Customer Reviews

Full Frontal

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

You're watching people being watched - or not. Once you understand the movie-within-a-movie structure, you just sit back and watch life unfold. Of course, it's life in Hollywood, and you're supposed to see how weird that can be. The humor is sometimes dry, sometimes touching and sometimes ROFL hilarious. My favorite scene is when the actor portraying Hitler, explaining the hasty departure of his co-star, says, "The only people offended by drinking blood are those who don't do it." And then he continues riding that train of thought. I loved it and plan to buy it when it comes out on video/DVD.

...that I lacked the smarts, intellectuality, sophistication and suavity to cotton on to this aimless, plotless, anchorless and senseless flick. I guess you just have to be inside Hollywood heads to understand this parody of same. Us regular folks just aren't with it. How, indeed, that saddens me (not).

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.