncomfortable, voyeuristic and spontaneous in a fashion unseen since the heyday of Godard and Cassavetes. But for every twitch, there's a laugh followed by a shriek, a shudder, a titter and a quiver. Not everyone will feel the breeze blowing up their collective façade, but to the elect few who do, the real meaning of the movie's title should become abundantly clear.
Rating:
Summary: Don't buy this DVD--don't even spend $3 to rent it
Review: The only reason this movie gets one star is because there's not an option to choose zero. This is, unbelievably to me, given Mr. Soderbergh's other credits, one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. The "documentary" style filming is grainy and extremely distracting, and even more so because it's such an over-used technique. I'm an avid independent film viewer and like the unusual and the avant-garde, but this film is a poseur which fails in every way. If you come to the story without knowing it's supposed to be imbued with skewering cleverness and satire, it's confusing, unengaging and boring, and, come to think of it, now that I know it's supposed to have those elements, it's STILL confusing, boring and unengaging. The character development is so poor that you don't care about anybody nor understand what's motivating them. David Hyde Pierce is a horrible choice for the main character--he has no depth or emotional range which, unfortunately, keeps us half wondering if Kelsey Grammer's going to come through the door at any minute. Catherine Keener has the kind of charisma that transcends shoddy screenwriting, but how her character behaves makes the least sense of all. I think the only reason to rent this movie would be if you want to get a few second "full frontal" view of David Duchovny, albeit a grainy one shot from a distance so you really can't see anything, or if you're the VP of HR and you need to show your managers how NOT to conduct an HR interview.
Rating:
Summary: Don't buy this DVD--don't even spend $3 to rent it
Review: The only reason this movie gets one star is because there's not an option to choose zero. This is, unbelievably to me, given Mr. Soderbergh's other credits, one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. The "documentary" style filming is grainy and extremely distracting, and even more so because it's such an over-used technique. I'm an avid independent film viewer and like the unusual and the avant-garde, but this film is a poseur which fails in every way. If you come to the story without knowing it's supposed to be imbued with skewering cleverness and satire, it's confusing, unengaging and boring, and, come to think of it, now that I know it's supposed to have those elements, it's STILL confusing, boring and unengaging. The character development is so poor that you don't care about anybody nor understand what's motivating them. David Hyde Pierce is a horrible choice for the main character--he has no depth or emotional range which, unfortunately, keeps us half wondering if Kelsey Grammer's going to come through the door at any minute. Catherine Keener has the kind of charisma that transcends shoddy screenwriting, but how her character behaves makes the least sense of all. I think the only reason to rent this movie would be if you want to get a few second "full frontal" view of David Duchovny, albeit a grainy one shot from a distance so you really can't see anything, or if you're the VP of HR and you need to show your managers how NOT to conduct an HR interview.
|
