Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Fragmentary mini-guide through Los Angeles-area egos and insecurities, a dissonant dissection of characters at the proverbial crossroads in their lives, unsure how to proceed and dragging others into their inharmonious webs. Under the unwritten rule that low-budget art-films with big-name players acting for scale must be edgy and provoking, director Steven Soderbergh and screenwriter Coleman Hough have crafted a multi-character portrait of tangled lives laid bare (hence the title); they actually appear to perceive these unearthed 'truths' to be honest and outspoken, but the phoniness comes through. As a television actor hoping to make the jump to features, Blair Underwood has a chance to broaden his heretofore limited abilities and show us something special, but--aside from a funny rap in the backseat of a limousine--he's stuck playing boy-girl guessing games with journalist Julia Roberts (in a Jane Fonda shag wig). There's a funny episode with a stage actor (portraying Hitler in a production entitled "The Sound and the Fuhrer") rebelling against his direction, but the marriage and employment woes of the others smack of Alan Rudolph's "Welcome to L.A." (with perhaps a bit more needling sarcasm substituting for satire). What Soderbergh does with the look of the film (utilizing mostly hand-held cameras) is far more interesting than the writing, however no new ground is broken either way because we have all been down this lonesome road before. *1/2 from ****

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.

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.

Question 1: *What* was this movie all about? Question 2: What or who prompted its selection as IMDb movie of the day?? (Which in turn has prompted this review.) This has got to be one of the most pretentious and pseudo-high brow movies I've ever seen. Soderbergh has made a movie that so labors on being arty, that you end up witnessing a massive exercise in an aimless and fruitless(one follows the other, I guess)story(?) telling.When I began watching this movie, I was all excited about it - what with such a massive star cast and Soderbergh's reputation. At the end of the movie, I felt cheated of my time and effort that this movie demanded.You're better off watching a re-run of "Traffic".