User Score
4.9 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 8 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 8
  2. Negative: 3 out of 8

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. ChadS.
    Aug 15, 2002
    7
    "Full Frontal" reminds me of a SNL sketch that featured Jon Lovitz as a meglomaniacal Pablo Picasso who would scribble haphazardly on a notepad and assume it had artistic worth because of his celebrity. He was right. A collector of Picasso's artwork would want to see the artist's doodles just like how the Soderbergh faithful are going to put up with this curiousity; which looks awful but the performances aren't, in particular, David Hyde-Pierce like you've never seen him before, and Hitler(Nicky Katt) like you've never seen him before. And there's a considerable kick in watching the most famous woman on the planet so poorly lit and photographed. Perhaps Soderbergh is trying to outdo Tim Burton and actually be Ed Wood. But there's something admirable about an A-list director who'll make a film just for the hell of it. See "Full Frontal" with that same sense of adventure, for the hell of it. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. DavidM.
    Aug 5, 2002
    3
    Its bad, pretty bad. Wonder if this movie would make half as much without the "big" names associated with it. Skip it, and move on.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. MichaelF.
    Aug 5, 2002
    9
    This is one COMPLETELY different movie. So original and interesting. I can unerstand one walking out of this movie and shrugging then saying "Who Cares?" I thought that it was interesting and REALLY well done (I like grainy). Great performances, hysterical cameos. Interesting twists and characters. This movie is in NO WAY, a "sequel" to "Sex, Lies and Videotape." They deal with COMPLETELY different issues, well, the style in which it is written is a little similar to that "interview dialouge" of "Sex, Lies..." but, I think, that this was a slightly better and more interesting film. It's funny and fascinating and well done, well acted, well written, well everything. Yeah, it's a bit slow at times but it's really good. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. Jkasound
    Aug 4, 2002
    5
    Sometimes forgets where it's going until it gets kicked back on track by any member of the talented cast. Maybe not consistent but funny and introspective.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. IanWatkinson
    Jan 17, 2004
    1
    Boring, pretentious twaddle. The only redeeming feature of this film, is that you wonder how the hell they duped Julia Roberts into doing it.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. Gilbert
    Nov 22, 2002
    7
    ....Yeah. Well, I see where he's coming from...but he only partially succeeds. Still, partially is enough to make it watchable.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 37
  2. Negative: 9 out of 37
  1. 70
    The movie remains fragmented, elliptical and overplotted to the point of being hard to track. Still, it's worth hanging in for the finish, a birthday party for Gus (David Duchovny), the producer of the film and the one person they're all linked to. Then Soderbergh pulls off a delicious trick, a gesture of pure, tender, unabashed movie love that makes up for everything.
  2. Far from a great film, but it certainly stretches the envelope.
  3. Fails because it takes itself so seriously, and because it is itself so seriously dull. Soderbergh's straining to give us a wink -- come on, guys, this is fun -- but really it just feels like some awful eye twitch -- a spasm of yawning self-indulgence in a mostly captivating career.