Cheap Full Frontal (DVD) (David Hyde Pierce, Julia Roberts) (Steven Soderbergh) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Full Frontal

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.

Excruciating, but not absolutely worthless ;-)
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.

Experiment? Ensemble Drama? The Film Doesn't Know it.
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.