NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Python Hyena Full Frontal (2002): Dir: Steven Soderbergh / Cast: Julia Roberts, Blaire Underwood, Mary McCormack, Catherine Keener, David Duchovny: Both Steven Soderbergh and Julia Roberts made two overrated stupid movies called Erin Brockovich and Ocean's 11. Now comes a worthwhile effort for Roberts but not for Soderbergh. Title regards issues skirted around as oppose to facing. Blaire Underwood plays a black actor interviewed by Julia Roberts but he believes she wrote him a love letter. A husband is unaware of his wife's affair or her willingness to end their marriage. Or that plastic bag used by a massage client after talking women into giving him a hand job. Intriguing concept with detailed subplots but editing is sloppy and Soderbergh hardly matches his shots jumping from one scene to another. Examples of his better works include Traffic and Out of Sight where his talent is on target. Underwood and Roberts have great chemistry. Mary McCormack gets more than she bargained for from a massage client. Catherine Keener is a depressed housewife looking for love in all the wrong places. David Duchovny also makes an appearance outside his usual X-Files familiarity. Great ensemble cast involved in a variety of subplots make this an interesting take on connecting. Often disjointed yet detailed portrayal of the broken lives we often lead. Score: 8 / 10

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.

isisherbs2000 I have been reading the comments to Full Frontal in the hopes that someone could explain the plot, since I didn't understand the action. At all. And yet, I really enjoyed the movie! I think there really isn't a typical story - it's not a problem of having to unravel a circuitous, circular, fragmented, or some other off-beat storytelling style in order to understand the plot. I don't think there is one. So, I suppose, one could say it's a pointless movie.Except.Each scene was really wonderful - I was pulled into each conversation (or wacky interaction, in the case of Catherine Keener's character) so thoroughly that I felt I understood each character as if they were a colleague or neighbor. Even when it became apparent I had no idea what had just happened - with the movie-in a movie-in a movie thing - I felt like I'd just hung out with these folks and felt their anxiety, their worry, their sadness, their pompousness, their shame, their need....their humanity. Even David Hyde Pierce on the phone made me feel that way!So, perhaps one should view this film as a series of vignettes (or snippets), rather than as a movie with a beginning, middle and end. I would recommend this movie for people who don't know a thing about digital vs video vs film, hand held or dolly or whatever cameras, or anything technical about movie-making (like me), but who like really great acting and strangely attracting things. Full Frontal is kinda like a lava lamp, and all other movies are Pier One decorations...

shaffe17 Don't watch this movie for Brad Pitt, he's only in there for a minute.There really isn't a plot and the character roles change. This film is more about looking at the way a movie is made and having fun while doing it.It's too bad it's not really fun for the rest of us. This movie will ruin your Friday if you bring it home from Blockbuster!!!Here's a wise suggestion: if you want to see any of these actors at their best, watch what they're famous for. You'll be better off watching reruns of Fraiser, Fightclub, X-files, etc.Did you know comments require 10 lines of text? Neither did I. That's why this line is here. And those lines up there, hold real information.