|
Showing all 24 reviews...
|
|
 |
Very boring!
1/10
15.3.2003 -
manongre@ - age: 18-25
This is a good sell for big budgets. Ouch. What the... ?!?
4/10
3.3.2003 -
parkerd891770802@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
So I get to the theatre, and tell them I want a ticket to this movie. The cashier (whom I think was one of the managers filling in) asks if I was sure? And showed me the review. Wow. So that bad hey? She said lots of people had been walking out as it is not what they were expecting. So I go in, and I'm one of 3 people in there when the lights go out. When the lights come back on, I am the only one in the theatre. So, take it at that, I liked it, but that might mean only 1 in three people like it. It reminded me of the style of "Best In Show". But this was better. And this was more complicated. It's impressivly different and intelligent. And funny. One character had the start of one of those days they right country songs about. Save this for a rental though.
7/10
1.10.2002 -
cliffa@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Did Apple and / or Cannon underwrite this movie? I have read quite a few articles referring to the fact that Steven Soderbergh used Cannon digital cameras to shoot most of Full Frontal and Apple laptops to edit it. My guess is that Apple and / or Cannon sponsored this movie? Top marketing firms like Ming Diamond Price PR use this type of sneaky marketing strategy for its clients all the time. Its a good example of product marketing, but they sure picked a weird movie. What was Soderbergh thinkin?
5/10
16.9.2002 -
jeffkim@ - age: 26-35
From the reviews written here it is clear that you either love this movie or you hate it. It is also clear that the two groups holding these opposing opinions will never understand each other so lets not argue. If you have read these reviews and are left feeling confused about whether you should go to this film or not, here is a simple guide: Did you love or hate "The Blair Witch Project"? If you loved it - go see Full Frontal and enjoy. If you hated it - save you money and avoid Full Frontal, even when it shows up on late night TV. I hope this helps.
1/10
6.9.2002 -
michael,ratcliffe@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I found it interesting and different. I liked it!
7/10
31.8.2002 -
nstaveris@ - age: 26-35
Entertaining, that's what this movie is all about. For those who complains about this movie, don't forget that you're no gods-expecting-total-satisfaction, so appreciate what they give you, they owe you nothing.
10/10
31.8.2002 -
incantr@ - age: 18-25
No originality or depth here. This film within a film within a film is a self-conscious attempt to look "artsy" with no real justification."Look, we're in a film about a film, get it? " "Uh ya, I think I can get my mind around that." This concept is about as original as the idea of taking a picture of someone else while they are taking a picture of you! The film tries REALLY HARD to look 'cool' but just ends up being extremely irritating. Also, haven't we seen enough films depicting the vapid lives of California types in all their misery? Furthermore, Soderbergh's films are starting to all look the same! The conclusion is equally unsatisfying. Save your money and rent it -- if you are really bored.
4/10
31.8.2002 -
ariella227@ - age: 26-35
Very daring!! Comical yet serious subject matter.
9/10
28.8.2002 -
ahowell@ - age: 26-35
This isn't a movie about a movie in a movie. It's a movie about a movie in a movie, in a movie. Confused yet? Don't be. Better yet, don't go watch this drivel. Characters that ramble on and on, and just when you think you finally get some character development? Jokes on you, it's not real. Very funny, Mr. Soderbergh. Like the "soup nazi" said in that Seinfeld episode: NEXT!
3/10
27.8.2002 -
empiah@ - age: 26-35
An American movie with lots of dialogue - no car chase, no kiss at the end, no hero, no pretty woman in distress, no steamy sex scene, WOW! This could have been European or Québécois! It had none of the stuff I don't like and lots of what I do like, such as decent acting, originality, unpredictability, intelligence and not being targeted at a teen-age audience for once. This movie is to roller coaster summer blockbusters what jazz is to Britney Spears. So yeah, I could get used to seeing something that goes after my mind rather than my wallet thank you very much!
7/10
17.8.2002 -
louise247@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
"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..
10/10
13.8.2002 -
valdan3@ - age: 36-49
Just when you think it can't be any more boring... it gets worse! I forced myself to stay till the end. And I don't know why people say Julia Roberts sucks in this role... cause let me tell you the others aren't much better.
4/10
13.8.2002 -
scamlooch@ - age: 18-25
Pretentious actors trying to sound profound. Incomprehensible plot. Gratuitous weirdness. Camera work worthy of a teenager who borrowd Dad's video camera after taking drugs. The type of movie people are afraid to say they hate because they don't want to seem like they didn't "get" the artistic message.
3/10
10.8.2002 -
bd1234@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Well, the description of this movie is; a movie for people who love movies. I agree but would add that it is very much for people who love acting. And directing. The idea of a movie in a movie IN a movie is terrific. The feeling I got as the stories and seperate realities progressed is that we no longer can tell the differences between fiction and non-fiction, truth and fantasy. They are all acted in the same tone and therefore each as important than the other. Even if there is a difference in the styles of filming for each reality they become less important as the movie progresses. We are voyeurs no matter what kind of camera is filming. I loved this funny, subtil, cerebral and ironic movie. It could have been full of clichés but wasn't. If David Hyde Pierce is getting so much praise for his performance it is to me, because his caracter is the one we most identify with. And he is truely touching and funny. Katherine Keener was fantasticly nerotic and Nicky Katt was hilarious as I star playing in "the theater". Blair Underwood showed what he is truely capable of in terms of acting. And David Duchovny was right to accept this small (yet erect) role after the other stuff he did following Mulder! Who would have thought that he could lack sensuality even as being massaged. Perfect direction. He remains the king of less is more! The only actor that seemed out of place to me was Julia Roberts... I felt that she was chosen to play this by her faithfull director, but wasn't the right actrice for the role. Every caracter in the film is off in some way but she is too likable in her role of a so called unlikable person. To me, the very last scene is really what the movie is about. Through our lies and fantasies we pursue our search for truth and connection. And as the audience watches this movie, they do too.
7/10
9.8.2002 -
ninad69@ - age: 26-35
Ellsworth Toohey (Ayn Rand "The Fountainhead") would have loved to have written a review of this movie as further confirmation of how the social metaphysicians willing believe whatever he tells them. Toohey would undoubtedly be praising this movie as one of the best movies of all time; representing the highest form of artistic achievement.
1/10
8.8.2002 -
adastrael@ - age: 50+
As a person who loves movies, I must admit that this one sucks. I went to see this movie and ended up leaving after half an hour... It's BORING... I just don't understand actors like Julia Roberts, one of the highest paid actresses, who would play in this kind of movie... It's not worth your money and it really is bad!!
1/10
7.8.2002 -
lieln@ - age: 18-25
I enjoyed this movie while it was playing, but the end left me feeling totally unsatisfied and confussed. Over all I was not impressed at all with the fuzzy camera shots and chopped up story line. I was expecting much more...
3/10
6.8.2002 -
swizel1@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This film seems to have gotten nothing but good reviews and many have even deemed it a masterpiece. Older people were walking out of the movie theater in awe."Sublime", they said. Of course, I'm refering to those who actually stayed until the end. The actors were indeed convincing in their roles and David Hyde Pierce was particularly stunning, as was his wife Lee, played by Catherine Keener. Julia Roberts, however, was just odd with her perpetual smile that looked more like a grimace than any artistic pose she might have been trying to adopt. This movie adresses the difficulty human beings face in creating lasting and meaningful bonds with each other, which is always an interesting and gripping theme. Still, despite its qualities, it's hard to deny that Full Frontal is extremely pretentious. In the words of my wise friend, Soderbergh made a couple of good films and now he thinks he can do whatever he wants. Personally I didn't see the genius behind the movie within a movie idea, which just made the whole film unnecessarily complicated. Furthermore, the change in lighting was head-ache inducing, the back-and-forth shift between the different stories was abrupt, not to say brutal and down-right confusing, and in the end we are left to wonder what exactly the point of it all was.
5/10
4.8.2002 -
jujubs7@ - age: 18-25
I can't believe that that many people actually liked the film... or is it that they didn't want to sound controversial and write a bad comment? This movie was soooooo boring, the cinematography was amateur. The different scenes were choppy and didn't mix well into each other. I would not recommend this unless you want to see how not to make a box office movie.
2/10
2.8.2002 -
jlscstar@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I am somewhat impressed with Julia Roberts'last few performances, but let me tell ya'... this one takes the cake! She is stunning in her role as an uptight actress in this movie within a movie. Even, the habitually uninteresting David Ducovney should that he could hold his own in something dramatic and intelligent (r. I. p X-Files) And what ids with the casting of Blair Underwood? What the hell has he done since L. A. Law in the 80's? Good work for an actor that we haven't seen in almost a decade! And let's not even talk about the stellar Catherine Keener, that nears perfection (like she does in everything she does) Listen, this movie is very americana (a la Sohderberg) , but if you like complicated characters in, at times, hard to grasp situations all knitted together into a cameo filled, choppily filmed movie (a la Traffic) , then you will adore this film.
8/10
2.8.2002 -
jj_foreal@ - age: 26-35
Amazing.
10/10
28.7.2002 -
hockeyboy_66_99@ - age: 1-12
Engaging characters, amazing dialogue. No-frills production allows the acting and writing to shine through.
10/10
13.6.2002 -
lizb@ - age: 26-35
Amazing... that's all I can say. Sodherberg does it again.
10/10
7.3.2002 -
astroplot64@ - age: 26-35
|
