Rating: 
Summary: Excruciating, but not absolutely worthless ;-)
Review: There is a style, or class, or school of comedy characterized by something bad, or lame being repeated over and over until it becomes funny. There is something like this going on here with "Full Frontal". I saw this picture in a theater with six other people, and three of them walked out after twenty minutes. Too bad, really, since the chuckles only started to occur after the proceedings had worn you absolutely down, and twenty minutes into the picture you were only JUST starting to get exasperated. Could be that this film works better on the small screen, which I found to be the case with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", another excruciating experience. Warning! By no means see this movie with another recent Soderbergh picture "Solaris", or you may subsequently need therapy.
Rating: 
Summary: A Highly Underrated Film
Review: This film proves that a good story (not a large budget) makes a good film. I heard it was made for $2 million and grossed a total of $2 million in theatrical release. I found the story refreshing in the way it wanders. The nuances will be even more poignant if you live in Los Angeles but they have broad appeal. I especially liked the psycho HR director played by Katherine Keener. Enjoy !
Rating:
Summary: prettty ucked up if you tell me
Review: this is a movie in a movie inside of a movie(what the **it) some good acting with David Hyde Pierce, Nicky Katt and David Duchovny but the others are wasted. Soderbergh is a great director but this one feels funky and wrong. a nice cameo appereance though by Brad Pitt. otherwise dont waste your time with this one people, seeing it one is good enough for me
Rating: 
Summary: Watching Paint Dry
Review: This is quite a short film, around ninety minutes, long but it seems longer as it is extraordinarily tedious. It's a Hollywood movie about Hollywood and the movie business and I guess it's intended to have a certain ironic, satirical edge to it. But it's not much of an edge and what Soderbergh has made is a smug and tedious exercise in navel gazing. I think Soderbergh probably thinks he has made a wry black comedy but it's a very safe, pale shade of black and, though it sometimes tries hard, it is never remotely witty. It has a decidedly overwritten and theatrical feel to it like a rather pretentious and forgettable off-broadway play. There are six main characters, three of each sex, none of whom there is the remotest reason to care about in the slightest. The gimmicky postmodern film-within-a-film trick is getting pretty tired by now and, where this film is concerned, has little or no apparent point beyond courting a certain spurious arthouse credibility. One or two fairly decent performances, notably from Catherine Keener and Mary McCormack, constitute a slender redeeming feature.
Rating:
Summary: For students only.
Review: This is the kind of thing they make film and acting students watch. The idea is to show how much you can accomplish on a shoestring, with the actors encouraged to improvise. Despite the emphasis on craft, the actors come across as playing themselves. David Duchovny is bored; Katherine Keener is beautiful but arrogant; Blair Underwood is just arrogant and so on.What this actually shows is how you can take some of the hottest actors in the world and make a self-absorbed and spectacularly dull movie. Woody Allen might have been able to breathe some life into this. Maybe. How dull? I rented Full Frontal along with Jackass. Hard to say which was more painful.
Rating:
Summary: Pretentious facade, nothing behind it but sheer stupidity
Review: This is what they must show in the Ninth Circle of Hell. The thing may appear deeply intellectual only to someone under 16, all those who have outgrown their pimples should know better. Bad acting abounds, with Blair Underwood being particularly unwatchable. Soderbergh is way overrated and has never been a favorite (O.K., videotape was fine, Traffic and Ocean's Eleven were adequate remakes of perfectly good originals, the rest is, hm...Lifetime quality), but Full Frontal is in another league...or circle.
Rating: 
Summary: bold and simple pleasure
Review: this movie is entertaining and the dvd does it justice. no extraordinary features wowed me, but they were as insightful as you'd expect from the makers of a creative flick like this. david hyde pierce is always a pleasure. here, he taught me the use of drinking from the bottle. no, that's actually a lame thing to say. drinking blood, though, that's a riot.
Rating:
Summary: A [$] waste of two hours of my life
Review: This movie was presented to me as an "unofficial sequel" to "Sex, Lies and Videotape," so when my brother and wife suggested I see it with them, I accepted. Fifteen minutes into this waste of film, I was ready to leave, but didn't want to hurt my brother, who really wanted to see it. After we left, I found out he felt the same way. This picture is poorly written, confusingly filmed, badly edited, mediocrely acted, and, as far as I can tell, is this year's attempt by a major Hollywood studio to prove it's not just a money-making machine, but that they care about ART! They have failed. If you feel you simply MUST see it, get it as a rental. You'll still waste the time, but at least you can waste it cheaply.
Rating:
Summary: fun and unusual
Review: This was an interesting a strange looking film, but entertaining. At first it was hard to understand what was happening but then it all came together. The acting is very good.
Rating:
Summary: Experiment? Ensemble Drama? The Film Doesn't Know it.
Review: Though "Full Frontal" boasts of its great casts including Julia Roberts, the film is rather an experimental indie film, mostly shot in 18 days with a digital camera (which cost only $ 4,600). That is not a problem if the film is interesting -- I mean, interesting characters, interesting techiniques, interesting stories, or anything. No such luck, sorry. Though some actors are giving their best efforts, the film looks more like a self-indulgent film-school student's work. The film follows the events that happen to the characters (whose profiles are revealed in the introductory part). Journalist Julia Roberts is interviewing TV star Blair Underwood; Cathrine Keener is doing the most uncomfortable job of the human resorce office (that is, firing the employees); her sister Mary McCormack is talking about the guy she met on the net; David Hyde Pierce (who shows uncanny resemblance with director Soderbergh himself) is rehearsing the stage drama for the always quizzical Nikky Katt. When the day comes close to the end, these assorted people find themselves strangely entangled in the web of human relations, which is represented by the dinner party for "Gus," powerful Hollywood producer played by one star from "X-Files." The film also includes 'film within film" device (and even "film within film within film" devide, too), which might confuse some of the viewers. Fortunately, the device is not overused, and soon you will understand what is doing on. The trouble is, except for some moments including talented Keener, none of the characters can really grab your attention. They are facing the critical moments of life, the film implies, but strangely we do not care. And as the experimental film, "Full Frontal" is not as innovative as "Schizopolis" (in which Soderbergh himself starred). Possibly, here is the reason for its half-baked result: first, incredible you might say, but Soderbergh's use of digital camera is so poor like someone's home movies. At one scene, you see Sandra Oh very briefly. Well, but I couldn't see whether it was her or not because of a blurred image (I knew her voice, and saw her name in the credits), and I was thinking -- what is the point of doing that? The poorly shot images just detract our attention to the characters which should not be sacrificed for the dirctor's unnecessary "experiments." Some parts of the film might interest you (if you're a film buff). You see many cameos -- Brad Pitt, Terence Stamp, and David Fincher (as the perfectionist director who needs 49 takes for one breif shot). But they are not enough for us to keep being interesting in the story which should really count. The conculsion is this; you just cannot use this great cast just because you want to be experimantal. Life is too short to do that, especially with this cast.
|
