Review of Full Frontal (2002) by Sakae I — 05 Jan 2010

This is nothing more than Steven Soderbergh having a good time with his digital camera and a bunch of actors. Some people hate how self-indulging it is, but you know what, I think it was quite amusing. I smiled through most of it, laughed more than a few times . . . and just found it very relaxing -- to just listen to random conversations from different groups of people involved in showbiz. I didn't even try to keep track of the tangled mess of relationships among the ensemble, I just went with it and I was fine. With lesser actors, it probably would've been a nightmare, but Soderbergh's got a good cast and that's what makes the movie.

I guess you could also say, at the time -- eight years ago, maybe Soderbergh was trying to make a point about the upcoming digital revolution. "Full Frontal" is shot with apparent little care for regular Hollywood aesthetics. The contrast is blown to hell in many scenes, and picture quality varies wildly from sequence to sequence. I didn't care, and maybe that's the point (or was, at the time) - digital may not look as good as film, but it does tell your story. Of course, the other side of that coin is that a lot of people do care about how the movie looks (Roger Ebert seemed to hate it), and in that case, "Full Frontal" becomes an argument against going digital. Sort of a moot point these days, of course, with digital quality having improved so much . . .

Whatever the case, I saw it as less of an experiment and more of a party. I could be wrong, but it felt like someone unwinding from a hard day's work. It's the type of exercise I can loathe with a passion, but luckily, Soderbergh kept it interesting and funny.