IMDb user comments for
Full Frontal (2002) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

166 comments in total

---

50 out of 74 people found the following comment useful :-
A Huge Waste of Talented People, 26 April 2004

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

`Full Frontal' is maybe my greatest deception this year. Directed by Steven Soderbergh and having such a cast, I would not believe that the film could be such a crap. There are lots of characters, but none of them is well developed. Therefore, the viewer sees many famous actors and actresses on the screen and is not able to understand who they are, what are their motives, where they are. The plot is very confused, and some actors and actresses perform more than one role. The image and photography are horrible, using a kind of fake Dogma '95 style. I do not know how such talented people could be part of such a mess: friendship or big money? Anyway, a huge waste of talented people and of my time and money, in a film that never works. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): `Full Frontal'

---

24 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Explores New Ground, 5 July 2003
Author: mrchaos33 from Toronto, Ontario

Director Steven Soderbergh calls Full Frontal the unofficial sequel to Sex Lies and Videotape, his groundbreaking 1989 film. Most everyone else has called it a mess, or useless waste of time. One prominent American critic even suggested this might be the worst film ever by a major director. I can't say I agree with the harsh criticism. While I'm not exactly sure what the movie is about, and vast passages of it simply do not work, I do think it is a film with great passion and energy. Soderbergh has left behind the slickness of Ocean's 11 and Erin Brockovich and made an experimental film that bristles with inventiveness. Not everything works, but there are several nice performances, particularly by David Hyde Pierce and Catherine Keener and I enjoyed watching an A-list director stray from the tried and true and explore rockier ground.

---

23 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
I loved it, 31 March 2005

Author: Bryce David

I was surprised by how much I actually enjoyed FULL FRONTAL. I'm not a big Steven Soderbergh fan and only heard bad things about this film so when I rented it, I was expecting more of Soderbergh's pointless films, like KAFKA, and instead was totally engrossed with the movie, the characters and mostly the hypnotic style and direction. Aside from the ending (the party scenes) and the unconvincing storyline with David Hyde Pierce, I liked everything else. I was mesmerized from beginning to end.

The great thing is how quiet this movie is. Movies are so noisy these days, mostly in order to numb people's mind to hide the fact they don't have anything more than visuals, watching FULL FRONTAL was like a cinematic vacation.

Beautifully shot, clever and at times engrossing (the Catherine keener storyline was my favorite). It's sad to see few people "got " this film.

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Worst movie I have seen, 15 October 2007

Author: majorjkg from United States

Even though it received 5 stars from many critics, this is the worst movie I have ever seen, including a number of porn movies. I have no objection to sex and can tolerate foul language but a movie should have some redeeming qualities and this movie has none. Basically no plot, no suspense, no romance, no fun, no good jokes, no good sex--just a sorry attempt by some excellent movie makers to be cute with no payoff! I rate this movie even worse than Burt Reynolds worst failure with Dom Deluise (when he and his cast appeared to be having a great time making an unfunny movie) because Soderbergh and crew have the skill to do so much better. I still don't understand why so many critics thought this was such a great movie. Must be some kind of Hollywood inside joke that they are not sharing with the rest of us!

---

11 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
My honest opinions, they don't have to be yours., 31 December 2003

Author: cresentmoon531 from Los Angeles, California

I found Full Frontal to be a rejuvenating film. I am so use to seeing films that are so structured and plot is thrown at you, with this film I didn't know what was going to happen next. I went in to the viewing of this without knowing what to expect, I can say I didn't have high expectations about it. I didn't let the knowledge of Steven Soderbergh as a director influence how I began watching it. I went in with an open mind and I think you really need to in order to get the ideas presented. This film took a risk by using well known actors, brilliant actors, making the public believe that this would be a film like all of the others. For me, it was great to see the versatility. I was glad that there was some true acting going on, there was an enormous amount of truth coming from each artist on the screen. To see truth and honesty and open hearts on screen allowed me to really embrace this film. Some people may say they disliked it because they didn't have any sympathy for any of the characters, well I think that it doesn't really matter if you do or not. This film was a day in the life of people who are all in some way intertwined and are all brought together for a brief moment. I feel that it is trying to portray the truth of each person and if that was the idea, Steven accomplished something great. I have only rented it but I intend to go out and buy it. It is a good resource for actors searching for what truth honestly looks like on screen. Full Frontal is a good exposure of the soul really bringing each characters truth out in to the open.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Experiment gone awry, 19 February 2004
Author: brianh-9 from Mississippi, United States

This is an exercise from Steven Soderberg and that's all it is. You sit through an hour and a half of conversations that normally entitle "you know" at the beginning and end of every sentence to try and make the "film" more real. It juxtaposes two "films"..one containing Francesca(Julia Roberts) and Calvin(Blair Underwood)(this filmed in 35 mm)as Catherine and Nicholas talking about a black actor's status in "white hollywood".This leads to Calvin being opposite Brad Pitt(playing himself)in a film directed by David Fincher. This film,come to find out is in turn a doc directed by a man who's face is covered by a block(it's Soderberg). The "real film" (which is lensed in digital)contains Calvin and Francesca as well as other characters and their lives in Los Angeles. The film's ending totally popped my already deflating balloon and showed that my time and patience was wasted. The dialogue meanders trying to show real people talking about real things. I thought it was a hollywood insiders film cared only by those who are hollywood insiders. I thought the characters never had direction and were simply annoying. There were moments it looked like the film might go somewhere,but unfortunately it gets bogged down with that "phony film" keeps coming into the middle of the "real" movie. I just sat there trying not to collapse in my desire to turn the dvd off. Oh well,I'm done with this review,but if you watch this wasteland of wasted time beware..I warned you. BOMB/*****

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Confusing But Satisfying, 18 August 2002

Author: tabuno from utah

"Full Frontal" is probably one of the most difficult movies to watch, at least the first half. The movie within a movie definitely confused (though the hint in the credits strongly suggested as much). What really disappointed was the quality of the movie within the movie, while the production value was good, the script and the plot didn't seem anywhere near what a movie would be. On the other hand, the production value of the rest of the movie didn't detract unlike what some other critics have complained. With real tv now the big rage, what the audience expects isn't all that clear.

By the end of the movie, events move forward more quickly, the separate strands tie together and the end (though not original) does help to make the movie wrap up in a nice package. (It's Brad Pitt's last commentary after the credits that really does a number - making one realize that Soderbergh actually did a nice job at focusing on what was really important to him).

While a difficult to movie to wade through at first (a definitely not for everybody), the movie for me was eventually understandable, at times enjoyable, and worth the trip and expense. I just wish a little more effort had been made at helping the audience get through it.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Must be from LA to get the jokes, but go see the film anyway, 6 August 2002

Author: (ddarby_2010@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles

I originally thought people that didn't get this movie were just plain dumb. However, consider the number of LA/Hollywood insider jokes there is some room for understanding. The quirkiness (Wilson played by Terrence Stamp walking through the lobby) adds to the humor - having seen Steven's other films does also. All-in-all a great commentary on life in [the film business] LA.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
A Different Kind of Peep Show, 13 August 2002

Author: valdan3 from Canada

"Peeping Toms are never praised, like novelists or bird watchers, for their keenness of observation." - W.H. Auden

And like a peeping Tom, Soderbergh shows us (with a definite "keenness of observation"), an intimate glimpse into the lives of a few Angeleos one Friday (and the following Saturday morning). Judging from the mainstream media's reviews (mainly ranging from lukewarm endorsements to outright hostility), Soderbergh will probably suffer the same fate that Auden referred to - well, to be fair, there have been *some* reviewers who praised his efforts with resounding accolades, but those have been few and far between. For those keeping track of such things - this is one review more to be added to that short, but praise-worthy, list.

Soderbergh chooses his cast so carefully that he knows which actors will come through in the crunch and be capable of being a *more* when he needs them to be. You don't need to waste your time in a Lamborghini if all you are going to do is drive to the grocery store ( for the more pedestrian roles he fully utilized the more limited actors like Roberts and Duchovny. When SS wanted a "race car", he sought out actors who could deliver what he needed. Keener, McCormack, Colantoni and Pierce all were standouts in tremendously complex parts. They produced the laughter and the tears that made FF a very human story. A story about damaged people, lost people, people who are looking for a connection with others. A story about faith and deceit. A universal story that used the little known (at least to most of us), but much envied, seemingly shallow, world of Hollywood as a modern parable.

This is certainly not a film that is meant for mass consumption and will have a very limited appeal. It's not entertaining in the traditional sense and is very experimental in its form. But I liked its unconventional approach and found that I enjoyed "peeping" into these people's lives (letting Soderbergh show us with his "keen observation" the connections that were missed and made). For me the film conveyed a bittersweet humour about the struggles of just being human (even in a strangely dehumanising place like L.A.) and I can't wait for the DVD to come out to examine it even further. I found the DV use refreshing and not distracting in the least and the juxtaposition of the 35 mm. film against the "realistic" DV was thematically and artistically perfect.

Finally, I hope that, seeing how brilliant the performance of David Hyde Pierce was in Full Frontal, that he gets more opportunities to work with Soderbergh in the future.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
seems like the movie within a movie DID work, 7 August 2002

Author: Xdude21 from dallas, tx

Going into this movie I didn't know what to expect because of the less than ecstatic reviews from papers and imdb, but i was delighted with the movie. I feel that Soderbergh did a great job following each character throughout the movie. The shifting from normal cinema camera work to the fuzzier hand-held showed the difference of 'movie live' and real life. This way of shooting is also used to trick you or leave you wondering, "what part WAS real?". David Hyde Pierce and Nicky Katt were hillarious and i would deffinately recomend this movie to anyone who enjoys independent type cinema.

---

---

Page 1 of 17:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history