Terrell Howell (KnightsofNi11) Steven Soderbergh calls Full Frontal the "unofficial karmic sequel" to his debut film, sex, lies, and videotape. Now, I'm not exactly sure what that means. Karmic is basically the adjective form of karma, which is the Buddhist principle of retributive justice that determines a person's life and whether it is positive or negative. There are no parallels between the story lines of the two films and I can't draw any connections between the themes or motifs of either film. So I think what it comes down to is just ignore what Soderbergh has said and look at Full Frontal as a completely separate film.So now that we've cleared (or rather disregarded) any confusion I can continue this review without any necessary mention of sex, lies, and videotape. Full Frontal is about a group of people in the film industry whose lives intertwine in different ways, all primarily through a producer named Gus. The opening of the film displays character cards for all the main players, accompanied by voice over from that character. In this film we have a down on his luck writer named Carl Bright. His wife is a lawyer named Lee Bright and he is having issues with her that carry throughout the film. There is Lee's sister, Linda who is a massage therapist. There is a stage director named Arty who has been chatting with Linda online as the two of them use aliases that are much cooler than who they actually are. Then there are two actors, Calvin and Francesca, who for a majority of the film are in a film-within-a-film scenario that, honestly, finds itself much more profound than it actually is. These characters are all coming together for a party thrown by Gus, and along the way there are some surprises and discoveries made about themselves.This film is mostly just odd. It's offbeat, it's quirky, and it also tries very hard to be clever. Granted there are scenes that are clever, but there are others that sort of miss the mark. Soderbergh does a great job with the story structure and the way he brings the characters together. He has a clear cut goal for this film, but the process of getting there is pretty rocky. What Full Frontal suffers from the most is just plain dullness. This film really does get boring at times. But it isn't unbearable by any means. It is one of those films that just when you start to realize how slow it is getting something happens to bring it back and you are drawn in once again. I almost see this as cheating because a good film will keep you drawn in consistently from start to finish, not just throw in certain moments to grab your attention and then skimp on the rest. Full Frontal isn't as guilty of this as other films because Soderbergh makes an effort to keep the film entertaining in its entirety, but the effort goes to waste at some moments that just really drag the film down.But in spite of everything you have to admire this film for just having a good time. Soderbergh directs it in a sort of mockumentary fashion. When I see this movie I think of "The Office" and the way it is shot as if the camera crew is with these characters, filming their day to day business, and the characters know it. There is a significant amount of voice over work done in this film that is all interviews with the characters. Soderbergh allegedly filmed the actors in this film about their character and then used some of the results for the film. There is a lot of obvious ad libbing in the film that adds a sense of quirky authenticity to the look and feel of this film, making it unique, if only slightly.Full Frontal tries to be a lot more than it is. It is definitely a smart film with a nice touch of cleverness, but in the end it doesn't seem to amount to much. I think Soderbergh was trying to create a very in depth character study disguised as a quirky comedy film, but I think more of the quirky comedy came out than the profundities of the character study. But I can still say that I enjoyed this film for what it is. Would I ever sit through it again? No way. But it is something different, making for an amusing one time watch.

dfle3 This movie isn't a total write-off, but it's really navel-gazing at the lint that accumulates therein. It utilises the conceit of a movie within a movie...in other words, there is 'reality' in the movie, and a 'pretend' part which is the movie within a movie. The lines between these two get blurred often.If you are familiar with TV shows like "The office" (whether the UK or the US version), you will know the kind of performances to expect and the manner in which they are delivered...dry, awkward at times, etc. The cinematography is also the kind that The Office would use...hand held, fly on the wall kind of stuff. The editing seems odd at times, too...you seem to lose a second of time every now and again, and I'm not exactly sure what that is meant to be about.Script wise, the characters seem to prattle on about nothing much at all a lot of the time, but occasionally you feel that they are saying something important. That sense of importance is lessened by the fact that the characters (if not the actors themselves) are just plain bored by what they are saying. You, the viewer, can feel their pain too. The topics of importance raised in dialogue could be something like "race" and its relation to popular culture and representation.The aspects of this movie which make it rise above being a total loss are the odd scenes...there are amusing scenes like that of a theatre actor who plays Adolf Hitler in a very odd way. If you are tuned into that aspect of this movie, you will enjoy such moments.Train-spotters will enjoy the cameo appearance in this movie of well known film and TV actors-people like David Duchovny (The X Files), Brad Pitt (Se7en) and Julia Roberts (Ocean's Eleven). Duchovny's character also provides some of the absurd humour of this movie.I suppose my main issue with this film is this: is it a satire? Of Hollywood? If yes, I'm not sure that such a satire can rise above what it attempts to satirise. In other words, I'm not sure that it is any better than what it attempts to satirise.Another hypothesis that occurred to me was that the director, Steven Soderbergh, was satirising lesser talents than himself. If yes, the fact that this film doesn't really seem to have found an audience-critical or commercial, perhaps- suggests, again, that Soderbergh is on the same level as those he was seeking to satirise. Even though I don't feel that this movie is much of anything, I have to applaud Soderbergh's magnificent debut movie, I think, "Sex, lies and videotape". That's a movie where he got things right...performances and script and tone etc. In this movie, it all just feels so self-indulgent.If you are into pointed critiques of cinema or Hollywood, I recommend movies like "Barton Fink" which was very successful, I think, in satirising a certain Hollywood 'type'. To a lesser extent, I recommend Peter Greenway's "The baby of Macon". That is not a terrific movie, but I think it has perhaps the greatest scene in cinema history...where the viewer is confronted by the very nature of representation (in the infamous rape scene from that movie).This movie had its premiere, I think, on commercial Australian TV at a very late timeslot. That was appropriate. That's where I saw this film-in fact I PVRd it. If you can see this movie cheap, that would be the way to see it, I think.33/100

Galina It saddens me to say so but "Full Frontal" is painfully boring, pointless, disjointed, and underdeveloped. I am a big fan of indie experimental original movies but this one gives the term bad meaning. As hard as they tried, the talented performers ((David Hyde Pierce, Catherine Keener, Mary McCormack, Julia Roberts, Blair Underwood) could not make their lifeless characters interesting enough for me to care. I love Catherine Keener in every movie I've seen her but she's played the same role in better films. She is much more interesting in Neil LaBute's "Your Friends & Neighbors" (1998) which reminds in some ways Full Frontal. Both, Neil LaBute's and Soderbergh's films picture selfish and often unpleasant and despicable people who are not happy with themselves and can't make happy those close to them. Another Keener's film that came to my mind, is Living in Oblivion (1995), a 91 minutes long low-budget independent movie about trials and tribulations of making a low budget independent movie. Tom DiCillo's smart, funny, playful, and highly enjoyable Living in Oblivion has surreal, strangely poetic and amusing quality to it. Unlike, Soderbergh's empty exercise in self-indulgence, wonderful cast of Living in Oblivion has something interesting to play and the characters created by Steve Buscemi, Catherine Keener, Chad Palomino, Dermot Mulroney and Peter Dinklage (in a very funny cameo) are alive and three-dimensional. I am a fan of Soderbergh's work since I saw his fascinating debut, the Palme d'Or winner "Sex, Lies, and Videotape". I read that "Full Frontal" is in a way a sequel to Soderbergh's first feature. If that's true, it only proves that sequels almost never measure up to originals.

clintoncombined The explanation for this and Solaris maybe that the director was contractually obliged to make those 2 before leaving. Brad Pitt sole appearance is as he walks down a street in one scene and that is all he does. Almost the whole audience in the cinema screen I was in walked out. The same happened in the George Clooney film Solaris and Dancing at the Blue Iguana in which the cast seem to be trying to improvise lines whilst under the influence of semi sedation. Is a hodge podge which I have almost successfully blocked from my mind. Even if you are on a desert island and a passing native offers you the chance to watch this film in his solar power raft and you haven't watched films for 10 years. Do not watch this. It will make the effort of sustaining your life hunting and fishing seem worthless.